MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Whole batch random rejection, twice.  (Read 15557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 09, 2014, 05:04 »
0
Lately I got a lot of totally random rejections for the whole batch. I thought it was the reviewer having a bad day. But twice is ridiculous.



for focus

Day time shot, 55mm f/11 iso 100 literally all things in the image are focused and sharp. Also submitted at 12mp



for composition
seriously?

The whole batch was rejected like this. What should I do about this?


fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2014, 05:10 »
0
What about this
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."

Ron

« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2014, 05:18 »
+1
the lollypop is most likely too small in the frame. If you have too much white space, the buyer end up with only a very small image once its lifted from the background. Crop the white space and it should be ok.

« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2014, 05:41 »
0
What about this
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."


Whoa, ridiculous. I just saw another post about inconsistent reviewing.  This seems to be pandemic... We ought to do something since this wastes a lot of time.

the lollypop is most likely too small in the frame. If you have too much white space, the buyer end up with only a very small image once its lifted from the background. Crop the white space and it should be ok.

Ron, it is already cropped the background is just white so it looks square. : ( If I crop a bit more it will not be usable as-is when bought. I will try anyways, thanks.

« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2014, 07:31 »
0
the lollypop is most likely too small in the frame. If you have too much white space, the buyer end up with only a very small image once its lifted from the background. Crop the white space and it should be ok.

I second that.

« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2014, 07:33 »
0
What about this
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."


it could (very unlikely) be a trademark, but if you add a side note, ot explain in the title, where you got it from, it may get in

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2014, 07:51 »
0
What about this
Rejection Reason:
"Trademark--Image potentially infringes on intellectual property rights."


it could (very unlikely) be a trademark, but if you add a side note, ot explain in the title, where you got it from, it may get in
I didn't get it I made it :) but it's ok. Usually when file rejected don't complain but this rejection reason don't understand! Never mind.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2014, 08:59 »
+2
We always need to complain when we have unfair rejections
Systematically!

And not only complain, but sent them the links on msg forum where people complain.

Only in this way they will (maybe) understand that we are not happy of these continuous inconsistent rejections and that they have a problem with some inspectors not doing their job correctly.

For 0,33 or 0,36 per image we can claim more respect!

Fundamentally we pay them (a lot) to make a bad work
It is not fair!
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 09:01 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2014, 09:01 »
0
it happened to me recently as well: the whole batch (of about 15 images) rejected but with different reasons... I believe there are different guys there who have different approaches to the problem of quality... in fact this is the human eye that accepts our files, not a machine... and it simply shows how subjective the issue is...
how about submitting the batch again in couple of weeks? :)

« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2014, 09:11 »
0
maybe reviewer just do not like you personally?

  ;D ;D

« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2014, 09:22 »
0
We always need to complain when we have unfair rejections
Systematically!

And not only complain, but sent them the links on msg forum where people complain.

Only in this way they will (maybe) understand that we are not happy of these continuous inconsistent rejections and that they have a problem with some inspectors not doing their job correctly.

For 0,33 or 0,36 per image we can claim more respect!



Fundamentally we pay them (a lot) to make a bad work
It is not fair!

Respect?

Wellcome to the commercial world, where people suck eachothers blood. There is no such thing as respect it is all about power, and we contributers are powerless.

it compares to grow tomatoes for the market.
Sometimes the weather is bad, there can even be frost, sometimes conditions are good and everybody grows a lot of tomatoes and bring them to the market.
But on the market they can only sell so and so much.
Sometimes the customers buy peppers and pineables instead of tomatoes.
Sometimes there is a fungus.
But worst is, when the market is manipulated and 5 tomato farmers bring their supertomatos in. And everybody else is left at the city gates with their tomatoes to rot.
The stockphotography world is the real world, there is supercompetition, pirates, and fungus.

Its all random, and you have to be both lucky and clever to play a role.

More lucky than clever, that is sad.
And power and respect? you wont ever get as long as there are 3 billion cameras out there and only 3 agencies.
Buy shares in copper mines instead.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 09:29 by JPSDK »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2014, 09:46 »
-1
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=134469

Now if you do as stated in the above link you will get the answers you need.

Post here and follow the posting instructions.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4


« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2014, 10:32 »
+11
As I posted earlier in another thread, I've given up and don't intend to submit any more until things start making sense again. I don't expect many others to do the same, but for me, it's no longer worth the aggravation for those tiny returns.

And I'm not really expecting things to change.  We're in the final stages of oversupply, where SS believes they can simply cherry-pick images they want, while at the same time announcing new 35-cent "deals" like the one with FB

Meanwhile, I get emails from them about how I can become a better photographer.


« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 10:34 by stockastic »

« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2014, 11:36 »
0
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=134469

Now if you do as stated in the above link you will get the answers you need.

Post here and follow the posting instructions.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4


Ruxpriencdiam, Thanks! I've seen it but I'm not asking for that kind of help and I'm way past newb period. I teach occasionally so I know what I'm doing.

The landscape was taken with 24-105L at f/11 on 5D3 I know it's not the sharpest lens but it is generally acceptable. I could use f/16 but that's asking for diffraction. There's no camera shake. Dust particles are removed with cpl.

It's just that there're some reviewers who love reject button rampage. If I were to submit it again it would likely be accepted. I know this because I have done before but it wastes a lot of time. Time that I should be uploading more images. There used to be weird rejections in the past but it's a bit too much now.  SS may be trying to cut down new files but this is not the right way.

What I'm doing is "complaining" hoping to get some attentions, some changes.

« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2014, 11:49 »
0
I also noticed shutter stock doesn't like to accept medium quality photos anymore. I guess we have to improve ourselves, too.  ;D ;D ;D

I know those images are lazy especially lollipop ones but they do sell.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2014, 13:01 »
+1
We always need to complain when we have unfair rejections
Systematically!

And not only complain, but sent them the links on msg forum where people complain.

Only in this way they will (maybe) understand that we are not happy of these continuous inconsistent rejections and that they have a problem with some inspectors not doing their job correctly.

For 0,33 or 0,36 per image we can claim more respect!



Fundamentally we pay them (a lot) to make a bad work
It is not fair!

Respect?

Wellcome to the commercial world, where people suck eachothers blood. There is no such thing as respect it is all about power, and we contributers are powerless.

it compares to grow tomatoes for the market.
Sometimes the weather is bad, there can even be frost, sometimes conditions are good and everybody grows a lot of tomatoes and bring them to the market.
But on the market they can only sell so and so much.
Sometimes the customers buy peppers and pineables instead of tomatoes.
Sometimes there is a fungus.
But worst is, when the market is manipulated and 5 tomato farmers bring their supertomatos in. And everybody else is left at the city gates with their tomatoes to rot.
The stockphotography world is the real world, there is supercompetition, pirates, and fungus.

Its all random, and you have to be both lucky and clever to play a role.

More lucky than clever, that is sad.
And power and respect? you wont ever get as long as there are 3 billion cameras out there and only 3 agencies.
Buy shares in copper mines instead.

It is too much easy to do nothing and then invoque the reason that we cannot do nothing to continue to do nothing
Fatalitas

The world goes like this because too much people think in this way and always accept the status quo.
History is full of terrible examples of this

And telling that we cannot do nothing or cannot change it, we will surely not change nothing

If you want the respect that they don't give you, you have to fight to get it, it has always been like this from the beginnings of times.
If you don't fight to get it you don't even deserve it, and you have absolutely no right to complain then.

If you don't fight to get respect you don't even respect yourself.
And it is more important to fight to claim the respect you deserve than to get the respect itself, because this makes the difference between to be a free human or to be a slave (or an animal).

It is a question of dignity, when you lose your dignity you lose your humanity.

_____
About luck did you never notice that the persons having more luck are always the same?

_____
I will buy rare metals shares, it is better than cooper :)



« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2014, 13:53 »
0
3 billion cameras out there and only 3 agencies.

Serious question: Which are the 3 agencies in your opinion ?

Or was that a joke ?

Seems to me that there are many more than that + all of the independent agents who are still doing well.


« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2014, 14:26 »
-1
We always need to complain when we have unfair rejections
Systematically!

And not only complain, but sent them the links on msg forum where people complain.

Only in this way they will (maybe) understand that we are not happy of these continuous inconsistent rejections and that they have a problem with some inspectors not doing their job correctly.

For 0,33 or 0,36 per image we can claim more respect!



Fundamentally we pay them (a lot) to make a bad work
It is not fair!

Respect?

Wellcome to the commercial world, where people suck eachothers blood. There is no such thing as respect it is all about power, and we contributers are powerless.

it compares to grow tomatoes for the market.
Sometimes the weather is bad, there can even be frost, sometimes conditions are good and everybody grows a lot of tomatoes and bring them to the market.
But on the market they can only sell so and so much.
Sometimes the customers buy peppers and pineables instead of tomatoes.
Sometimes there is a fungus.
But worst is, when the market is manipulated and 5 tomato farmers bring their supertomatos in. And everybody else is left at the city gates with their tomatoes to rot.
The stockphotography world is the real world, there is supercompetition, pirates, and fungus.

Its all random, and you have to be both lucky and clever to play a role.

More lucky than clever, that is sad.
And power and respect? you wont ever get as long as there are 3 billion cameras out there and only 3 agencies.
Buy shares in copper mines instead.

It is too much easy to do nothing and then invoque the reason that we cannot do nothing to continue to do nothing
Fatalitas

The world goes like this because too much people think in this way and always accept the status quo.
History is full of terrible examples of this

And telling that we cannot do nothing or cannot change it, we will surely not change nothing

If you want the respect that they don't give you, you have to fight to get it, it has always been like this from the beginnings of times.
If you don't fight to get it you don't even deserve it, and you have absolutely no right to complain then.

If you don't fight to get respect you don't even respect yourself.
And it is more important to fight to claim the respect you deserve than to get the respect itself, because this makes the difference between to be a free human or to be a slave (or an animal).

It is a question of dignity, when you lose your dignity you lose your humanity.

_____
About luck did you never notice that the persons having more luck are always the same?

_____
I will buy rare metals shares, it is better than cooper :)

yes we should fight. But it is not easy on the net, there are too many screw breakers.
I fought istock at d-day, but many people didnt, and i still see new people come here for advice to how to get in. And they get that advice. We are not united, so we cannt put any pressure on them.

« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2014, 14:27 »
0
3 billion cameras out there and only 3 agencies.

Serious question: Which are the 3 agencies in your opinion ?

Or was that a joke ?

Seems to me that there are many more than that + all of the independent agents who are still doing well.
i didnt mean the numbers litterally.

« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2014, 14:45 »
+3
It might be more honest to have a category that says "I'm not really that keen on the picture which is technically Ok but doesn't enhance the site's content" after all with over 20m pics they can afford to be picky

« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2014, 17:36 »
+2
It's funny: I average 90% approval on Shutterstock and I just had a batch of 10 rejected. I've been submitting to Shutterstock for 8 years off and on and I'm pretty sure I've never had a whole batch rejected. I think there must be a rogue editor out there.

« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2014, 18:00 »
+2
It might be more honest to have a category that says "I'm not really that keen on the picture which is technically Ok but doesn't enhance the site's content" after all with over 20m pics they can afford to be picky

Exactly!!

« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2014, 19:27 »
+3
Somebody suggested that the bizarre rejections might be connected with the free month trial at skillfeed. To get as many people to sign up there as possible. If true, this would be really ridiculous. Im preparing a small batch, but i will hold back the other files until the situation calms down.

At least we have other agencies who are happy to sell our files.

My videos are being inspected normally, at least something I can work on.

« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2014, 21:01 »
+2
We always need to complain when we have unfair rejections
Systematically!

And not only complain, but sent them the links on msg forum where people complain.

Only in this way they will (maybe) understand that we are not happy of these continuous inconsistent rejections and that they have a problem with some inspectors not doing their job correctly.

For 0,33 or 0,36 per image we can claim more respect!



Fundamentally we pay them (a lot) to make a bad work
It is not fair!

Respect?

Wellcome to the commercial world, where people suck eachothers blood. There is no such thing as respect it is all about power, and we contributers are powerless.

it compares to grow tomatoes for the market.
Sometimes the weather is bad, there can even be frost, sometimes conditions are good and everybody grows a lot of tomatoes and bring them to the market.
But on the market they can only sell so and so much.
Sometimes the customers buy peppers and pineables instead of tomatoes.
Sometimes there is a fungus.
But worst is, when the market is manipulated and 5 tomato farmers bring their supertomatos in. And everybody else is left at the city gates with their tomatoes to rot.
The stockphotography world is the real world, there is supercompetition, pirates, and fungus.

Its all random, and you have to be both lucky and clever to play a role.

More lucky than clever, that is sad.
And power and respect? you wont ever get as long as there are 3 billion cameras out there and only 3 agencies.
Buy shares in copper mines instead.

It is too much easy to do nothing and then invoque the reason that we cannot do nothing to continue to do nothing
Fatalitas

The world goes like this because too much people think in this way and always accept the status quo.
History is full of terrible examples of this

And telling that we cannot do nothing or cannot change it, we will surely not change nothing

If you want the respect that they don't give you, you have to fight to get it, it has always been like this from the beginnings of times.
If you don't fight to get it you don't even deserve it, and you have absolutely no right to complain then.

If you don't fight to get respect you don't even respect yourself.

And it is more important to fight to claim the respect you deserve than to get the respect itself, because this makes the difference between to be a free human or to be a slave (or an animal).

It is a question of dignity, when you lose your dignity you lose your humanity.

_____
About luck did you never notice that the persons having more luck are always the same?

_____
I will buy rare metals shares, it is better than cooper :)

I completely agree, we are not powerless unless we choose to give away our power!

« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2014, 23:23 »
+4
Unfortunately there would never be enough critical mass of contributors to make a dent in influencing the decisions of the likes of a successful micro who is less than fair to their contributors. And I mean it is unfortunate.

« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2014, 11:54 »
0
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.

« Reply #26 on: January 13, 2014, 16:35 »
0
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 Ill go back to shoot upload repeat.


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2014, 16:45 »
+2
You got lucky! :D
(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

« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2014, 17:45 »
+1
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.

« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2014, 18:09 »
0
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 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 02:59 by Ron »

« Reply #31 on: January 14, 2014, 03:27 »
0
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 »
+1
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 »
+3
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.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 04:56 by Beppe Grillo »

Ron

« Reply #34 on: January 14, 2014, 04:55 »
0
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?

« Reply #35 on: January 14, 2014, 05:21 »
0
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).

« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2014, 06:21 »
+2
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 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 06:58 by Beppe Grillo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2014, 07:04 »
+2
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 »
+1
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 :o

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).
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 07:38 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2014, 07:24 »
+4
You know that something weird is going on when FT accepts all your landscapes and SS rejects them all  :o
Usually it's the other way around.

« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2014, 10:02 »
+2
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

« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2014, 10:08 »
0
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.

« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2014, 16:20 »
0
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!

« Reply #44 on: January 14, 2014, 17:04 »
0
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.

« Reply #45 on: January 15, 2014, 00:08 »
+2
You got lucky! :D
(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 »
+2
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!


You got lucky! :D
(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 »
0
n/a
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 20:56 by xst »

« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2014, 21:21 »
0
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?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
5974 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 22:47
by Sean Locke Photography
0 Replies
2198 Views
Last post December 28, 2009, 15:46
by vonkara
6 Replies
4490 Views
Last post May 24, 2011, 12:38
by luissantos84
0 Replies
5485 Views
Last post September 01, 2011, 11:18
by Morphart
21 Replies
6821 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 08:54
by memakephoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors