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

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.

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

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.

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.

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, it�s 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...

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?

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.

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

Yes, they're fast at reviewing alright...it's easy when you just reject everything!

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

...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

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.

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:

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?

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: MiguelAngelo on January 17, 2007, 12:44

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.

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.

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

Looks fine to me.  But, I�ve 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.

Quote from: epixx on January 17, 2007, 19:22

Quote from: madelaide on January 17, 2007, 16:12

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   

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.

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.

I got  the same reason today ....  unsuitable background .... it isolated on white!!

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...

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.

* 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.

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

@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....dude...  I get the impression you just recently uploaded to StockXpert  .....   -tom

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?          ROFLOL!!
   Maybe someone should start writing a book about rejection experiences.... probably bring in more money than stockphoto.. LOL      -tom

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

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...

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

well, i just applied to stockxpert - am not expecting to get in after reading this thread!

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.......

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

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!)

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

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.

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.