Are people still getting crazy 'focus' rejections?    A few weeks ago, I got such a run of them that I quit submitting.  I'd like to resume, but not unless things have changed.

I think the rejection reasons go through phases.. focus one month, compo  or lighting the next
wait 'til IS contributors start going through the same thing...

Did not have one recently. Might not be the flavor of the month any more. That or they where right and my pictures improved 

Not getting them with the last couple of batches

Haven't had one for over a month.  For the last month 90% of my rejections are now "composition".

Thanks all.  Now all I need is motivation and energy. 

Quote from: stockastic on January 20, 2013, 19:04
Thanks all.  Now all I need is motivation and energy.

Have a cure for that, maybe it will work for you as well. All I do is look at my bank balance and there I go again...... 

I had a rejection a few days ago that almost made me die laughing. The picture's title was BLURRY abstract shapes and it got rejected because it was blurry 

Quote from: morning.light on January 20, 2013, 19:35
I had a rejection a few days ago that almost made me die laughing. The picture's title was BLURRY abstract shapes and it got rejected because it was blurry 

You did not perhaps had some images rejected called "Out of Focus..." as well? 

Quote from: gnirtS on January 20, 2013, 18:37
Haven't had one for over a month.  For the last month 90% of my rejections are now "composition".

On iStock, that apparently means 'lcv'. I queried a composition rejection which made no sense in terms of composition, and the answer I got was that it wasn't likely to have many sales, which I couldn't disagree with. It's interesting that any agency wants a buyer to leave and look around another agency, but there you go.

I just had my first today 

Quote from: flotsom on January 20, 2013, 20:05
I just had my first today 

Your first 'focus' rejection?

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2013, 19:42

Quote from: gnirtS on January 20, 2013, 18:37
Haven't had one for over a month.  For the last month 90% of my rejections are now "composition".

On iStock, that apparently means 'lcv'. I queried a composition rejection which made no sense in terms of composition, and the answer I got was that it wasn't likely to have many sales, which I couldn't disagree with. It's interesting that any agency wants a buyer to leave and look around another agency, but there you go.

SS also have a LCV rejection reason but i havent seen it used for over a year.  They just blanket reject whole batches even containing multiple topics with "composition" lately.

"rejection of the month" was noise, then moved to focus and now its composition.  No idea what next months winner will be.

It sounds crazy but there actually does seem to be some sort of 'rejection reason rotation'.   Certainly, it runs hot and cold.  Maybe the winning strategy is to always wait a month before resubmitting, because the criteria will have changed.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2013, 19:42

Quote from: gnirtS on January 20, 2013, 18:37
Haven't had one for over a month.  For the last month 90% of my rejections are now "composition".

On iStock, that apparently means 'lcv'. I queried a composition rejection which made no sense in terms of composition, and the answer I got was that it wasn't likely to have many sales, which I couldn't disagree with. It's interesting that any agency wants a buyer to leave and look around another agency, but there you go.

I believe it's the same with SS (means "we're not that interested in this image regardless of technical merit") - it doesn't even mean they believe it won't sell but that, if they don't accept it, the buyer will take something similar they already have

Quote from: heywoody on January 20, 2013, 21:58

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2013, 19:42

Quote from: gnirtS on January 20, 2013, 18:37
Haven't had one for over a month.  For the last month 90% of my rejections are now "composition".

On iStock, that apparently means 'lcv'. I queried a composition rejection which made no sense in terms of composition, and the answer I got was that it wasn't likely to have many sales, which I couldn't disagree with. It's interesting that any agency wants a buyer to leave and look around another agency, but there you go.

I believe it's the same with SS (means "we're not that interested in this image regardless of technical merit") - it doesn't even mean they believe it won't sell but that, if they don't accept it, the buyer will take something similar they already have

Hmmm, in this case iStock had nothing similar or even on the same subject.

Can they all not just have a straight forward "Not commercially viable" reason? Why hide behind technical reasons, if a business decision can be just as good and does not leave the contributor confused about his/her capabilities or that of his/her equipment. 

Attilla is pushing the composition button this month.

Quote from: CD123 on January 20, 2013, 23:19
Can they all not just have a straight forward "Not commercially viable" reason? Why hide behind technical reasons, if a business decision can be just as good and does not leave the contributor confused about his/her capabilities or that of his/her equipment. 

I really wish that agencies did this. It is very confusing when you're trying to better your work and you're given an inaccurate rejection reason.  I saw a critique on the istock forum where a contributor was asking the same thing, and all the responses came back saying that the original rejection reason wasn't really the point, it was more likely that the image was low commercial value.  That's a very subjective call to make, but then so is composition, so I don't understand why agencies don't use it (or make more use of it).

The SS rejections (ie the blanket ones for whatever reason is popular this month) don't seem to be related to anything more than a reviewer just deciding not to bother properly checking a batch and hitting the same button for all it contains without actually doing it properly.

There are LCV and "similar" rejection criteria for SS but i suspect not connected to these.

FWIW, i'd rather LCV was left out of it, allow the buyer to decide as some people want some surprisingly bizarre things at times and the reviewer has no way of knowing what those will be.  If a picture is technically correct and not obviously flawed then let it fight like the rest of them.

Quote from: gnirtS on January 21, 2013, 11:23
The SS rejections (ie the blanket ones for whatever reason is popular this month) don't seem to be related to anything more than a reviewer just deciding not to bother properly checking a batch and hitting the same button for all it contains without actually doing it properly.

There are LCV and "similar" rejection criteria for SS but i suspect not connected to these.

FWIW, i'd rather LCV was left out of it, allow the buyer to decide as some people want some surprisingly bizarre things at times and the reviewer has no way of knowing what those will be.  If a picture is technically correct and not obviously flawed then let it fight like the rest of them.

I agree that it should not be a criteria, but as long as they are using other (wrong) rejection reasons for this purpose, I prefer to see the real reason. 

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2013, 22:15
Hmmm, in this case iStock had nothing similar or even on the same subject.

You're right of course, IS just seems to take a position on what they like / don't like even if there are no actual technical issues.  SS's attitude makes more business sense as they recognise that a rare selling not well covered image can be more valuable to them than a high selling common subject matter image.

The other day I had a focus rejection that made me roll my eyes. It was a photo of a model holding something in her hand (I think it was a test tube or something like that), in front of her eyes, focus tack sharp on the object and low depth of field so the eyes and face where out of focus. That was enough for a "Focus is not where it feels right" rejection. I guess the reviewer thought the eyes where more important that the object that was the centre of the image itself. I resubmitted the photo and added the comment "Rejected for focus issues but the object is tack sharp so I don't know why it was rejected". A couple of day later, it was approved. Go figure.

Quote from: heywoody on January 21, 2013, 15:29

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2013, 22:15
Hmmm, in this case iStock had nothing similar or even on the same subject.

You're right of course, IS just seems to take a position on what they like / don't like even if there are no actual technical issues.  SS's attitude makes more business sense as they recognise that a rare selling not well covered image can be more valuable to them than a high selling common subject matter image.

Why would you put a rare low-selling image on the micros? They are doing you a favour if they reject it - put it somewhere it will make decent money for you, on the rare occasions it sells.

Focus is fixed... now it is poor lighting....

Just had a batch rejected for poor lighting.... oh well