MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Intolerable cruelty  (Read 17241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eggshell

« on: October 12, 2010, 06:37 »
0
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?


« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2010, 06:47 »
0
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.

BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 06:50 by Perry »

« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2010, 06:48 »
0
^^^ Agree. No idea what is so wrong about that portfolio anyway.

« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2010, 06:50 »
0
I understand you are frustrated about a LCV rejection. However, I don't agree with your assessment of this person's portfolio, nor with your conclusions about Shutterstock's acceptance policies. Trashing someone else's portfolio to substantiate an - as far as I'm concerned - unsubstantiated claim is uncool.

« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2010, 07:13 »
0
Way to start your journey here...

Microbius

« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2010, 07:13 »
0
You need to chill out. That's a typical SS micro portfolio. Nout wrong with it.
Sorry if you are peeved at having a rejection, but grow up.

bittersweet

« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2010, 07:15 »
0
Maybe it's time for a new monitor?

« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2010, 07:30 »
0
Maybe the link IS to eggshell's port. Who can tell, everyone is allowed to hide behind anonymous names. He/she got 6 people to have a look within about a half an hour. Seems the latest marketing tool is to bash something so that the whole internet world goes to have a look.

Personally, if someone wants to show something, I think they should paste it here. If I have to go offsite to see something, well, I'm not.

eggshell

« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2010, 07:54 »
0
I understand you are frustrated about a LCV rejection. However, I don't agree with your assessment of this person's portfolio, nor with your conclusions about Shutterstock's acceptance policies. Trashing someone else's portfolio to substantiate an - as far as I'm concerned - unsubstantiated claim is uncool.
Mind you this is not a "bitter after rejection" post . The rejection was only the reason I found that collection . I'm curious about your non pc assessment of that particular port . What's funny is that I first hesitated to post about that - for me it was too much "stating the obvious" . Apparently not

 
^^^ Agree. No idea what is so wrong about that portfolio anyway.
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.

Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .

« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2010, 07:58 »
0
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.

Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .

This is not about my quality standards, it's about the customers' quality standards. I'm pretty sure the person with the portfolio has sold some images.

Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 08:00 by Perry »

eggshell

« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2010, 08:25 »
0
Quote
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

Why I'd want to do that ?!
If I had a large port based on diverse niches I wouldn't mind sharing . Mine's still very small exploiting majorly one not very well covered niche . So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing . But judging by your tone you sure sound like someone with extraordinary abilities in the field of microstock . And please next time use "show me" not "show us" . You're not MSG

« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2010, 08:27 »
0
Quote
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

Why I'd want to do that ?!
If I had a large port based on diverse niches I wouldn't mind sharing . Mine's still very small exploiting majorly one not very well covered niche . So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing . But judging by your tone you sure sound like someone with extraordinary abilities in the field of microstock . And please next time use "show me" not "show us" . You're not MSG

No, he's right.  We all want to see your amazing stuff.  It's par for the course for anonymous newbies who are all that.  So "us" is appropriate.

« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2010, 08:35 »
0
But judging by your tone you sure sound like someone with extraordinary abilities in the field of microstock .

Sorry to dissappoint you, but I consider my portfolio only average. But I do have been around in terms of microstock in six years: been uploading, getting stuff accepted, rejected and sold. I still haven't openly bashed anyone's portfolio behind him/her back. I have given harsh (but IMO constructive) critique to some, but they have all asked for it.

But you sound definitely like someone that does have some extraordinary stuff in your potfolio by saying that some average joe has "poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ..." in his portfolio. The funny thing is that there are much more weaker portfolios on SS, but I won't be linking them here.

And please next time use "show me" not "show us" . You're not MSG

It's more simple than you think:

Show us = post a link here
Show me = post the link in private message
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 08:43 by Perry »

rubyroo

« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2010, 08:37 »
0
I'm still wondering why this thread is titled 'Intolerable Cruelty'(?)

Posting someone else's port just to be negative towards the artist speaks more to me of intolerable rudeness.  Even more so when you're so protective of your own work.

eggshell

« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2010, 08:54 »
0
Quote
But you sound definitely like someone that does have some extraordinary stuff in your potfolio by saying that some average joe has "poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ..." in his portfolio.

My photography ( or anyone else's ) doesn't really need to be extraordinary to be better than that .

Quote
I haven't still openly bashed anyone's portfolio behind him/her back.

A bit dramatic but let's say that's your way of seeing things . Although I don't mind it , it doesn't mean that I have to share it

« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2010, 08:55 »
0
I'm still wondering why this thread is titled 'Intolerable Cruelty'(?)

It was intolerably cruel to reject the "credit card super macro shot".

« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2010, 08:59 »
0
My photography ( or anyone else's ) doesn't really need to be extraordinary to be better than that .

Your could be worse. It's hard to judge that because you aren't showing us anything, not even the rejected credit card shot. I don't really seem to understand the point, you bash someone else's portfolio just because you think some rejected image of yours is better (than his/her whole portfolio)? You know, If you are going to be as bitter after every reject you are not going to survive in this business.

Quote
I haven't still openly bashed anyone's portfolio behind him/her back.

A bit dramatic but let's say that's your way of seeing things . Although I don't mind it , it doesn't mean that I have to share it

Do you see the owner of the portfolio here? If not, you are doing this "behind his/her back".

Okay, now I'll stop feeding the troll.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 09:06 by Perry »


rubyroo

« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2010, 09:30 »
0
It was intolerably cruel to reject the "credit card super macro shot".

Ah I see... it's just overly-dramatic.   Thanks Danicek...  I thought I must have missed something. 

« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2010, 09:34 »
0
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?

Sometimes there might be a "pissed" reviewer and reject a bunch of them.. Don't think too much, upload more or simple give up!

I honestly feel that DT is the "worst" agency these days.. but sales are going good so why not.. :P

bittersweet

« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2010, 09:38 »
0
[off-topic]shirt.woot has the perfect shirt today:[/off-topic]

eggshell

« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2010, 09:54 »
0
Quote
Okay, now I'll stop feeding the troll.
Well , if you're so willing to lose some weight

Quote
It was intolerably cruel to reject the "credit card super macro shot".
:D
It was a film reference

I should've expected all this "a newbie dares bashing another user's work" attitude . It's so more manly to stand behind some ironic remarks .

« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2010, 10:04 »
0
Ok, so you got rejected, and somebody else got approved with a similar image. And what are we supposed to do about it?

« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2010, 10:14 »
0
I was going to ignore this, but... As far as newbie trashing, no, that's not happening. I'm relatively new here as well. People here in the forum are critics. For a good reason. They know what they are talking about. For the most part, they have been around for a long time. They dont go around posting other portfolios and trash talk them (iStock debacle notwithstanding, that's a speciall case). For you to come here and complain about your magnificent pic being rejected and then follow that up with not even posting the pic, what did you expect? Sympathy and roses? 

If you drop the attitude, you might learn something here.

Microbius

« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2010, 10:15 »
0
I understand you are frustrated about a LCV rejection. However, I don't agree with your assessment of this person's portfolio, nor with your conclusions about Shutterstock's acceptance policies. Trashing someone else's portfolio to substantiate an - as far as I'm concerned - unsubstantiated claim is uncool.
Mind you this is not a "bitter after rejection" post . The rejection was only the reason I found that collection . I'm curious about your non pc assessment of that particular port . What's funny is that I first hesitated to post about that - for me it was too much "stating the obvious" . Apparently not

 
^^^ Agree. No idea what is so wrong about that portfolio anyway.
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.

Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .
Well as those macro credit card shots got accepted and yours didn't, all the concrete evidence points one way re. your quality standards too.

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2010, 10:20 »
0
Quote
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

Why I'd want to do that ?!
If I had a large port based on diverse niches I wouldn't mind sharing . Mine's still very small exploiting majorly one not very well covered niche . So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing . But judging by your tone you sure sound like someone with extraordinary abilities in the field of microstock . And please next time use "show me" not "show us" . You're not MSG
The not very well covered niche of macro credit card shots?

« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2010, 10:30 »
0

I should've expected all this "a newbie dares bashing another user's work" attitude . It's so more manly to stand behind some ironic remarks .

It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2010, 10:32 »
0
Don't bash other people's work if you are not willing to show yours.

What do you expect from this forum by simply picking a portfolio that you believe is inferior compared to yours without showing it?

Waste of time.


vonkara

« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2010, 10:35 »
0
Another awesome thread    ::)
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 10:50 by Vonkara »

« Reply #28 on: October 12, 2010, 10:50 »
0
guys let's respect eggshell..!

New Sites / Low Earners / New Sites - General / Re: StockFresh - from Peter Hamza and Andras Pfaff       on: August 04, 2010, 02:25
Got accepted two weeks ago . Snappy upload and very fast image approval ( within few  hours ) .
Clean and user friendly layout . Overall - very pleasant site experience


eheheheh I feel pretty bad now... still waiting eheh

rubyroo

« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2010, 10:53 »
0
It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

 :D :D :D

ETA:  Luis, each to their own opinion, but I don't feel that being accepted at Stockfresh makes it acceptable for someone to openly display and bash someone else's portfolio. 
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 10:59 by rubyroo »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2010, 11:23 »
0
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?


you shouldn't be surpirised, altho they make a lot of money, these are pretty ragtag companies, with an inspection policy and crew that is at best amateurish, and always inconsistent. Imho they simply throw people at unfilled positions like a kid would slap a handful of wet sand in a sandcastle. If the cue is too big, I bet you they would drag in granpa, granma, and just someone from the street walking by, tell 'em they don't want shadows and weird stuff like that, and there you go. : )) I had shot that were rejected for LCV, poor lighting, comp, all at the same, accepted right the next batch, and sell too. You just shuouldn't give a flying f**k about it

« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2010, 11:26 »
0
It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

 :D :D :D

ETA:  Luis, each to their own opinion, but I don't feel that being accepted at Stockfresh makes it acceptable for someone to openly display and bash someone else's portfolio. 

of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity :)

rubyroo

« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2010, 11:38 »
0
of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity :)

Ah... fair enough Luis.  I suppose it will remain a curiosity if we can't see his/her port.  ;) 

« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2010, 12:15 »
0
of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity :)

Ah... fair enough Luis.  I suppose it will remain a curiosity if we can't see his/her port.  ;) 

Probably hasn't been accepted anywhere.  Just "'avin' a laugh."  Easy enough to fake.

fred

« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2010, 12:18 »
0
of course not, I didn't said I agree on the bashing.. it is just a curiosity :)

Ah... fair enough Luis.  I suppose it will remain a curiosity if we can't see his/her port.  ;) 

Probably hasn't been accepted anywhere.  Just "'avin' a laugh."  Easy enough to fake.

fred

jeeez.. let's hear what he/she has to say :P

« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2010, 12:31 »
0
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?

Show us your rejected image, so we can discuss more precise about your anger.

eggshell

« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2010, 13:06 »
0
Quote
Don't bash other people's work if you are not willing to show yours.

Sure, mail MSG to add it to the terms of service

Quote
What do you expect from this forum by simply picking a portfolio that you believe is inferior compared to yours without showing it?

I was expecting an objective opinion on the quality of the shown work and the criteria that was applied to accept it . What I get are several types of reactions ranging from those who's work is similar quality and take this as a personal attack at them , those who see the poor quality but being pc don't accept the aggressive tone , those who demand to see a port but for years never bothered to show theirs , those who don't even submit to SS but see an opportunity "to put a newbie in his place" , to finish with those making completely paranoid assumptions based I suppose on their own way of acting in life .

Saying this I understand those reluctant to judge the work of people that are not present to defend themselves


rubyroo

« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2010, 13:24 »
0
Saying this I understand those reluctant to judge the work of people that are not present to defend themselves

FWIW, I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that.  I think if people willingly post their own work here and ask for a critique, then they will have prepared themselves and opened themselves for possibly negative opinions.  To have it done without their consent, and in their absence is the thing I have a problem with.  Nothing to do with being 'pc' at all.  It's a standard social etiquette that goes back hundreds of years... (not that I'm that old...)
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 13:27 by rubyroo »

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2010, 13:36 »
0

It's hard to imagine what kind of response you were expecting with such a melodramatic thread title, help from the UN ?

ROFLMAO!! 

helix7

« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2010, 13:43 »
0
Man up and show us your rejected image. What are you afraid of?

RacePhoto

« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2010, 16:21 »
0
Quote
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

Why I'd want to do that ?!
If I had a large port based on diverse niches I wouldn't mind sharing . Mine's still very small exploiting majorly one not very well covered niche . So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing . But judging by your tone you sure sound like someone with extraordinary abilities in the field of microstock . And please next time use "show me" not "show us" . You're not MSG
The not very well covered niche of macro credit card shots?

Thanks, that's what I was laughing at on my side, but didn't write. Oh, secret not well covered niche, I can't show you my work.

When it's not top secret, need to know basis anymore "eggshell" come back and show us your work, instead of coming into the forum guns blazing, shouting about the rejection, complaining about someone else's shots that were accepted, and you forgot to put your pants on and load your guns. In other words, show US your work and you'll have much more credibility and more people will tend to debate with you about the issues.

I suppose in defense I get pissed off when I get a NCV for a shot, especially when I have similar shots already with that place, which are my best sellers there? On the agency side, my best sellers aren't selling that well, so maybe they are right? ;)

I do have my personal solution, which is, blow it off and hope that they will sell someplace else and the dumbass place that rejected them, is losing business. If they sell someplace else, I get the satisfaction that the reviewer or policy was wrong. But it's not worth getting all excited about, because some reviewers are clueless and working for 5c an image, not because they have talent or are highly qualified. Consider the source of the rejection and you'll feel much better Eggshell.

« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2010, 16:51 »
0
I'm still wondering why this thread is titled 'Intolerable Cruelty'(?)

It was intolerably cruel to reject the "credit card super macro shot".

I thad thought I would see those famous photos of crying babies....

« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2010, 16:59 »
0
Then there was this guy driving on the wrong side of the freeway meeting all the morons... :-\

« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2010, 20:01 »
0
I took a brief look at the portfolio mentioned by eggshell.  It's not terrible by any means, but I somewhat agree with eggshell that if these are recent submissions, they're not what I'd expect to see approved.  But who knows.  Sometimes I think buyers are subconciously choosing images based  qualities of color, light and a certain flat, bland, safe look that is a bit alien to people who actually like doing photography.  I'd certainly describe those images as bland, even by stock standards. Almost deliberately so.  And oddly framed in some cases - again, maybe this what a lot of buyers really want.

« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2010, 00:27 »
0
I took a brief look at the portfolio mentioned by eggshell.  It's not terrible by any means, but I somewhat agree with eggshell that if these are recent submissions, they're not what I'd expect to see approved.  But who knows.  Sometimes I think buyers are subconciously choosing images based  qualities of color, light and a certain flat, bland, safe look that is a bit alien to people who actually like doing photography.  I'd certainly describe those images as bland, even by stock standards. Almost deliberately so.  And oddly framed in some cases - again, maybe this what a lot of buyers really want.

I guess eggshell was a lot nicier than your statment.. :)

« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2010, 02:40 »
0
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?


you shouldn't be surpirised, altho they make a lot of money, these are pretty ragtag companies, with an inspection policy and crew that is at best amateurish, and always inconsistent. Imho they simply throw people at unfilled positions like a kid would slap a handful of wet sand in a sandcastle. If the cue is too big, I bet you they would drag in granpa, granma, and just someone from the street walking by, tell 'em they don't want shadows and weird stuff like that, and there you go. : )) I had shot that were rejected for LCV, poor lighting, comp, all at the same, accepted right the next batch, and sell too. You just shuouldn't give a flying f**k about it



What do you call a troll feeding a troll ?

rubyroo

« Reply #46 on: October 13, 2010, 02:46 »
0
Entrollment?

Trolley Intercourse?

Mutal trollerbation?


« Reply #47 on: October 13, 2010, 03:08 »
0
Entrollment?

Trolley Intercourse?

Mutal trollerbation?

I was thinking trollacanibal

Microbius

« Reply #48 on: October 13, 2010, 03:22 »
0
It's not terrible by any means, but I somewhat agree with eggshell that if these are recent submissions, they're not what I'd expect to see approved.
What even by Shutterstock standards? I'd surprised if I saw some of those images on the other sites, for SS it's pretty solid quality. Most of that portfolio would have sold multiple times.
In any case, not bad enough to call out as being somehow dubious and indicative of a reviewing conspiracy, but lets not forget that eggshell's the guy who thought there was a third world conspiracy to view his 50 or so images on Fotolia hundreds of times to make them lose position in the search results. cuckoo

« Reply #49 on: October 13, 2010, 11:04 »
0
So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing
In that case you have nothing to say, anonymous slandering moron. Pardon my selfishness to ignore you in the future. My time is worth more. Ploink.  ;D
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 11:07 by FD-regular »

« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2010, 15:30 »
0
So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing
In that case you have nothing to say, anonymous slandering moron. Pardon my selfishness to ignore you in the future. My time is worth more. Ploink.  ;D
FD always love your comments ;-)

« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2010, 15:44 »
0
FD always love your comments ;-)
Spank spammers and trolls. I have a spare Tomahawk missile in my garage but I'll save that one for the moment I know the exact geopos of HeroTurko.  :P

« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2010, 15:45 »
0
I love how people come on this forum acting all professional and with such high standards!! This is a microstock forum where people are dying for a payout!!! (k, not all but a lot!) Im sure that more than half of SS contributors would not be classified as professionals.

To the OP... do you go into elementary school playgrounds and challenge kids playing basketball? dunking on them or blocking their shots... Screaming "IN YOUR FACE!!!!" cmon.... just ridiculous post ;)

eggshell

« Reply #53 on: October 14, 2010, 04:24 »
0
Quote
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

Why I'd want to do that ?!
If I had a large port based on diverse niches I wouldn't mind sharing . Mine's still very small exploiting majorly one not very well covered niche . So , pardon my selfishness but I'm not sharing . But judging by your tone you sure sound like someone with extraordinary abilities in the field of microstock . And please next time use "show me" not "show us" . You're not MSG
The not very well covered niche of macro credit card shots?

Thanks, that's what I was laughing at on my side, but didn't write. Oh, secret not well covered niche, I can't show you my work.

When it's not top secret, need to know basis anymore "eggshell" come back and show us your work, instead of coming into the forum guns blazing, shouting about the rejection, complaining about someone else's shots that were accepted, and you forgot to put your pants on and load your guns. In other words, show US your work and you'll have much more credibility and more people will tend to debate with you about the issues.

I suppose in defense I get pissed off when I get a NCV for a shot, especially when I have similar shots already with that place, which are my best sellers there? On the agency side, my best sellers aren't selling that well, so maybe they are right? ;)

I do have my personal solution, which is, blow it off and hope that they will sell someplace else and the dumbass place that rejected them, is losing business. If they sell someplace else, I get the satisfaction that the reviewer or policy was wrong. But it's not worth getting all excited about, because some reviewers are clueless and working for 5c an image, not because they have talent or are highly qualified. Consider the source of the rejection and you'll feel much better Eggshell.
The credit cards serie is an attempt to diversify my port , nothing secret about that niche . Otherwise your judgment is pretty sound

Quote
do you go into elementary school playgrounds and challenge kids playing basketball? dunking on them or blocking their shots... Screaming "IN YOUR FACE!!!
I don't think it's a fair comparison but that's a funny image . For a moment I thought seeing Dwight from The Office   :D

helix7

« Reply #54 on: October 14, 2010, 12:11 »
0
... do you go into elementary school playgrounds and challenge kids playing basketball? dunking on them or blocking their shots... Screaming "IN YOUR FACE!!!!" cmon.... just ridiculous post ;)

eggshell is right, that's not a fair comparison. Such a comparison would assume that eggshell was better then the kids on the playground.

;)

« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2010, 15:36 »
0
I'll make it 7 ignorers.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #56 on: October 22, 2010, 08:25 »
0
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.

Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .

This is not about my quality standards, it's about the customers' quality standards. I'm pretty sure the person with the portfolio has sold some images.

Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

how about you btw


rinderart

« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2010, 14:07 »
0
Eggshell........ post your rejected stuff on SS in the critique section and we will take a look But, If you do be prepared for the truth. None of us are going to tell you what you want to hear But what you may need to hear. a lot of us there were reviewers so we have a pretty good eye on getting accepted. Also pls dont show us a link to anyones port as examples. Thats not cool, always ask permission to do that.

« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2010, 15:23 »
0
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.

Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .

This is not about my quality standards, it's about the customers' quality standards. I'm pretty sure the person with the portfolio has sold some images.

Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

how about you btw

No. I'm not the one bashing other peoples' portfolios publicly. Neither am I the one nagging about agencies rejecting some very special credit card shot that I think is good but the reviewers don't (and the others cannot tell their opinion because the OP don't show the image).

eggshell = molka?

« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2010, 17:59 »
0
molka and eggshell? Is it a serious relationship? This could become a dating site. Ideally suited to each other. Link to my portfolio if you want. It is also crap

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #60 on: October 31, 2010, 19:16 »
0
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.

Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .

This is not about my quality standards, it's about the customers' quality standards. I'm pretty sure the person with the portfolio has sold some images.

Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?

how about you btw

No. I'm not the one bashing other peoples' portfolios publicly. Neither am I the one nagging about agencies rejecting some very special credit card shot that I think is good but the reviewers don't (and the others cannot tell their opinion because the OP don't show the image).



you are the one being 'sarcastic'. why so shy? why so seroiusss? : ]

"eggshell = molka?"

no, I'm suppsoed to be macrosaur according to some local village idiots : ]

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #61 on: October 31, 2010, 19:21 »
0
molka and eggshell? Is it a serious relationship? This could become a dating site. Ideally suited to each other. Link to my portfolio if you want. It is also crap

I don't like drama queens : ) what link? ehh, I don't * care about thumbnails anyway, theyr useles, I certainly won't buy some crap highres just to check it out : D

« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2010, 20:31 »
0
Enough fun. Molka and eggshell now ignored

« Reply #63 on: November 02, 2010, 17:37 »
0
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212

I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?


I say relax... move on... and take more photographs.  If you are expecting consistency or fairness.... forget it.  Reviewers are not machines.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
6319 Views
Last post April 27, 2008, 18:50
by madelaide

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors