pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New rejection reasons  (Read 18751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2007, 10:17 »
0
SX is very particular not so much in the what they want, but how the review process works.  You will have much better success rates if you upload small batches... I learned it the hard way.  Their upload system is very easy, but that makes their reviewers trigger happy with the rejection button.  Try uploading ten at at time.


« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2007, 11:49 »
0
This one is new at least for me.

Reject - Reason: Subject not visible.

I guess this only can be from a sleeping reviewer or a bad mood one!!
But I found it so funny that I had to share it with you guys.
It was accepted in every other place I've submitted it

Here is the picture:


« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2007, 11:49 »
0
Actually, I only upload 5 each time, but during one or two days, there can be up to eight batches. I have been following that routine since I started uploading, and my rejects at other agencies have mostly gone down. The change at Stockxpert is the most radical I've see, and have happened within a very short time.

I have nearly 350 images online there. There have been rejects before as well, but nothing near what I see now. Too me, what seemed to be a very professionally run agency, now suddenly looks very unprofessional.

Although it's not really fair to compare agencies, the 5-6 top ones have mostly had similar quality criteria, although SS has been rather hysterical about noise lately, but the development at StockXpert is something completely new, at least to me.

Although I can live without StockXpert, it has been looked upon as one of the most promising agencies. It puzzles me that they are now departing from what seemed to be an established standard.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 11:55 by epixx »

« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2007, 12:06 »
0
Miguel, that's even a front-page candidate. Makes one wonder.

Here's one of my rejects. "Photo too dark". What am I missing here?



« Reply #29 on: January 17, 2007, 12:22 »
0
My guess (on the "too dark" images) is that they are purely looking at a histogram and making a judgement based on that alone.  But I could be wrong...

« Reply #30 on: January 17, 2007, 12:30 »
0
My guess (on the "too dark" images) is that they are purely looking at a histogram and making a judgement based on that alone.  But I could be wrong...

I've been thinking about that too, as I had a "cityscape at night" rejected recently for "bad lighting" at another site, but on the photo above, the histogram looks quite nice.

« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2007, 12:44 »
0
Miguel, that's even a front-page candidate. Makes one wonder.


This one as most of the pictures I have on microstock sites have been shoot in editorial assigments published and sent to the shoebox for sometime.
This one have been published in one full page and I can assure you that it looked real fine and the subject was not to miss.


Here's one of my rejects. "Photo too dark". What am I missing here?





As I could see the histogram is OK at least for me, despite you can lighten a bit the mid range.
What color space are you using? If it's Adobe RGB 1998, maybe that's the reason to make it look darker on some browsers.

dbvirago

« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2007, 12:44 »
0
I only upload 5 a day. Doesn't matter. As often as not all rejects in a batch will be for the same reason regardless of variety. Says lazy or in too much of a hurry for me.

« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2007, 13:12 »
0

As I could see the histogram is OK at least for me, despite you can lighten a bit the mid range.
What color space are you using? If it's Adobe RGB 1998, maybe that's the reason to make it look darker on some browsers.

Yes, it's Adobe RGB. I consider converting all photos to sRGB before submitting to microstock. The thumbnail conversion done by most of the agencies takes away too much colour and contrast. The original version of the photo in question is more saturated.

I've been a graphic designer for more than 15 years and had my own design agency for the last 5, and all designers that I have worked will prefer to do the final adjustments themselves. There is no such thing as a ready-made image from an agency, since the need for saturation, contrast and brightness will vary depending on the final output form.

But maybe people are getting more lazy. For a couple of dollars, many may actually expect to be able to insert the photo directly into the document, no PP needed. I wouldn't be surprised.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2007, 14:26 »
0
Is it posible this is a result of new criteria from Jupiter Images?  I don't know if the sale of StockXpert has been culminated yet, but they could be influencing the review process to more closely align with their RM procedures.

« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2007, 16:12 »
0
Epixx,

In your image, I believe the reviewer thought the manometers' scale is "too dark".  I don't think it's an appropriate term, but in some of the rejections as "photo too dark" I had some specific area that was not so bright or clear, and adjusting just this part was enough to satisfy them. 

Roman,

My batches are normally very small, 2-3 pics max.  Normally I upload one from a series to see how it goes, once it's approved I then edit and upload the others.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2007, 18:41 »
0

As I could see the histogram is OK at least for me, despite you can lighten a bit the mid range.
What color space are you using? If it's Adobe RGB 1998, maybe that's the reason to make it look darker on some browsers.

Yes, it's Adobe RGB. I consider converting all photos to sRGB before submitting to microstock. The thumbnail conversion done by most of the agencies takes away too much colour and contrast. The original version of the photo in question is more saturated.

I've been a graphic designer for more than 15 years and had my own design agency for the last 5, and all designers that I have worked will prefer to do the final adjustments themselves. There is no such thing as a ready-made image from an agency, since the need for saturation, contrast and brightness will vary depending on the final output form.

But maybe people are getting more lazy. For a couple of dollars, many may actually expect to be able to insert the photo directly into the document, no PP needed. I wouldn't be surprised.

Epixx,
Try the sRGB. I've had a few rejections for the same reason and all ended up when I've done a PS action to save them to my upload folder with a conversion to this color space. For me it worked just fine apart that I do not agree that this is the best procedure.
sRGB works a lot better on uncalibrated monitors and browsers not supporting color spaces so your pictures will look better on browsers. Pictures eventually will be worst for printing, but products do not be the best ones while in use, because if they look really awesome on shelf people will buy them. It's the package that counts.
OK I'm being sarcastic but I'm from the time where film used to have grain, and we used different films and developers for different kind of grain. It was a lot more fun than just getting rejections for grain and noise, and having to "plastify" pictures to have them accepted.
But i do not also agree on using software like Noise Ninja at this stage. Maybe it's OK in the final adjustments before printing but... i really don't know. I'm a photographer for 20 years and for the last 5 I also  do two printed magazines, and never had to used noise reduction software for any image. People usually say my two magazines are very well printed, so this is all new to me.
By the way, at least around here in Portugal, you can trust me that mostly no one do PP before printing on editorial. At the magazines I work with most of the PP is done by myself and has been working just fine.

« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2007, 19:22 »
0
In your image, I believe the reviewer thought the manometers' scale is "too dark".  I don't think it's an appropriate term, but in some of the rejections as "photo too dark" I had some specific area that was not so bright or clear, and adjusting just this part was enough to satisfy them. 

Adeleide,
I agree that may be the reason. The problem, as with many stock photos, is that this is their real colour. They're gray, not white. It is possible to change it, but at least in this particular case, it takes some work to get a good result with a white colour and more contrast in that area alone, and I know at least one other agency that will probably then say "overprocessed". Not easy to make everybody happy, is it?

Jorgen

« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2007, 19:39 »
0
Miguel,
I have considered for a while to change my whole work-flow for microstock to sRGB. As you say, it's the packaging that counts. With the Fuji S3 that I mostly use for stock, that also gives me the possibility of using one of the "film modes", with "Velvia-colours" right out of the box. It actually saves some PP, since the photos come out with what to the human eye looks like a correct saturation and contrast.

I agree 100% on the noise thing. Somebody has apparently decided that the plastic look is better than a little grain or noise. It may in some cases bring photographies closer to a kind of perceived, but non-existent reality. I don't agree of course, but since discussing it is rather pointless, I won't. If plastic is what the world wants, plastic is what it gets. As long as us old, grumpy ones are allowed to retain small fractions of the real world in our little boxes and drawers, I suppose I can live with that.

« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2007, 20:30 »
0
If plastic is what the world wants, plastic is what it gets. As long as us old, grumpy ones are allowed to retain small fractions of the real world in our little boxes and drawers, I suppose I can live with that.

So do I, but I'm not tired yet to point it out...

dbvirago

« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2007, 20:43 »
0
Interesting. Review at SX took much longer than usual - 12 hours instead of 2-3. And instead of 5 rejects, I got 3 of 5 accepted.

On the other hand, this was rejected for please improve lighting. Not sure how you would change the lighting. But I was happy with the 60%. First time in weeks


« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2007, 21:32 »
0
I don't want to play god, just because I'm not the best pick for the role, but as I see it:
Your picture look really good in my screen and I like it as it looks now, but maybe if you light it up a bit on the mid tones it will look more "plastic" and will be accepted. Since we are talking about StockXpert, I will not bother because maybe they will find a "really good" new reason to reject your image.

« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2007, 15:13 »
0
Looks fine to me.  But, Ive heard they are not accepting flags anymore (certainly the American one, because so many pics are available).  But your photo looks absolutely fine to me.

« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2007, 15:39 »
0
In your image, I believe the reviewer thought the manometers' scale is "too dark".  I don't think it's an appropriate term, but in some of the rejections as "photo too dark" I had some specific area that was not so bright or clear, and adjusting just this part was enough to satisfy them. 

Adeleide,
I agree that may be the reason. The problem, as with many stock photos, is that this is their real colour. They're gray, not white. It is possible to change it, but at least in this particular case, it takes some work to get a good result with a white colour and more contrast in that area alone, and I know at least one other agency that will probably then say "overprocessed". Not easy to make everybody happy, is it?

Jorgen

yep.  I agree with these guys.  It is pretty good as it is, but if something was to be improved i would say it was the dials.  They could stand to have a little more contrast, with the whites being a little whiter.

« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2007, 05:51 »
0
In your image, I believe the reviewer thought the manometers' scale is "too dark".  I don't think it's an appropriate term, but in some of the rejections as "photo too dark" I had some specific area that was not so bright or clear, and adjusting just this part was enough to satisfy them. 

Adeleide,
I agree that may be the reason. The problem, as with many stock photos, is that this is their real colour. They're gray, not white. It is possible to change it, but at least in this particular case, it takes some work to get a good result with a white colour and more contrast in that area alone, and I know at least one other agency that will probably then say "overprocessed". Not easy to make everybody happy, is it?

Jorgen

yep.  I agree with these guys.  It is pretty good as it is, but if something was to be improved i would say it was the dials.  They could stand to have a little more contrast, with the whites being a little whiter.

The photo with the dials, and four other from the same series, were approved by SS yesterday, and they have already passed 15 sales in less than 24 hours. The one with the dials has sold three times. That was as expected, and they will probably be among my top sellers there as well as at a couple of other agencies.

What annoys me endlessly is that StockXpert rejects them arguing that they have stricter standards and "are not looking for that kind of images". Too me, it looks like they are not in touch with reality, not to speak about their customer's needs.

How on earth are we expected to know what to upload when proven concepts and photos well above average quality are not accepted? And this is not only about these photos, but their reject policy in general. If they had been a niche agency, it would have been understandable, but they are not. They depend very much on a broad selection of photos, and good quality industrial photos is not over-represented in their portfolio.

Am I annoyed? Yes, I am. I'm annoyed because I, and many other photographers, invest a lot of time and effort in making images that are of good quality and particularly images that are not of the "thirteen-in-a-dozen" kind.

Obviously, life will go on regardless of this, but trying to maintain a positive as well as professional attitude is sometimes very, very hard.

Rant over. Thank you for listening    :)

« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2007, 13:01 »
0
StockXpert has become my worst performer, as far as download and rejections, they rejected more than IS, for no apparent reasons, I just got my batch of 17 rejected 15, for " we are not looking at this images" or something else technically, BigStock now accepts everything, which also make me concerns, but of course it's better than rejection.

StockXpert has the worst thumbnails, so little, it's so hard to see, the only good thing is easy to upload and fast approval, but now it's fast rejection.

« Reply #46 on: January 21, 2007, 16:15 »
0
I wonder if people do start complaining at the StockXpert forum like I did, maibe we can get some answers.
Ok, I'm not really expecting answers from someone who just gives as a rejection reason "we are not looking for this kind of images", but maybe if we are plenty of photographers doing it they will come out with something usefull.
I do not want to tell them how to run theire business, but since the way they run theire business have efects on the way I run mine I guess it could be a good thing if they come out with a good list of what they are looking for.

« Reply #47 on: January 21, 2007, 16:37 »
0
I agree with Miguel.  SX has the easiest upload system, but, at the same time, they reject files rather frivolously.  I dont really know what are they looking for.  For instance, I had a series of lion photos (taken in Botswana).  They accepted one, and rejected the other six for ``we are not looking for such images`` bs reason.  There was nothing to seperate the accepted photo from the rest.  I wonder if the fast review time has something to do with that.  But I will continue with them.... for me SX is much better than Dreamstime.

« Reply #48 on: January 21, 2007, 23:35 »
0
New rejection reason: " unsuitable background"
Just had a series of photos all rejected for unsuitable background.

It's picture with a bottle and some medicine pills against pure white background, so why the unsuitable background?
Do I have to come up with the blue tray the phamacy use in order to get those approved?

I am not loading any more to them, unless I have some positive feedback later. :'(

« Reply #49 on: January 22, 2007, 00:48 »
0
I wonder if people do start complaining at the StockXpert forum like I did, maibe we can get some answers.
Ok, I'm not really expecting answers from someone who just gives as a rejection reason "we are not looking for this kind of images", but maybe if we are plenty of photographers doing it they will come out with something usefull.
I do not want to tell them how to run theire business, but since the way they run theire business have efects on the way I run mine I guess it could be a good thing if they come out with a good list of what they are looking for.

I've tried to participate in two threads there, and my latest uttering was rather direct. So far, no reaction whatsoever.

What is more worrying is that, while I have increasing sales with all other agencies, month after month, sales at StockXpert seems to have got stuck at one, rather low level. An easy uploading system doesn't help one iota if there's little profit uploading there.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3144 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 17:14
by Roadrunner
4 Replies
2450 Views
Last post August 22, 2011, 14:58
by grp_photo
15 Replies
5219 Views
Last post August 20, 2012, 09:36
by ProImage
4 Replies
3377 Views
Last post September 12, 2013, 03:25
by Canonbabe
2 Replies
1640 Views
Last post April 19, 2016, 04:48
by banism24

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results