pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New rejection reasons  (Read 18749 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 12, 2006, 21:19 »
0
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!

Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2006, 21:51 »
0
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.

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

« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2006, 00:32 »
0
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 »
0
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A slightly out of date list of sites and number of images I have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 »
0
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.
Judy

dbvirago

« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2006, 11:04 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2006, 17:51 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
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. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2007, 23:42 »
0
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 »
0
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 »
0
Yes, they're fast at reviewing alright...it's easy when you just reject everything!

« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2007, 18:35 »
0
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.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2007, 00:54 »
0
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.

Tom

« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2007, 05:30 »
0
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 »
0
...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

dbvirago

« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2007, 08:17 »
0
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 »
0
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.

« 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.

« 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.......

« Reply #75 on: February 14, 2007, 13:56 »
0
Very quick review and acceptance process.  I am impressed.

But can they make the sales......?

« Reply #76 on: February 18, 2007, 08:48 »
0
I don't know...I don't think that stockXpert is compatible with my photos :-). Any photo which I upload there gets rejected with the "please submit higher quality pictures" reason. First I was a bit angry about this. However, every other agency which I work with (shutterstock, fotolia, dreamstime, ...) mostly accepts these photos and they are selling fine there. Most ironically stockXpert recently rejected photos for the "please submit higher quality pictures" which I (succesfully) used to apply at iStockPhoto ...

I'm not talking about 10 or 20 photos here. They rejected about 300-400 when I initially uploaded my portfolio to them, mostly for the "please submit higher quality pictures" reason.

These are some of the shots which they recently rejected for the "please submit higher quality" reason:





I still upload to them, because it is a very quick and easy process (FTP the files in, and usually they get rejected within 1 hour), but it's more for amusement than for doing business ;-)

All the best,
Michael

« Last Edit: February 18, 2007, 08:53 by Daneel »

« Reply #77 on: February 18, 2007, 08:55 »
0
wow, looks like they are getting piiiii-cky.

Perhaps they have areas that they are not accepting images for any longer... but then i guess they should be giving a different response.

what camera were they taken with?  Could it have something to do with the image size?

« Reply #78 on: February 18, 2007, 09:24 »
0
They have not been too picky on what I submit. Not as picky as Dreamstime thats for sure. Occasionally I will resubmit a photo/illustration they decline because I thought it was good enough and the 2nd time some are accepted.
Most of my submissions are illustrations so noise is never an issue.
I wish StockXpert had more of a customer base because they are my favorite site to upload to. (Mainly because review times are normally like 1-3 hours!)

« Reply #79 on: February 18, 2007, 09:52 »
0
Hi Tyler,

wow, looks like they are getting piiiii-cky.
what camera were they taken with?  Could it have something to do with the image size?

I'm using a Canon Powershot S3 for these photos and the photo size is 6 MP. I'm not going DSLR yet, because I like the compactness, as I travel a lot.

With a DSLR I'd get better glass, but as I said...these photos are doing fine on dreamstime, shutterstock and were even (succesfully) used for applying at iStockPhoto. So I think the glass of the Canon is ok...

All the best,
Michael

« Reply #80 on: February 18, 2007, 09:55 »
0
They have not been too picky on what I submit. Not as picky as Dreamstime thats for sure. Occasionally I will resubmit a photo/illustration they decline because I thought it was good enough and the 2nd time some are accepted.
Most of my submissions are illustrations so noise is never an issue.

I agree, they are accepting 80-90% of my illustrations / computer renderings. It's just my photos with which I have no success at all exclusively with them.

All the best,
Michael

« Reply #81 on: February 18, 2007, 10:00 »
0
They are not rejecting any of my photos at the moment but my downloads have slowed down, perhaps because of this

http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=2005

« Reply #82 on: February 18, 2007, 21:17 »
0
There must be something more to it. 6 months ago, my sales at DT and StockXpert were similar. Now, DT sales are 15 times as high. For me, StockXpert has come to a more or less complete stop.

« Reply #83 on: February 18, 2007, 21:42 »
0
StockXpert... which ways the wind blowing.  Just earlier this week I was complaining how they rejected 60% of my last  batch the week before..  I did another batch  this week and they only rejected 20%... "not looking for....yada yada yada".   ???  I've yet to see any pattern in the why of it on StockXpert.  If you try to figure it out, you'll only give yourself a headache.   8)  -tom
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 18:07 by tgt »

« Reply #84 on: February 20, 2007, 20:02 »
0
My rejection rates there goes up and down all the time as well, and it doesn't follow any particular pattern. Since it's so totally unpredictable, I can as well submit the same as I do to most other agencies, and let them do the picking. The sales I have there are spread on all kinds of themes anyway.

« Reply #85 on: March 13, 2007, 19:18 »
0
I had a few sales on stockxpert in January.  But in Feb, and, so far, March it's been almost nothing.  For me, I will still upload hoping that it will pick up one day, but so far I see very little result.


 

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
5218 Views
Last post August 20, 2012, 09:36
by ProImage
4 Replies
3375 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