Agency Based Discussion > Zymmetrical.com
Zymm rejections
zymmetricaldotcom:
--- Quote from: Komar on July 20, 2009, 08:28 ---Thanks for the response. You make valid points. Although, standards are pretty high these days, whether subscription agencies or not. It just seems that a contributor has to learn what an agency wants, which is often difficult as standard rejection answers are often too vague. However, I'm all for learning.
--- End quote ---
It's a matter of scaling, not that we would not like to go into complete detail for every reject. You're most likely a reasonable guy, and would read and action specific rejection reasons. There are other's who simply do not read them, or worse, get upset, pack their bags and ask to close their account because they have their own idea of how an agency should be run. We owe it to members who play fair, to not expose too many business resources to the big open void of the internet.
I do realize that many technical reject reasons intersect with a particular agencies designated threshold, which is always going to be a grey area. We never claimed to be interested in what a competitor rejects or accepts, we are focused on our own business unit and no one else. We can, as I offered, respond to individual reject cases, preferably like this in public so that others can see and understand too - straight from the reviewer:
Lighting: it's a bit harsh in areas, and there is chromatic aberration present. Comp: it's off center, and the overall comp could have been improved with some post-p work.
Comp: it's very busy (cluttered b/g), the top of the subject is cut off in-camera, the image is slightly tilted to the left. Lighting: the subject's face is poorly lit, lacking detail.
Exposure: the sky is overexposed, resulting in some of the foliage in that area being whited-out and/or having a Day-Glo appearance; some lower areas of the image are slightly underexposed. Comp: could have been improved from shooting more toward the right, making the lower area and the large tree on the right (roots and texture) more the subject, shooting to maximize that and the mix of textures in the photo rather than trying to get the tower dead center, and cutting out the less interesting trees to the left. Also, if the image could have been shot more from above and to the right, cutting out most of the sky and exposed more for the lower half of the photo, another image could then have been shot with the tower as the subject, exposing properly for that area. But those are could-have-beens, just what I see in potential. As it is, the exposure is the biggest problem in this image.
**Edit - sorry I mixed up the order pasting the reasons, fixed now
Phil:
off topic sorry but I think I just found the whole cevapcici thing (and why milinz left), now I am enlightened :):):)
Microstock Posts:
"We can, as I offered, respond to individual reject cases, preferably like this in public so that others can see and understand too - straight from the reviewer"
Well that's great I'm often left with entirely different signals. I get a lot of rejections which indicates I'm doing something wrong, however the images I get on line, to be frank, sell like hot cakes which indicates I'm doing something right. If I could sort out the first part I'm laughin.
It's got to be hard balancing act being a reviewer. Hopefully, they get it right more than wrong. However, every photographer has his stories about how they get it wrong. Around 2 weeks ago I sent an image twice by mistake to an agency, the first file was rejected for composition, the second was accepted. It sold a day later.
"we are focused on our own business unit and no one else." Well we are focused on all of you and everyone else. So you will always be compared by us and it's not such a bad idea to compare yourself with others in order to improve yourself. If I look to the right, I see you in New Sites/Low Earners and I know you're not a new site. Although I would love you to be right up there with the model you have.
However, it is remarkable that you have spent the time giving me details of what you think could be improved with my images (Not that I agree with all the points, but a lot of them are valid). I still believe that more adequate answers could be provided by you and other agencies. "The overall technical quality of this image limits its stock value." This just pisses me off as it doesn't tell me anything. It doesn't have to be personally typed by the reviewer, just more details in the standardised replies. I could be wrong but I think I am less likely to run away if I'm told why I was rejected, although others might react differently.
I appreciate the time you spent and your sincerity. See you on my next round of rejections ;D
nata_rass:
351151 is refused with "We cannot accept images of people without model releases"
Of course, because crappy flash-interface is full of bugs, because the release was in fact attached.
Resubmit, now # 351356 is refused with "This image is a duplicate of an image you have already submitted. Please do not resubmit it again"
Is this is a joke?
Either give me a valid rejection reason or accept my image, zymmetrical. And don't ask me for respect towards your agency and stuff. >:(
zymmetricaldotcom:
Please refer to the support channels on our website for more effective help.
1. 351151 - There is no model release associated with it. Many other people from all over upload daily, and successfully attach model releases. If you have a technical issue to report then why not report through proper support channels, with sufficient information?
2. 351356 - The image is a duplicate. Here is the direct output from the database:
ID# 351356
Submitted: 2009-10-25 10:14:04.033
Filename: Sveta-2897.jpg
ID #351151
Submitted: 2009-10-23 05:10:58.690
Filename: Sveta-2897.jpg
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version