Author Topic: For Steve-Oh (Read 5407 times)

ichiro17 · « **on:** May 07, 2007, 20:28 »

Hi Steve-oh

Just wanted to ask about the inconsistencies in the StockXpert review process. Now I know this has probably been asked a million times, but I just wanted to ask for myself after experiencing one inconsistency - over the past week I've been steadily uploading some photos of a waterfall/fountain that I took a few photos of, some slow shutter, some quick shutter, and a few were accepted but today all the ones uploaded were simply rejected for "not what we are looking for" or whatever. I just want to know why such variance in that and I myself believe that is why I'm having a very hard time trying to figure out what to upload to StockXpert.

If you have any insight, please share.

I'm not trying to rant, I'm just looking for answers so that I can figure out what it is that I'm suppose to do.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2007, 11:10 »

I agree with ichiro,

I just do not understand which images are the right ones for StockXpert.
Well penguins they take without hesitation, but other images which I believe are not so different quality wise are very often rejected because of quality. Sometimes you guys say it is out of focus. When I immediately resubmit them downsized, they are rejected, because you say they are overcompressed.
StockXpert is the only site, where I experience rejection because of overcompressed files. Aren't you selling overcompressed files, when a buyer buys a small size image?
Recently I got an image rejected, because you were not looking for such images. However on another site it was the image of the week.
The last image which was accepted by istock, and they know which image is good, was apparently not in focus.
And so it goes on. I do not want to complain although sometimes I am annoyed for a short time, when I put a lot of effort in one picture, but I really do not care so much about StockXpert regarding the new images. I have my two popular images and the new ones barely get dls.
But maybe you should reform your review system, not to chase away less patient photographers. Just from a photographers view..

regards Jan

steve-oh · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2007, 06:02 »

Thanks, guys!

I'll try to provide some insight here. Remember, I'm not a reviewer, so, perhaps my insight will be more opinion than anythng else.

Let me address the rejection comment "thanks, but we are not looking for such images now".

I think the majority of these rejections are based on the more subjective aspects of a picture. I think StockXpert is a bit more strict than others when it comes to the compositional or aesthetic aspects of a photo, and reviewers may see these as different images.

I guess what I'm saying is that our reviewers look beyond subject to define the image.

For example, a waterfall shot with a slow shutterspeed could been seen as a different type of image than a waterfall shot with a fast shutterspeed. Yes, they are both shots of a waterfall, but they are still different shots.

I guess now the question is should they just accept both images?

It depends. If we are in need of waterfall shots, then we probably should accept both. My point is I think the reviewers are a bit less strict about images we are in need of.

Landscapes, sunsets, flowers are going to be judged much more critically at an aesthetic level than perhaps, medical, business, health, isolated objects, etc.

As for rejecting images that have proven to sell on other sites, all I can say is each site is different and customers expect different things from each site.

I know some of you hold StockXpert to the same or similar standard as some of the other sites that perform better for you, but in order to separate ourselves from the competition, we can't always follow in their footsteps.

Hope this helps.

Thanks!

StockManiac · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2007, 07:09 »

steve-oh:

Here is some FREE but invaluable advice for your site:

Stop rejecting images that are technically acceptable. Buyers should be the ultimate inspectors of an image. If an image is technically excellent, then you should approve it and let buyers decide how good it is (by the sales that it will receive).

You can't predict what the market will buy. Don't try to. While the market might not want waterfall images today, there might be a run on waterfall images tomorrow and you might be caught without any images to satisfy customers. What is news today, is old news tomorrow.

There have been plenty of times when I submitted an image just for . of it. I didn't expect the image to do well, but some of those are now my best sellers. There have also been times when I submitted an image that I thought would sell great, and it barely sells at all. We can't predict the market.

You don't have a million images yet, so you shouldn't be worrying about disk space utilization yet. In another year or so, when your database gets large enough, you can start to cull out images that don't sell (after having been online for at least two years), or move them to another "sale" area as a last hurrah. That will help to reduce the amount of disk space that is required and delete any images that just aren't selling.

As far as how stock sites compare, most images do the same across all sites. That is, an image that sells well at one site, usually sells well at another site. The biggest variable for image sales is search engine placement. That will vary from site to site, and thus so will sales. But you all have basically the same customers, since you all market to pretty much the same individuals. You all market in the same magazines, go to the same trade shows, etc. So if an image is accepted and selling well at most of the other sites, if you reject it, then it makes you look bad.

I hope that you will pass this advice along and heed it. It will only make your site better in the long run.

dbvirago · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2007, 07:56 »

Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now

ichiro17 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2007, 17:23 »

it would seem that StockXpert got 'creative' on my most recent batch with their newest rejection:

sorry, we already have too many similar photos

not only is that rejection insulting anyone's intelligence because out of 16 photos that I purposely uploaded with different themes, they have them all. This would indicate that there is a finite number of photos and from now on, StockXpert should not accept:

macros of silk weaves
macros of PVC weaves for roller blinds
tulips
jet steam from planes
forest streams
CN Tower among others.

I initially stopped uploaded to them and then started again but now I realize why I stopped...0 for 16 is pretty bad, and 1 for 44

at least they are consistent however...reject everything!

Karimala · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2007, 13:24 »

Consistencies with reviews will never happen, because every reviewer is different and every site is different.

I'm a Bouncer at LO, and to be honest with y'all, I can't tell the difference between what's a best seller elsewhere and what's not. What I do know is what I see everyday come through the queue, and that is tons of well-covered subjects. I can't remember if StockXpert has this information available on their site, but LO and IS both have guides detailing the kinds of shots they want...and most importantly what they don't want. All of the sites have tougher acceptance standards on the types of shots listed on those two "don't want" lists, StockXpert included as Steve indicated. Photos of tulips or waterfalls or zoo animals or fountains or office buildings have to be stellar, not just technically correct or good enough, because there are simply sooooooo many of them submitted.

By following the guidelines at LO and IS, and recognizing even before I became a Bouncer that my shots of well-covered subjects have to be outstanding, I have an excellent acceptance rate at StockXpert (over 90%).

StockManiac · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2007, 13:57 »

Quote from: Karimala on May 10, 2007, 13:24

I'm a Bouncer at LO, and to be honest with y'all, I can't tell the difference between what's a best seller elsewhere and what's not.

That is the precisely the point. An inspector can't tell what will be a best-seller at any site because they can't predict the future. Many images that were rejected might have gone on to become best-sellers, thus losing the site (and the artist) potential earnings.

sharply_done · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2007, 14:16 »

ichiro17: It's not healthy to take rejections personally - reviewers are merely making decisions based on the quality and type of imagery that the content manager wants to have on the site. Even so, 0/16 and 1/44 acceptance rates gotta hurt ... I feel for ya.

Karimala: I don't understand the overcompressed rejection reason, either. As Freezingpictures said, how can you reject an image for being too compressed when the site sells images that are massively compressed. Perhaps you could fill us in on this.

All that being said, I'm fairly pleased with StockXpert. My acceptance rate is much lower than I'm used to (240/319 = 75%), but I can live with it (for now). I'm happy that the site is meeting my performance expectations - I've only been there for a week and have yet to have a zero DL day. Oops ... hope I didn't just jinx myself!

hatman12 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2007, 15:57 »

Yes, the approval process at StockXpert is fussy. But on the other hand for an agency with such a small number of images (500,000 approx so far) they appear to be making good progress.

Already after only a coupla weeks with them I can see improving sales and a high payout per download and relative to total images.

I believe that if anyone is going to give iStock a run for their money it will be StockXpert and possibly DT. Of course we have Corbis to look forward to as well.

Yes, I've had images rejected at StockXpert that have been accepted elsewhere; it's frustrating but the best thing to do to shrug one's shoulders and move on. StockXpert know their market, and I'm interested to read that they have started to mail Jupiter customers to increase promotional activity etc. They are NOT going to risk their relationship with long established agency customers by accepting anything that doesn't fit with their standards. In a way this is very good news - it shows that if we are serious about becoming a success in this industry we can rely on agencies like iStock and StockXpert (and increasingly DT) to filter out the rubbish and allow customers to concentrate on high quality images. That can only be good in the longer run.

Karimala · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2007, 16:14 »

Quote from: sharply_done on May 10, 2007, 14:16

Karimala: I don't understand the overcompressed rejection reason, either. As Freezingpictures said, how can you reject an image for being too compressed when the site sells images that are massively compressed. Perhaps you could fill us in on this.

I really can't answer why some sites allow over-compressed photos into their archives. I can only speak for myself as a Bouncer at LO and a photog at multiple sites without a single rejection for over-compression.

Whenever I reject something for compression issues, I send along the following link so folks have an idea of what I'm seeing:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=JPEG

Most of this type of degradation happens with post-processing...saving and resaving, oversharpening, and a whole host of other things. Here's an extreme example of a photo that came across my desk one day where low quality settings and oversharpening in post combined to make one big ugly mess:

100% Crop

200% Crop

Pretty amazing, huh? If stuff like that is getting through anywhere, I'd be surprised.

I know this doesn't really answer your question, and doesn't have anything to do with StockXpert and this thread, but I thought it was a good opportunity for folks to see what reviewers see every day.

Karimala · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2007, 16:42 »

Quote from: StockManiac on May 10, 2007, 13:57

Quote from: Karimala on May 10, 2007, 13:24
I'm a Bouncer at LO, and to be honest with y'all, I can't tell the difference between what's a best seller elsewhere and what's not.

That is the precisely the point. An inspector can't tell what will be a best-seller at any site because they can't predict the future. Many images that were rejected might have gone on to become best-sellers, thus losing the site (and the artist) potential earnings.

And that's why there is an appeals process with all of the sites. If you feel that strongly about any particular rejection, contact the company and ask for a second opinion. Both of my best selling commercial and editorial photos at SS were originally rejected for focus issues, but I believed in them enough to appeal...and they were subsequently approved (the commercial photo was intentionally motion blurred in-camera...the editorial photo was a one-time private historic event involving one of the world's most famous people). However, if I don't believe in a photo, I'm not going to waste my time or the reviewers asking for a second opinion.

From what I understand, StockXpert is really great about taking a second look at rejections.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: For Steve-Oh (Read 5407 times)

ichiro17

Freezingpictures

steve-oh

StockManiac

dbvirago

ichiro17

Karimala

StockManiac

sharply_done

hatman12

Karimala

Karimala

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors