pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New rejection reasons  (Read 18743 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2007, 05:20 »
0
I got  the same reason today ....  unsuitable background .... it isolated on white!!


« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2007, 09:07 »
0
Now, this is funny. The below photo was rejected from my last batch for "artifacts" at StockXpert. Now it has been approved everywhere else where it has been reviewed, even those places that are really picky about noise and artifacts (Crestock and SS included), and it's currently my bestseller at three agencies. StockXpert could always argue that they don't sell this kind of photos, but I don't think that I would believe them.



« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2007, 10:09 »
0
well in terms of use on every single one rf agencies DOES NOT say: "images that are approved on our competitor - sites/agencies are automatically aproved here" , but it DOES SAY: " every image is going to be inspected by our inspectors, and once approved will be online for selling" (not these words, but this point ).
 for example i am in most active users on StockXpert. and my approval ratio on every site that i upload is between 75% and 95+%.
 yes a few days ago i gad rejection with "please upload better quality images" - should i be angry with that? - no. should i consider that explanation personally? - no. should i complain to site admins?(with booo-hoo-hoo text? :) )? - no.
 so, what did i do? - i smiled and said "o.k. - i'm going to make some better images" (and i did :) )
 so ... cheer up my fellows, get a smile on your faces, and... work.work.work...

« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2007, 11:53 »
0
yes a few days ago i gad rejection with "please upload better quality images" - should i be angry with that? - no.
Oh, I was angry when I received that and I emailed support.  I think a contributor who has a good acceptance ratio should not receive such a rude rejection, also because it doesn't say anything about the problem with the image.  Was it the composition, the lighting, the subject...?

One of these days I had two illustrations rejected for being overcompressed.  Hmm.  I save them at the minimum compression ratio, so this should not be a problem.  I checked them at 100% zoom and they were fine.  I emailed support and they approved them.  They also approved two of three images they had rejected for "poor lighting" or something of the sort. 

Also at IS, there is a series of images in which some were rejected for "artifacts" and others were approved, I sent a msg to Scout about one, it was approved, then I sent msgs for the others, about which I haven't heard yet.

Inspectors are humans and can do mistakes.  If you are confident about the quality of an image, it's worth emailing them.  Except Crestock, they only changed their mind about an image that they thought was a duplicate.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2007, 13:04 »
0
well in terms of use on every single one rf agencies DOES NOT say: "images that are approved on our competitor - sites/agencies are automatically aproved here" , but it DOES SAY: " every image is going to be inspected by our inspectors, and once approved will be online for selling" (not these words, but this point ).
 for example i am in most active users on StockXpert. and my approval ratio on every site that i upload is between 75% and 95+%.
 yes a few days ago i gad rejection with "please upload better quality images" - should i be angry with that? - no. should i consider that explanation personally? - no. should i complain to site admins?(with booo-hoo-hoo text? :) )? - no.
 so, what did i do? - i smiled and said "o.k. - i'm going to make some better images" (and i did :) )
 so ... cheer up my fellows, get a smile on your faces, and... work.work.work...

Usually, I don't have any problems with rejections. I get a few, and they are mostly easy to understand. With StockXpert, it's different. A batch of very similar images, taken at the same time with more or less the same parameters, can be rejected for completely different reasons. They probably have a purpose with the rejections, but so far, I haven't found out what direction they are going, since they seem to go in all directions at the same time.

I don't expect StockXpert to accept photos because they are accepted at other agencies, but when they are accepted at other agencies, and selling well several places, it's at least an indications that the photos in question are good stock material.

As an industrial photographer, I submit industrial shots regularly, and some of it sell well. StockXpert mostly rejects those photos, for all kinds of different reasons. Maybe they aren't interested in industrial customers, which has to be their decision, but it leaves me wondering what they want.

« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2007, 17:42 »
0
I don't expect StockXpert to accept photos because they are accepted at other agencies, but when they are accepted at other agencies, and selling well several places, it's at least an indications that the photos in question are good stock material.


.... Exactly what humors me, epixx.   Especially at StockXpert.  They've rejected a major percentage of my 'folio for  "not stock material"  and yet those exact pix are selling fantastic on SS (and others) but especially SS. 
    Hey, it's their site, they take what they want. Like I always say, if they don't want to sell it, someone else will...........  and they do. ;D

I do not go into a flame-out and crash-dive over rejections. That's the 1st thing I learned about this business, get used to it, and learn from it.  And a heavy 90-some % of the time, I can see why a picture was rejected, I agree with the reviewer, no problem.    BUT... StockXpert is one of my latter sites, that is, most recently signed up on.  The pix that I upload there are the ones already 'proven' on the likes of SS, DT, FT  none of whom are all that easy on review.  Thus, when StockXpert  rejects them as  "too dark'  but, more,  "Not stock material"... I can only scratch my head and wonder  if perhaps someone just got up on the wrong side of the bed and is having a bad day.     :D
« Last Edit: February 03, 2007, 17:54 by tgt »

« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2007, 02:22 »
0
* if there's one thing I can't stand is a grown adult crying.

This is an excerpt from a user on another forum:
"The other day I received a "please upload better quality images" in one upload.  These wordings made me mad, as they are very rude,...."

We are creatures filled with numerous emotions.
Then there are needs we feel have to be met in order for us to "Feel Good".
One of those needs which is tied closely to our emotions is the need for acceptance.

Acceptance gives us a feeling of belonging, and to be "a part of". It's a critical point
in any social animals make up.

So what happens to us when we get rejected? How does that affect us emotionally?
Anger, disappointment, jealousy, and depression are critically tied into being rejected
by a group, individual, or organization (Stock Site).

How well we accept rejection is totally Dependant on our spiritual, and emotional maturity.
To dwell on rejections is just gonna screw your creative capabilities and just slow you down.

Listen I'm speaking from my own personal experience, and not just running off at the mouth.
If you can, just put the rejections behind you and move on with your life .

I just took a count, and found out there are still 345,867,920,034,245,021 pictures left to take in this world.
.....Go out and grab a few.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2007, 02:24 by hymowitzer »

« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2007, 08:43 »
0
Hymowitzer --  Well said!     -tom

« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2007, 13:57 »
0
This is an excerpt from a user on another forum:
"The other day I received a "please upload better quality images" in one upload.  These wordings made me mad, as they are very rude,...."


I wrote that and it is not a matter of "emotion" or "need for acceptance".  It's a matter of business, of spending time working on images, submitting them and selling them.  Both sides win in the end if both sides do their job.  I insist that this wording does not fit if a contributor has a consistent record of acceptance, and it doesn't give any hint of what was bad in the image. 

In my case, this is the image, which was accepted in other sites and is an edited version of the one at right, accepted in StockXpert.


So if they didn't like the colours (explained as intentional in its description), they should have said so.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2007, 14:17 »
0
Just had one hole batch rejected for purple fringing.  ON some maybe but on other, no way.  Will see if they sell at other sites to decide if I need to re-edit them.

« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2007, 02:53 »
0
@medaleide: yes. i understand your point. but we here do business (for money). and one of first things about doing business is - not to deal with "emotions" but with "cold brain" (don't know english word, but you got the point).
 even when this business needs both creativity and emotions as photographing is - that's "creation" part (concept, faming, composition, which lens... wb.. etc...). but this is not business part of it.  business part is - rejection or acceptance. try to imagine that you want to sell your used car in "used cars" store. - the seller is going to say : yes, i'll re-sell your used car with this price ( on example 5$ for "L"ong car - and i'll take 2.5, and  you got your 2.5$ - arter the selling, your car wil stay on my parkplace..) - or he can just say : "sorry sir, we are not interested " - with no further explanation - does it mean anything about you or your car? (or photos) - no - that is just as said: he is not interested in that specific model or whatever. - are you going to sell that used car in some other store? - i'm sure you will (at least if it has 4 wheels :) 
 
 p.s. last night i uploaded a batch of photos, and some 4 or 5 were rejected with subject too blurry. - should i cry? - no. if i "believe" in that my work -  next time i'll increase power of flashes, and will close apperture - so i'll have bigger dof , and those kind of images will be accepted (if i believe in my work - and i do!). (yes, those are accepted elsewhere, and is already selling).

 yes i could "cry" to admins to review photos again, and those might be accepted. but if someone thinks that 5,  (or 105) photos are going to make some big changes in his portfolio, than rf micro business is not for him i would say.

 i can expect some "wide" explanation about rejection if i am the only or one of a few photographers that site works with - but i am not - i am one of hundreds or more likely -  thousands, - i believe that would not be fair me to expect any rf site to write a "story" to me about rejections. - easier way is me to read "stories" that are already wrote - in photography (and photoshop) books

dbvirago

« Reply #61 on: February 07, 2007, 21:27 »
0
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images now
Thanks, but we are not looking for such images nowThanks, but we are not looking for such images nowThanks, but we are not looking for such images now

« Reply #62 on: February 07, 2007, 23:40 »
0
dbvirago....dude...  I get the impression you just recently uploaded to StockXpert  ..... 8)  -tom

« Reply #63 on: February 09, 2007, 21:51 »
0
LOL db, I know the feeling!


 I had an entire upload of 22 rejected today for a new reason "please stop re-uploading these images"
huh?
They were all fresh uploads there, some were just keyworded this morning!
Sure I have similar ones and series type ones but, I tell ya this one was just too much!

Makes me wonder how I got the ones up there that are there considering these days at least 90% get rejected and it just begs the question so many are putting otu these days...do they even look at these things or are they just clicking to make their two cents per picture, and better to delete ones you dont look at then to accept the ones you dont look at.

Sales are decent and it is easy enough to ftp them up there. If it wasnt for the sales, I would be giving up on this one too....

« Reply #64 on: February 10, 2007, 12:18 »
0
I had an entire upload of 22 rejected today for a new reason "please stop re-uploading these images"


Void --   Hey, that's a new one!!  I never got that one!!  You must be one of the elite!!  The VIP Photogs!!! ;)   LOL    So where'd the original 22 get to if you sent them in earlier like they claimed?  Perhaps you were caught up in a 'time vortex'...  maybe you forgot being shot into the past, uploading the 22 and wisked back to the here-and-now with no memory recall and then subsequently uploading them again.....  Yeah, that's got to be it...that's the only reasonable explanation... ha ha haha ha....  afterall, a reviewer couldn't  be wrong... could they?  :D        ROFLOL!!
   Maybe someone should start writing a book about rejection experiences.... probably bring in more money than stockphoto.. LOL    8)  -tom
« Last Edit: February 10, 2007, 17:42 by tgt »

« Reply #65 on: February 10, 2007, 15:58 »
0
LOL
tgt, that musta been what happened!
thanks for clearing it up for me!
phew, I thought i was losing it......

« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2007, 14:34 »
0
come on people. cheer up :)   today i hat 10/14 rejected (all approved on some other site). - should i cry for this? no...  ...take our cameras, get a nice smile on our faces, and..... ....let's work ;)

« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2007, 18:14 »
0
come on people. cheer up :)   today i hat 10/14 rejected (all approved on some other site). - should i cry for this? no...  ...take our cameras, get a nice smile on our faces, and..... ....let's work ;)

Dr Bouz...   I kind of get the impression that you think a few of us are "crying" over the rejections...    ;) No offense intended, my friend,  but you do understand that   the  terms  'LOL'  and  'ROFLOL'   stand for   "laughing out loud"  and "rolling on the floor laughing out loud".

Guys like   db and void and myself, to name a few, do laugh at the majority of the rejection craziness. Personally, I couldn't care less. The only time it does have an affect on me is if I experience a mass rejection of proven pics and the reason.....  I still do not do mass uploads, I do them one at a time. It get briefly disturbed at the waste of time.. that's all. The reality is, my wife and I often get a laugh out of some rejections.

Hope I haven't offended you in my assumption. Fact is, I agree with you  whole-heartedly.  Grab the camera and go shoot another 300 pix, tomorrow's another day!  :)

 8)Peace, bro,    --tom
 
« Last Edit: February 11, 2007, 23:18 by tgt »

« Reply #68 on: February 11, 2007, 19:33 »
0
pictures of the massachusetts state house now need property releases!
yup, that one came in from them this morning.....since when did the outside of a public US state government bulding need a release....
I could understand it if maybe I got some shots of UFO's over at area 51 but....
;-)

Canstock was on a "too blurry, rejected "kick recently, we just figured they needed a new monitor...

« Reply #69 on: February 11, 2007, 20:26 »
0
The great advantage of not being exclusive is to be able to compare the results.  Thus I feel good about the general results of what I upload.  SX rejections don't seem to follow any logical criteria.  Puzzling.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2007, 23:43 by berryspun »

« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2007, 08:28 »
0
pictures of the massachusetts state house now need property releases!
yup, that one came in from them this morning.....since when did the outside of a public US state government bulding need a release....

 I just had a reject from IS: It was an image of the Hua Lampong Railway station in Bangkok. Like all public buildings in Thailand, it has an image of the king on the facade. Removing it from a photo would probably be a criminal offense in this country. Still, IS needs a property release for the image. I wonder who to ask, the king, since the copyright of the image probably has been transferred to The Royal Household, or the photographer? Or maybe I should just be happy that the photo was accepted at 12 other agencies... LOL

« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2007, 08:35 »
0
I had a funny rejection reason the other day at StockXpert of my vehicle which was covered in road salt.  I took the photo to focus on the dirty condition of my vehicle and it was rejected for being "too grainy". lol

« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2007, 16:24 »
0
well, i just applied to stockxpert - am not expecting to get in after reading this thread!

« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2007, 17:26 »
0
Just submitted my first ten this morning.  Let's see what happens......

« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2007, 21:26 »
0
Well, 9 of the 10 submissions have been accepted.

And in double quick time - submitted at 04.40 this morning, and accepted at 12.00 mid-day on the same day.

That's pretty impressive.  Let's see if they can make the sales.......


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3138 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 17:14
by Roadrunner
4 Replies
2447 Views
Last post August 22, 2011, 14:58
by grp_photo
15 Replies
5217 Views
Last post August 20, 2012, 09:36
by ProImage
4 Replies
3372 Views
Last post September 12, 2013, 03:25
by Canonbabe
2 Replies
1639 Views
Last post April 19, 2016, 04:48
by banism24

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results