Author Topic: Whole batch random rejection, twice. (Read 17359 times)

heywoody · « **Reply #25 on:** January 12, 2014, 11:54 »

There are 2 ways that will give almost 100% acceptance:

1. Give them something a little different that stands up @ 100% (not very profitable)
2. Do the usual subjects in a way that's head and shoulders above the rest.

SS are no different than stocksy in that they approve what they feel enhances the collection in some way. Even a very well executed image that is almost identical to a thousand almost identical images already in the collection does not really enhance the collection.

cobalt · « **Reply #26 on:** January 13, 2014, 16:35 »

Either I got lucky or things are improving: I sent a test batch with 8 very mixed files and they have all been approved.

So I´ll go back to shoot upload repeat.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #27 on:** January 13, 2014, 16:45 »

You got lucky!

(Just joking with you, I am sure that your photos are good)

Sometime it is just a lottery…
Today I have uploaded 2 photos, the same but one horizontal and one vertical.
One has been accepted, one has been rejected for "Poor Lighting".

It's like throwing the dices…

Red Dove · « **Reply #28 on:** January 13, 2014, 17:45 »

I can honestly say I don't get many rejections at SS but I had a small batch of editorial images rejected today for lighting and/or composition. After a cup of tea and a sit down I looked at the work again and I found myself agreeing with the reviewer.

Personally, I find SS to be very fair with reviews and very responsive on the few occasions I've felt the need to challenge them.

As for the others: FT,DP,BS,123 and now IS accept 98-99% and the only agency I can't get to grips with is DT - they make me want to mangle things and break stuff.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #29 on:** January 13, 2014, 18:09 »

I don't know how we are expected to comment on the focus in a rejection notice thumbnail, though it does appear that the clouds are completely blown out in that landscape shot.

Red Dove - same here, some reviewers are probably tougher than others but the irritating rejections generally do have a solid foundation.

Ron · « **Reply #30 on:** January 14, 2014, 02:57 »

So why is it then that after email SS about it you get a note for resubmission and they pass? I have many times when they said the review was in error and that it should have been accepted.

By the way, my acceptance ratio of the last 100 odd images or so was around 95%. I am working on a few concepts. Submit a couple images, see if they pass, and then milk it into oblivion. Seems to work alright.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #31 on:** January 14, 2014, 03:27 »

Like I said, Ron, some reviewers are probably tougher than others, it's a prcess that involves human opinions. I don't suppose any photo is actually perfect in every possible way, so it's a question of what is good enough - and when people post thumbnails and say "look at this, how dare they reject it, I've got the best equipment on the planet" we shouldn't all automatically say "wow! Yes, you're right, reviewers are cr@p".
I really don't know if this dude's rejection made sense or not but I do know that most of those I had actually were justified, whether or not I felt hard done-to at the time.

PZF · « **Reply #32 on:** January 14, 2014, 03:31 »

I find that anything remotely artsy or original tends to get dinged....which is a shame. All my faves.....

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #33 on:** January 14, 2014, 03:39 »

Last week I have submitted one photo of a batch of ten.
After few hours the photo has been rejected for the same "old" reason (Poor lighting, etc…)
The images are simple black objects on white background, the values of the white and of the black are absolutely neutral, almost black and white photos.

I was a little disappointed by this rejection, so I decided to upload again the photo, without change nothing, plus the other nine (so the full batch).
After two hours I received the email with all the photos approved.

Yesterday I have uploaded two photos of the same subject made in studio with the same light (strobe) and the same point of view, one horizontal, one vertical. One get accepted, one get rejected (Poor lighting, etc…)
As I have received the rejection I have resubmitted the photo.
This morning I have got the email with approved image…

This is what I call inconsistency.

Why one time the photos are so bad to be rejected, and another time the same photos are so good to be approved?

The problem is not the rejections in se, but the continuity of such rejections without any apparent valid reasons, and surely not the reasons indicated.

Ron · « **Reply #34 on:** January 14, 2014, 04:55 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 14, 2014, 03:27

Like I said, Ron, some reviewers are probably tougher than others, it's a prcess that involves human opinions. I don't suppose any photo is actually perfect in every possible way, so it's a question of what is good enough - and when people post thumbnails and say "look at this, how dare they reject it, I've got the best equipment on the planet" we shouldn't all automatically say "wow! Yes, you're right, reviewers are cr@p".
I really don't know if this dude's rejection made sense or not but I do know that most of those I had actually were justified, whether or not I felt hard done-to at the time.

Ok, I agree with that, but doesnt that by default make the review process inconsistent?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** January 14, 2014, 05:21 »

Quote from: Ron on January 14, 2014, 04:55

Ok, I agree with that, but doesnt that by default make the review process inconsistent?
[/quote]
Yes it does, especially with files that are marginal on something like lighting. But a marginal rejection doesn't actually mean the rejection is wrong, perhaps a subsequent acceptance would be wrong. Or perhaps there isn't even a right or wrong, they just want to filter out the bottom 50% of files that they get (I understand that iStock used to have a 50% rejection policy, so as standards improved inspections got tougher).

Red Dove · « **Reply #36 on:** January 14, 2014, 06:21 »

I understand the frustration, sometimes I bite chunks out of my desk but really, these threads open up about once a week - if not here then elsewhere and NOTHING changes.

The review system may appear arbitrary but on the whole it is a pretty good system. And without seeing the images people are miffed about at 100%, on screen the way the reviewer sees it, we really have nothing to say.

(Having said that I still think the "similar" rejections at DT are nonsense). Time for a cuppa.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #37 on:** January 14, 2014, 06:48 »

Quote from: Red Dove on January 14, 2014, 06:21

I understand the frustration, sometimes I bite chunks out of my desk but really, these threads open up about once a week - if not here then elsewhere and NOTHING changes.

The review system may appear arbitrary but on the whole it is a pretty good system. And without seeing the images people are miffed about at 100%, on screen the way the reviewer sees it, we really have nothing to say.

(Having said that I still think the "similar" rejections at DT are nonsense). Time for a cuppa.

Yes, in the whole we cannot lament, I perfectly agree with you.
But in the specific we have to.

It is not a question of seeing the images or not.
The question is:
Why one time the photos are so bad to be rejected, and another time the same photos are so good to be approved?

The problem is not rejection, the problem is inconsistency, incoherence, contradiction, double standards

How can I rely in somebody saying one time something and ten minutes after the exact contrary?

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** January 14, 2014, 07:04 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 14, 2014, 06:48

How can I rely in somebody saying one time something and ten minutes after the exact contrary?

Is it the same somebody who inspects your images the second time?

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #39 on:** January 14, 2014, 07:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 14, 2014, 07:04

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 14, 2014, 06:48
How can I rely in somebody saying one time something and ten minutes after the exact contrary?
Is it the same somebody who inspects your images the second time?

If you resubmit your image without ask, I don't know. I think that it could be the same as it could be a different inspector.
When you ask for a new inspection (what I generally do) the inspection is made by a "Senior Inspector" a person having more experience. And if the image is accepted by the more experienced inspector (what happens most of the times) it let me think that some or the "Junior Inspectors" are just incompetent.
But these last days I have just re-submitted the images without ask the inspection from a Senior Inspector, and they have been accepted (I don't even put a note for the inspector)…
So

What they say you one day can be "black" and the day after "white"…
It is not so subtle to think that it can be only an error of judgment.

They reject an image because they found noise
The day after they accept the image because effectively there was no noise?
Noise is not an opinion, it is a reality, something that you can see if there is and you cannot see if there is not.

From the point of view of individuals, it is normal that different persons have different point of view, but in one company the employees should have a line of conduct reflecting the company, not their personal taste. And here we are talking about things not debatable (noise is or is not, focus is or is not, exposure is or is not, etc…)

For this the company should chose the employees in function of the respect of this line of conduct, and if they don't respect the line of conduct of the company, employees should be replaced (or moved to another department).

Firewall · « **Reply #40 on:** January 14, 2014, 07:24 »

You know that something weird is going on when FT accepts all your landscapes and SS rejects them all

Usually it's the other way around.

oscarcwilliams · « **Reply #41 on:** January 14, 2014, 10:02 »

This morning I had a whole batch (30) rejected for poor lighting, composition--All were made in a professional studio with "killer" lights. I will stop uploading for a while because I am getting frustrated (myself) and reading how it is happening to other stock photographers, I just don't know what to do anymore. I really love the site.--Any suggestions?

Thanks--Oscar

stockastic · « **Reply #42 on:** January 14, 2014, 10:08 »

Quote from: oscarcwilliams on January 14, 2014, 10:02

This morning I had a whole batch (30) rejected for poor lighting, composition--All were made in a professional studio with "killer" lights. I will stop uploading for a while because I am getting frustrated (myself) and reading how it is happening to other stock photographers, I just don't know what to do anymore. I really love the site.--Any suggestions?

Thanks--Oscar

I feel the same.

karakoram · « **Reply #43 on:** January 14, 2014, 16:20 »

Today I had 3 sets with 80+ images in total rejected 100% and I has been very frustrated now.
I will resubmit in half an hour and let's see!

heywoody · « **Reply #44 on:** January 14, 2014, 17:04 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 14, 2014, 06:48

Quote from: Red Dove on January 14, 2014, 06:21
I understand the frustration, sometimes I bite chunks out of my desk but really, these threads open up about once a week - if not here then elsewhere and NOTHING changes.

The review system may appear arbitrary but on the whole it is a pretty good system. And without seeing the images people are miffed about at 100%, on screen the way the reviewer sees it, we really have nothing to say.

(Having said that I still think the "similar" rejections at DT are nonsense). Time for a cuppa.

Yes, in the whole we cannot lament, I perfectly agree with you.
But in the specific we have to.

It is not a question of seeing the images or not.
The question is:
Why one time the photos are so bad to be rejected, and another time the same photos are so good to be approved?

The problem is not rejection, the problem is inconsistency, incoherence, contradiction, double standards

How can I rely in somebody saying one time something and ten minutes after the exact contrary?

Notwithstanding the minus above for speaking the truth..
If what is being submitted is close to the standard being looked for (slightly above or slightly below) and there are human reviewers is it completely inevitable that some will accept and others reject depending on personal judgement.
From experience, you can get a reviewer that is extra picky but usually based on some actual flaw however small. The only ones that actually annoy me are the copyright rejections where there is no copyright issue.

robhainer · « **Reply #45 on:** January 15, 2014, 00:08 »

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 13, 2014, 16:45

You got lucky!
(Just joking with you, I am sure that your photos are good)

Sometime it is just a lottery…
Today I have uploaded 2 photos, the same but one horizontal and one vertical.
One has been accepted, one has been rejected for "Poor Lighting".

It's like throwing the dices…

Same thing happened to me yesterday. The only difference was the composition. Shot seconds apart at the same exact exposure and processed exactly the same way.

I think there's a new reviewer who rejects for lighting when the lighting is fine. I hadn't had hardly any rejections for three years, and now I'm getting nonsensical lighting rejections every few batches. Whoever it doing it is either too picky or using a bad monitor.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #46 on:** January 15, 2014, 15:06 »

Just can't wait for my next mystery rejection. Spin the wheel and see what we get? Sometimes it lands on Passed?

I've said this before and no answer. Who reviews the reviewers? There appears to be no accountability for random and inconsistent rejections, or reasons.

The best questions are what people have just posted here. Two photos from same shoot. One passes, next rejected, nearly identical. Or one landscape and one portrait, one passed, one not. But when the answer for rejection is soft or focus or lighting and they are nearly identical, same settings, same setup, same almost everything, and one is rejected, it's CRAZY!

Quote from: robhainer on January 15, 2014, 00:08

Quote from: Beppe Grillo on January 13, 2014, 16:45
You got lucky!
(Just joking with you, I am sure that your photos are good)

Sometime it is just a lottery…
Today I have uploaded 2 photos, the same but one horizontal and one vertical.
One has been accepted, one has been rejected for "Poor Lighting".

It's like throwing the dices…

Same thing happened to me yesterday. The only difference was the composition. Shot seconds apart at the same exact exposure and processed exactly the same way.

I think there's a new reviewer who rejects for lighting when the lighting is fine. I hadn't had hardly any rejections for three years, and now I'm getting nonsensical lighting rejections every few batches. Whoever it doing it is either too picky or using a bad monitor.

xst · « **Reply #47 on:** January 15, 2014, 18:54 »

Allsa · « **Reply #48 on:** January 15, 2014, 21:21 »

They now reject everything I submit containing the Great Seal of the USA, for 'potentially infringing on intellectual property rights'. I wonder if they also reject state seals and other government emblems. Will they start rejecting flags next?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Whole batch random rejection, twice. (Read 17359 times)

heywoody

cobalt

Beppe Grillo

Red Dove

BaldricksTrousers

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

PZF

Beppe Grillo

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

Red Dove

Beppe Grillo

ShadySue

Beppe Grillo

Firewall

oscarcwilliams

stockastic

karakoram

heywoody

robhainer

Uncle Pete

xst

Allsa

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors