pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Reviewers allergy or global trend?  (Read 18252 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 24, 2010, 23:09 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?


« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2010, 23:26 »
0
Things are normal for me.  SS accepts everything, while IS accepts little more than half.  For what it's worth, the others seem to be the same as well... FT and DT taking about 90-95%, and the others taking everything (though that's hardly worth getting excited about considering the top 4 account for 90-95% of my sales).

« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2010, 01:56 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?
Not at all. SS is 100-80% consistently, IS varies between 80-50%. It takes a while to find out what they want. In general it's clear (not necessarily high-key) in-focus shots with a simple and uncropped commercial concept. I still love to do other stuff, but I became very selective what to upload to microstock. Reviewers of both sites are strict, but they know their trade. With 20% acceptance on SS you should review your style, or better, post some examples of rejected shots.

lagereek

« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2010, 03:15 »
0
Nah,  its just crappy editing, summer-reviewers without the slightest know-how. I submitted an industrial shot with fog, smog, pollution, etc, etc, also blue toning for impact.
Reviewers comments:  poor lighting ( supposed to be since pollution) and this moron also tells me to WB a blue toning shot.
how about that?????????????????

« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2010, 04:11 »
0
Nah,  its just crappy editing, summer-reviewers without the slightest know-how. I submitted an industrial shot with fog, smog, pollution, etc, etc, also blue toning for impact.
Reviewers comments:  poor lighting ( supposed to be since pollution) and this moron also tells me to WB a blue toning shot.
how about that?????????????????

 The best laid plans o' mice and men often go awry.  . . . . . Robert Burns

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2010, 06:08 »
0
Nah,  its just crappy editing, summer-reviewers without the slightest know-how. I submitted an industrial shot with fog, smog, pollution, etc, etc, also blue toning for impact.
Reviewers comments:  poor lighting ( supposed to be since pollution) and this moron also tells me to WB a blue toning shot.
how about that?????????????????

This is a real problem on all agencies: I have the same issue with industrial pictures, brutalist/rationalist architecture, rainy days pictures... I came to the conclusion that microstock only wants positive, optimistic concepts and there's (almost) no room for the dark side which I like so much

apart from that - and apart from the occasional bad day (probably due to new reviewers) - I find SS reviews usually quite consistent and when they reject my photos I can accept there's a good reason

understanding rejections is a good way to improve for me
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 06:15 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2010, 07:23 »
0
Of the last 32 they took 7. I understood most of the rejects (old pics I have recently gotten around to keyword), but had expected to get maybe half of them approved.

« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2010, 07:37 »
0
I get some pretty puzzling rejections also from time to time from all the sites. Comments here are right about some reviewers not understanding the moodier lighted shots. In my case reviewers often reject perfectly exposed and white balanced shots in the direct Arizona sun. I don't think they've ever seen such intense light in that setting...so those rejections center around "improper lighting" reasons. So I tend not to even submit night, early morning, or mid day shots. And I think the "may not be proper white balance" is the catch-all rejection that is the easiest to cite to reject images they just don't like. I'd rather they say they are just not looking for that subject.

Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

lagereek

« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2010, 08:52 »
0
Hell no!  in this age, pollution, toxic and global-warming sell like crazy!!  even within the RM sector, Ive had two really heavy industrial pollution shots thats sold, 11 times in the RM and thats within the last month and half.
For being RM, thats good.

Frankly, uploading during July and August just to bump into Mcdonald style reviewing,  no thanks.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 08:55 by lagereek »

« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2010, 08:55 »
0
This is a real problem on all agencies: I have the same issue with industrial pictures, brutalist/rationalist architecture, rainy days pictures... I came to the conclusion that microstock only wants positive, optimistic concepts and there's (almost) no room for the dark side which I like so much

You are 100% right. I came to the same conclusion before, but even if they approve such an image it doesn't sell.


@UncleGene
Things are normal for me.

« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2010, 09:04 »
0
Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2010, 09:20 »
0
Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

Exactly my point too... ;D

@ some previous participant in this discussion.. reviewers are human too.....i'm sure they work according to specified parameters set by the site... no point in insulting them... >:(

Patrick H.

« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2010, 11:05 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?
Not at all. SS is 100-80% consistently, IS varies between 80-50%. It takes a while to find out what they want. In general it's clear (not necessarily high-key) in-focus shots with a simple and uncropped commercial concept. I still love to do other stuff, but I became very selective what to upload to microstock. Reviewers of both sites are strict, but they know their trade. With 20% acceptance on SS you should review your style, or better, post some examples of rejected shots.

See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting. I am getting more and more fed up with this myself - being selective what to upload to them is a good idea... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....

« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2010, 11:19 »
0

See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting. I am getting more and more fed up with this myself - being selective what to upload to them is a good idea... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....

See there's a reason why you are called the-wise. I couldn't agree more.

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2010, 11:20 »
0
For the last month my approval rate dropped at SS to 20% - I am submitting batches of 5, and pretty consistently get approved only 1. Approval rate on IS did not change. Is it me that cannot fit SS composition and lighting standards (majority of rejects), or others see something similar too?
Not at all. SS is 100-80% consistently, IS varies between 80-50%. It takes a while to find out what they want. In general it's clear (not necessarily high-key) in-focus shots with a simple and uncropped commercial concept. I still love to do other stuff, but I became very selective what to upload to microstock. Reviewers of both sites are strict, but they know their trade. With 20% acceptance on SS you should review your style, or better, post some examples of rejected shots.

See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting. I am getting more and more fed up with this myself - being selective what to upload to them is a good idea... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....

Yup!  I think its about time to concentrate on RM portfolios,  micro, RF, seems to be slipping, not much is working nowdays and as you say, any old generic rubbish is accepted almost as if the RM people are saying,  Look!  we want the creative stuff, you stick to the middle of the road.
might be a slight over the top but something fishy is going on.

« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2010, 15:10 »
0
This is a real problem on all agencies: I have the same issue with industrial pictures, brutalist/rationalist architecture, rainy days pictures... I came to the conclusion that microstock only wants positive, optimistic concepts and there's (almost) no room for the dark side which I like so much
Bingo! That's why I said in my earlier post I don't upload those on microstock any more.

« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2010, 15:30 »
0
See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. ... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....
But that was a bit the point. Give Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what's God's. My gloomy mystery stuff sells much better on iStock than on ShutterStock, by the way.


ap

« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2010, 16:23 »
0
My gloomy mystery stuff sells much better on iStock than on ShutterStock, by the way.

if they ever approve it.

since i've been uploading to zonar, which sells across three categories of micro, mid and macro with their partners, i've noticed they accept a lot more of the creative stuff i couldn't get through to the traditional micros. so, yes, plain old, boring, safe, vanilla stuff to micros and more interesting stuff to the macros. it's their loss.

« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2010, 16:30 »
0
Just had a batch where I had a 25% acceptance rate. Rather dismal I think.

« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2010, 17:58 »
0
Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

depends on the reason - i've been submitting India images of tribal markets and dawn on the ganges - mostly all editorial and accepted by SS; then a submission comes back with tthe same sort of images [very different shots], and they're rejected as being not editorial or not newsworthy.  these i definitely resubmit as they usually get accepted by the next reviewer.

for editorial in particular, there are many poorly trained reviewers who think the only editorial is breaking news

s

« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2010, 20:06 »
0
See, that's the thing. If I upload people isolated on white, nothing "fancy", no shallow DOF, no special lighting, they snap it up. Objects, too. The problem with these is they don't sell this days - there are way too many of the same style and theme on every agency. You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. ... Maybe I should concentrate on building up my Getty RM portfolio - never had a rejection there by the way, not even once. Plus you can get really creative with that, which is way more fun... Hmmm....
But that was a bit the point. Give Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what's God's. My gloomy mystery stuff sells much better on iStock than on ShutterStock, by the way.


Yeah, I know. I did get the point:) I wish I got it sooner tho. For some reason I kept expecting that with microstock industry maturing things will change - the prices would go up, they would have more qualified reviewers, they would want better and more creative images. I don't know why I expected that. The prices did go up just a tiny bit, but everything else remains the same. They stick with the same crowd-sourcing model that worked for them 5 years ago, and come to think of it, why wouldn't they. Ironically, on their best-seller list there are many artistic images that somehow got through - with color casts, lens flares, heavy processing. The buyers like them, but the average reviewer would never accept these. Why wouldn't they look at these and think - gee, this is actually selling well, maybe we should accept those too? I guess it's a limitation of this business model - if you pay reviewers too little, you have to give them very straightforward directions - color cast is bad, lens flare bad, blur is bad, etc. It takes a photography professional to see that image just "works". Considering that they receive loads of crap every day remaining a crowd-sourcing business and low image prices that even makes sense.
So ya, I agree, give them what they want if you don't want rejections. f/11 - f/16 is your friend, couple of softboxes for even lighting, simple of white background, nice pleasant-looking models - smiling and wearing pastel-colored clothes. You'll get these accepted. As to the sales, it's a different story:)

« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2010, 20:07 »
0
I've learned lots from rejections that has helped me in all my shooting. But after awhile you know that some rejections are pure subjective nonsense. Those that I've resubmitted with no change have been accepted nearly all of the time.



Best bet is to learn from all rejections and resubmit the same one from time to time in hopes of getting a better reviewer.

Personally I never resubmit the rejected image. If they don't like it...what is the point of resubmitting?
Also if you want to learn from the rejection why do you resubmit the same one?

lagereek

« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2010, 02:45 »
0
Im not interested in acceptance rate, etc, rejects goes with the territory. Admins in these Micros tend to take the reviewers decisions as final, i.e. they simply CANT be wrong, well imagine telling a contributor he has to adjust the White-Balance in a blue-toning conceptual shot???  i.e. he didnt like the toning, etc. I mean how crazy can it get?
I would be very interesting to know what formal training these guys have, if any?  they probably get thrown a bunch of softwares and programs and are told to "drag the pictures through these" and square-eyed they do, if the program says NO its a gonner, if the program says YES, even with cats, dogs and floiwers, its a YES!!!.
Bloody hell and this is what we invest our future in?

« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2010, 03:16 »
0
Im not interested in acceptance rate, etc, rejects goes with the territory. Admins in these Micros tend to take the reviewers decisions as final, i.e. they simply CANT be wrong, well imagine telling a contributor he has to adjust the White-Balance in a blue-toning conceptual shot???  i.e. he didnt like the toning, etc. I mean how crazy can it get? ...
Bloody hell and this is what we invest our future in?
Reality check. Those sites are not interested in your art, and not in you, and certainly not in your future. They are interested in sheer volume, 1-2-3 million extra per year, they are interested in their own future. They are interested in the commissions that come with it, the more, the merrier. If they lose great art that way, they don't care: it's just collateral damage, justified by a 1000 other plain well lit F16 shots that will make them more commissions.

Microstock is getting very conservative, it plays on proven concepts.
Try iStock: they became very open for more artsy creations and they promote those actively on their homepage. Not so surprisingly, they also pay their reviewers the best.
If that fails, get ready for RM.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 03:19 by FD-regular »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2010, 07:44 »
0
You would think they would want to diversify their collections with more interesting shots - that, by the way, if you manage to get them through, sell like crazy. But no. They want the same stuff they have already crapload of. Why? - beats me, no logic here. They also lose customers looking for higher quality work to the "traditional" stock agencies. It's almost like they consciously decided they they will have only mundane, simple-to-shoot stuff, all-in-focus, straightforward lighting.

Why? Pedantinc application of rules. I see the same issue every day in my other job (architect): the result is our cities are full of perfectly regular crappy buildings instead of great architecture.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 07:49 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
10964 Views
Last post June 13, 2007, 21:56
by Peiling
17 Replies
4898 Views
Last post February 03, 2008, 10:49
by epixx
11 Replies
5182 Views
Last post October 15, 2008, 22:15
by Lee Torrens
59 Replies
10331 Views
Last post May 28, 2009, 18:12
by m@m
4 Replies
1169 Views
Last post August 29, 2013, 20:01
by cathyslife

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results