MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New rejection reasons  (Read 19477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 12, 2006, 21:19 »
The other day I received a "please upload better quality images" in one upload.  These wordings made me mad, as they are very rude, and given my good approval rate at StockXpert, not fair.  I wrote support and they replied that the inspectors are overloaded and that pre-set answers are the rule.  Ok, but I'd rather receive a "poor lighting" or such, something that explains what is wrong with the image (in this case, an aletred color version of a previous approved submission).

Now today I received "please improve quality" in three submissions of a series.  I believe it's the same sentence rewritten.  So, what I should improve in the image, I'll never know!


« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2006, 21:51 »
I agree that it is rude. I deleted my portfolio and left Stocxpert because of their "please upload better quality images" - rejections. I didn't like that site. For me they were more picky than Istock, and the images I had there didn't sell much.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2006, 21:53 by iahulbak »

« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2006, 00:32 »
i tried 3 times to apply and did not succeed. (I am approved even in istock 100 photos and shutterstock) and all their comments were rude. I thgt since so many people say they are good i will keep trying but after submitting 3 times 15 photos of what has been accepted even in istock i prob will not try again. They just dont have the friendly human touch. Featurepics i have only 1 photo sold even then i keep uploading there because the admin and people are really nice and gives nice response and helpful. They give photographers 70% and you can set ur own price. i hope they will do well in the future.

« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2006, 04:43 »
As StockXpert occassionally sell an 8mp photo for $2.50 and there upload system is fairly painless I still upload but I tend not to check what they accepted/rejected and don't bother categorizing the photos as they have been driving me insane.

A slightly out of date list of sites and number of images I have

123rf 1,964
FP     1,630 *
FT     1,622
BigStock   1,513
SPM   1,438 #
CanStockPhoto    1,409 *
SS      1,401

DT     1,099
StockXpert    1,071
IS         392

* some images not uploaded
# haven't submitted for a month or two

So as you see StockXpert 2nd to last IS actually have a higher acceptance rate currently 50% but the 20/week limit is killing me. I often see StockXpert reject an entire batch I sometimes wonder do they just look the first couple of images and make their decision on that.

I suppose reviewers are paid on number of images "reviewed" not accepted if they got a small percentage of what images they accepted earned they might make more of an effort. I am sure the recognized big selling contributors actually have a proper review.

Don't get me started on DT "too many on site" which sometimes is an artefact of keyword spamming.

I always chuckle at 123 minimal commercial value when the picture has been DLed a few times at SS by the time 123 review it.

« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2006, 06:33 »
I've just had two (small) batches in a row rejected with everyone being "we are not interested in this type of image".  Only two of the images were similiar.  I've never had this type of rejection from them except an occassional one out of a batch where the others were accepted.  I had decided to keep uploading until the new year to all sites I'm active on and then decide based on sales where to stay..these StockXpert rejections may make my choice a little easier now.


« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2006, 11:04 »
Yes, their rejection system sucks, but I agree with Fantastique. Easy to upload, I don't categorize. I log the reject/acccepts, but no longer look at the reasons as best case, they are useless. The high averages on sales helps a lot though. I may not stick with them for the long run,but for now, they are a steady but slow earner -

« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2006, 14:25 »
I've recently recieved that message and did email them for a clarification. They did respond back with a detailed explanation so I can now decide whether or not I want to resubmit the files. I just take their rejections for what they're worth regardless if I feel they're being too picky.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2006, 14:29 by tdoes »

« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2006, 15:39 »
Overall I have a good concept on StockXpert (especially the fast reviews!) and often the rejections come with a reasonable explanation that can make me improve it.  Sometimes the "we're not looking for this kind of image" looks strange to me, as before and afterwards an image of the same subject, though different, may be accepted.


« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2006, 17:51 »
I always chuckle at 123 minimal commercial value when the picture has been DLed a few times at SS by the time 123 review it.

Or 10 times and a $20 Extended License as I had with one image 123RF rejected.

As for StockXpert, I haven't noticed them being too picky. They've rejected 3 out of 128. One for being "Photo too dark", one for "Photo too similar", and the last one I don't remember but it didn't strike me as rude. I agree though if I got a "please improve quality" I would be tempted to tell them to stuff it.

« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2006, 11:48 »
Last couple of weeks with StockXpert has not been bad with me. I did get off to a rough start, even got nailed for 'keyword spamming'   ( which I don't feel was correct - use the same keywords everywhere).  None-the-less, even in that rejection, I just 'cleaned up' the keywords and resubmitted and the pix were accepted.  I do like the turn-around time.  I've uploaded and gone back in an hour and the pix were approved!  I have been able to work with the reviewers there.  Couple of pix were rejected for "improve cropping".  I did, uploaded again, and within hours, the pix were on the board! I generally upload there in sessions of 10 pix at a time. Lately, I've been hitting 100% acceptance.  I guess we all have ups and downs with all the sites. Right now, I'm on an 'up' with StockXpert.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2006, 11:50 by TGT »

« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2006, 05:47 »
Very strange site indeed.  I tend to upload large batches, but, as someone has previously mentioned, it tends to work better if you upload images in small batches.  Their reasons for rejection are very often strange... especially the upload better quality images... some of the images rejected for this reason are my best sellers on istock.  At least at istock the rejections are fair most of the time, they give you a specific enough reason, whereas here I can just see a person mass clicking entire batches.  I upload there because the review times are fast, its easy to upload, and I want to get the most out of my non exclusive images.  I just FTP my files, then batch edit for categories (they have so few categories that you can batch process images that are thematically very distant), and move the folder.  It takes me about 10 minutes to upload and add categories to 50 images.  I always add keywords and titles in photoshop...

« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2007, 00:08 »
StockXpert....  what a waste of my time tonight.   I haven't uploaded to StockXpert in some time and tonight I figured to put up about 50 images. At 20, I flipped over to the image page so that I could pick up the ID numbers attached to each pic and log them into the data base I use to track my sites.
    Low and behold, I find that the pix are being reviewed as I submit them, 16 are ALREADY DONE!!  However,  8 of the 16 are rejected.  {interestingly, ALL  the images that I was uploading are already on SS and most have already sold there and on DT, } ....  of course many were rejected for the  "not looking for such images".  Okay, that's fine, I can dig that, you know your buyers better than I do. 
    But a couple were rejected for  "photo too dark"  ?!?!?   Weren't too dark for  SS, DT, BigStock, LO and more....  where they're selling.  Okay, okay, that's fine, I'll accept that too.  You don't want them. No problemo.

However, this is the topper, this is the one that killed me.

     "Photo rejected - image is too blurry"   

Here's my problem one.    This photo,  I accidentally RE-LOADED tonight.  I had ALREADY  loaded it a month or so ago and it was ACCEPTED.   SO, tell me, how's that work?  It was a great photo last month, they took it.  Tonight it's too blurry.   Incidentally, this photo has detail at 200%.
I don't mind rejection.  I understand rejection.  I understand an outfit declining a shot, thinking they can't market it..... that's cool, that's fine.
     But, when you already have the shot and are selling it,  how did it suddenly become a lousy pic a month later?   How about some consistency in reviews?  Seems like too often it's not really if your shot is good or bad,  it's   ...which way is the wind blowing...

      Needless to say,  I stopped uploading the rest of the 50 shots. What a waste of time.    Okay, thanks for letting me rant.      peace-tom
« Last Edit: January 13, 2007, 00:12 by TGT »

« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2007, 01:14 »
I have the same problem with them.
StockXpert has been very slow for me the last two month, so I uploaded two small batches, totalling 23 images, both batches were rejected entirely, which never happened to me before, not even IS, that was really rude and unprofessional, so more than half of them already being approved by SS, FT, DT BigStock, but to them they are simply garbage?

« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2007, 01:57 »
I've also had pretty good luck with StockXpert. Thier review time is really fast and I have gotten very few rejections.

I have to admit that most of the times when they have said "image is too dark"..... they were right...and I corrected it an resubmitted and it was accepted. They have always accepted my resubmitts after I have corrected them. StockXpert is really moving up my favorite list on sites and sales are continuing to increase... I just love the $2.50 sales...and suprisingly get quite a few of them. The one feature that I also love is the replace file option. I don't know about everybody else....but when I look at some of my older files I realize that I could have improved the lighting or made a better isolation.... I have gone back and improved many of the photos and then simply replaced the file on StockXpert....sweet.  I wish the other sites had this option.

It's interesting to listen to people on the sites that they feel are the toughest and easiest to get photos accepted on. For me......strangley enough I have had more rejections on 123RF, then on any other site.....including IS. (not counting Crestock....which I have given up on...) 123RF is also one of my lowest payback sites....I'm not sure if it's really worth it....but it is simple to upload and I'm currently making about $20-30 a month on the site....so I guess I'll stay.  IS is a pain to upload to and with the new keywording rejections or should I say(rekeywork, resubmit and wait 5 more days)....can be really frustrating....however they are defenitly worth downloading to....I now make the most per uploaded photo on IS....but only have 250 images there so far.  SS is my biggest $ maker but I also have 730 images there.

« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2007, 07:23 »
StockXpert one of the easiest upload systems but one of the worse review systems, in my opinion.

I recently had one photo rejected for being too dark and it was accepted by iStock and given 5/5 within a day of uploading.

« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2007, 12:00 »
I generally agree with StockXpert when they reject an image as "photo too dark", quite often a few adjustments make it look better and they approve the edited version.  This is why normally I upload first to StockXpert and wait for their evaluation before uploading to the others.

However lately they have been a bit difficult to satisfy. I had many images rejected, I edited them (although for some I didn't agree with the "too dark"), they rejected them for another reason. 


« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2007, 23:42 »
Adelaide/Perkmeup,  I took your advice and gave it a shot. I lightened the crap out of two of the shots that they said were  "too dark"... 
   On the resubmit, they took one and still rejected the other as 'too dark'. Personally, I felt the originals were fine.  What I sent back in,  I thought looked like garbage..   the other 'too darks', no way was I going to lighten them,  they were perfect.  SS, DT & LO  took 'em as is.
    Hey, whatever, as long as they can sell the things... I'll send in the proverbial picture of a polar bear eating vanilla ice cream in a blizzard, one big white square,  if that's what they want and that's what they can sell.... they've got it... send me my 50 cents...   ha ha ha ha.
                                                         peace- tom
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 00:18 by TGT »

« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2007, 09:14 »
At this time StockXpert is my least favorite site because of their rejection system.  They have gotten more difficult to please and when you try to make adjustments to the reject reason given another reason for rejection usually is given. I've even stopped trying to fix the files to fit their standards because the end results would lessen the quality of the photo in my opinion. I have a few accepted photos I feel strong about but others are of mundane subjects that fit the bill of stock.  I've also gotten reasons for rejections for vector files for open paths which are actually stroked lines that aren't to be closed and don't affect the usability of the file.  StockXpert seems to think the file would be problematic and gave me their reasons but I gave them the benefit of the doubt and tested their theories to realize that I new what I was talking about.  I create and work with these files for a living as a graphic artist!

My style and subjects don't seem to fit this site so I've given them a rest and will just keep what I have over there because of the possible payouts.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2007, 09:19 by tdoes »

« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2007, 12:34 »
Yes, they're fast at reviewing alright...it's easy when you just reject everything!

« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2007, 18:35 »
We all have different experiences.  Although I've been seeing a trend to be more restrictive in the acceptance, it is in general ok.  They are not as liberal as other sites (FT, BigStock and CanStockPhoto accept almost everything I submit), but as I said, most of the times I think they are right, at least partially. 

In one case I had two images rejected for "too dark" and one indeed I agreed that could be improved, but I edited both and resubmitted, they rejected for another similar reason.  But the other day they rejected an image for chromatic aberration, and they were right.  It took me some effort buy I improved it, then downsized it a bit, it looked indeed nearly perfect in that aspect.  They accepted it.  So generally I take their advice and try to edit the image.  It may look better, it may not. 

And given the easy upload and the good earnings, I like StockXpert.


« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2007, 00:54 »
I agree with Adelaide....I think they are right most of the time....There has been a occasion or two when I didn't agree, but that is not the norm.  The main thing is not to take it personally...make the changes they request resubmit it they take it...they take it ...if not of well....next photo.

The other day I had a batch of 40 photos submitted to SS....I never worry about acceptance there...I get an occasional noise rejection but not too many....wow...I had 19 or 40 rejected!!!!!! thats more rejections then I have totally at SS. They were all rejected for noise.....I looked at them and did not agree at all....the noise was ever so minimal....at first I was pissed...but I got over it........I took all the rejected photos....ran them thru noise ninja again...with an ever so slight noise reduction...almost nothing and then resubmitted......with a note "applied slight noise reduction as requested"........they were all accepted.  Inspectors have bad days too...and each of them have there own likes and dislikes...I think on occasion we get one that is very picky...luck of the draw......but if you want picky.....send them to Crestock.....they are just nuts....I have stopped downloading as they reject about 50% of everything I submitt...maybe even more....and I just don't know what they want.

I like StockXpert...like I said they are increasing in sales all the time and review times are really good.


« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2007, 05:30 »
Until a couple of days ago, I used to like StockXpert a lot, but this is no fun. I've uploaded photos within all kinds of categories the last few days, and they all (with some very rare exceptions) get rejected, either with "underexposed" (do StockXpert customers have darker monitors than others?) or "we are not looking for this kind of photo".

If I had been a total newbie or had high rejection rates elsewhere, I wouldn't really care (and most of the times, I don't when I get the occasional rejection), but they reject correctly exposed photos with a proven potential.

To me, this looks more and more like Crestock. If that's the kind of success they want, be my guest, but then I'm out. I'm still on Crestock, but I don't want another agency like that.

« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2007, 07:38 »
...that's what I found so strange... the  "Too Dark"  rejection.  On a couple, I could understand their point, they were on the dark side, of course, that was the nature of the shot too.  However, most I didn't feel were 'too dark' and the good sales of them elsewhere would seem to support me.
...  I was even thinking maybe one of their reviewers needs to calibrate his/her own monitor??   ha ha ha.      peace - tom


« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2007, 08:17 »
Definitely agree with that. Too many reviews for too dark that aren't. And of course if the subject matter is dark, forget it. I think they also don't have enough (1?) reviewers and their mission is speed. Just looked at last two batches. First all rejected for 'thanks but we are not looking for such images now' and second all rejected for 'please improve lighting. Could I improve lighting? Maybe. But 60% of these were accepted at SS and the ones that were rejeced weren't because of lighting.

It would be nice if, like some of the other sites, this owner would show up in one of the forums and give us a clue as to whtat they are looking for and their review philosophy.

« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2007, 10:03 »
Just had another batch rejected. That's 20-something rejects the last 24 hours, and two approvals. The approved photos weren't even particularly good, but for some reason, they got past the technical inspection.

Interestingly, SS took all of those rejected by StockXpert, except one reject. Usually, it's the other way around, but I worked particularly hard with these batches, to avoid rejects, since they are industrial photos that I won't have the opportunity to re-shoot. Industrial photography is what I do for a living, and I know the demand is there, so these rejects from StockXpert surprises me a lot.

It's of course always possible to improve a photo, but there's a limit to everything. This is after all microstock, and if the requirements are to unreasonable, I know lots of other things that are more pleasurable.

Guess I have to start shooting pretty girls with headsets like everybody else.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
Last post February 02, 2010, 17:14
by Roadrunner
4 Replies
Last post August 22, 2011, 14:58
by grp_photo
15 Replies
Last post August 20, 2012, 09:36
by ProImage
4 Replies
Last post September 12, 2013, 03:25
by Canonbabe
2 Replies
Last post April 19, 2016, 04:48
by banism24


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle