MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Sites that no longer exist => Veer => Topic started by: w7lwi on January 31, 2012, 18:50
-
A while back I had a rejection at Veer that was particularly unhelpful. The reason given was " Improper image editing." I haven't a clue what this means, particularly as the same image has sold several hundred times, cumulatively, on other sites, including one EL. Has anyone else received his rejection reason and does it have a particular meaning? If the reviewer actually saw some problem area, I'd love to know what it was so I could fix it and perhaps gain even more sales.
-
Hi. I submitted 10 pictures which had the most sales from my other MS sites and received this back: Majority of images have a dated aesthetic.
Sniperz
-
Maybe it's the overall appearance of the file; colors are wrong (or too weak or too strong), the tonality is ruined by too much adjusting etc. ?
If you are brave enough to show us the image we might have some idea about the reason, without seeing the image it's just guessing.
-
Wow. Seven months for a response. LOL
Well the rejected image has continued to sell briskly and just returned a $112 commission on SS as an SOD. It may be that Veer doesn't like text. If not that, then I haven't a clue.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=83097568 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=83097568)
-
Oh... I didn't notice the age of this thread :o :D
And yes, I also think the text is very likely the problem.
-
Hi. I submitted 10 pictures which had the most sales from my other MS sites and received this back: Majority of images have a dated aesthetic.
Sniperz
Can you show us the images?
-
Sorry for the delay:
http://en.fotolia.com/Galleries/ZiYIcG9vw5WTdsLOR7puZ8K20NACbKV1 (http://en.fotolia.com/Galleries/ZiYIcG9vw5WTdsLOR7puZ8K20NACbKV1)
Sniperz