Author Topic: Poor lighting/ Composition, Poorlighting/ composition.... (Read 26561 times)

leolintang · « **Reply #25 on:** January 12, 2010, 23:09 »

Me too...
whats going on there..

cascoly · « **Reply #26 on:** January 12, 2010, 23:22 »

Quote from: reviews@123rf on January 11, 2010, 00:33

Hi All,

If you feel strongly that your image is a good seller please email us. We're always happy to hear you out and perform a re-evaluation.

ROFL

sorry 123 but that was not my experience -- when i reported this new avalanche of reviewing laziness, i was told they'd check, but the next 2 large batches were rejectede with the SAME silly reasoning the next day

as far as pointing you to our best sellers that you've rejected -- i was told you had crack reviewers who knew their jobs, so i wouldnt want to second guess them

s

cascoly · « **Reply #27 on:** January 12, 2010, 23:26 »

Quote from: pixdeluxe on January 11, 2010, 04:26

One unavoidable truth about image inspecting is that there are only 2 options. Approval or rejection. Its one or the other, with very few grey areas in-between. Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to approve or reject any certain image is the strength of your previous uploads. Ie. if you have a proven track record of approvals and/or sales, the inspector will most likely be (much) more inclined to approve those borderline images when the decision to do so is more objective. So, if you have a 80-90% approval rating and an ok sales record then you will experience much fewer rejections, even if the composition or lighting of certain individual (or even series of) images is questionable.

if that's true it's sad that reviewers rely on reputation rather than actual quality of submitted images

but in my case, i was getting 70-80% or more acceptance at 123 until this mass reject mode began, so by your theory i shouldnt have been affected. also it's highly reviewer dependent it seems -- an occ'l batch still gets reviewed by someone who actually judeged the images submitted

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #28 on:** January 12, 2010, 23:27 »

I'm thinking it is a Moot Point. None of my accepted images are selling anyway. What does a few more matter?

pixdeluxe · « **Reply #29 on:** January 13, 2010, 03:28 »

Quote from: cascoly on January 12, 2010, 23:26

Quote from: pixdeluxe on January 11, 2010, 04:26
One unavoidable truth about image inspecting is that there are only 2 options. Approval or rejection. Its one or the other, with very few grey areas in-between. Unfortunately, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether to approve or reject any certain image is the strength of your previous uploads. Ie. if you have a proven track record of approvals and/or sales, the inspector will most likely be (much) more inclined to approve those borderline images when the decision to do so is more objective. So, if you have a 80-90% approval rating and an ok sales record then you will experience much fewer rejections, even if the composition or lighting of certain individual (or even series of) images is questionable.

if that's true it's sad that reviewers rely on reputation rather than actual quality of submitted images

but in my case, i was getting 70-80% or more acceptance at 123 until this mass reject mode began, so by your theory i shouldnt have been affected. also it's highly reviewer dependent it seems -- an occ'l batch still gets reviewed by someone who actually judeged the images submitted

Yes, it probably is new inspectors or even more likely, new standards put forward by the agency and poorly executed by the inspectors. I hope they aren't one of your main earners..

cascoly · « **Reply #30 on:** January 13, 2010, 18:33 »

no, they've always ben marginal, so this was enuf to decid to just leave my portfolio there as it is

s

eppic · « **Reply #31 on:** January 13, 2010, 22:18 »

Quote

If you feel strongly that your image is a good seller please email us. We're always happy to hear you out and perform a re-evaluation.

But why bother with this? I already was picky with what I uploaded ie: good sellers and consistently accepted by other agencies yet I got 4 out of 28 accepted after getting my initial 8 out of 10 accepted.

CCK · « **Reply #32 on:** January 14, 2010, 11:10 »

With a proven record of submitting good images, 93% acceptance rate and I've never had a batch with less than 80% accepted since I started in 2007, suddenly an entire batch rejected/ The same batch accepted by the other major agencies I had send it to. The reviewers at SS, DT BS and others can't be that stupid.

If the reviewer had said something like this is not what we want or what we need I would have understood, but every image rejected for poor lighting/composition. I know what poor lighting is, and I know what poor composition is. I don't submit photos with poor lighting. Composition is perhaps more subjective, but I firmly believe composition is not a problem with any of my submissions.

I'm sorry 123R, but I think you will have to look at the competency of your reviewers as a matter of urgency. No good photographer will waste his time like this, and those who will close their accounts will be those you actually need.

donding · « **Reply #33 on:** January 14, 2010, 11:14 »

Quote from: CCK on January 14, 2010, 11:10

With a proven record of submitting good images, 93% acceptance rate and I've never had a batch with less than 80% accepted since I started in 2007, suddenly an entire batch rejected/ The same batch accepted by the other major agencies I had send it to. The reviewers at SS, DT BS and others can't be that stupid.

If the reviewer had said something like this is not what we want or what we need I would have understood, but every image rejected for poor lighting/composition. I know what poor lighting is, and I know what poor composition is. I don't submit photos with poor lighting. Composition is perhaps more subjective, but I firmly believe composition is not a problem with any of my submissions.

I'm sorry 123R, but I think you will have to look at the competency of your reviewers as a matter of urgency. No good photographer will waste his time like this, and those who will close their accounts will be those you actually need.

AMEN to that!!!!!!!

w7lwi · « **Reply #34 on:** January 14, 2010, 20:50 »

Very same experience here. I wont say images that have been accepted elsewhere. That's a meaningless comment given different review criteria. However this last batch of 20 all have sales elsewhere of 100 or more. That means buyers like them and that's the bottom line.

Now when I tried to log on today, all links to 123RF are directed to Inmagine and my Login/password no longer work. What's going on here?

donding · « **Reply #35 on:** January 14, 2010, 20:59 »

Quote from: w7lwi on January 14, 2010, 20:50

Very same experience here. I wont say images that have been accepted elsewhere. That's a meaningless comment given different review criteria. However this last batch of 20 all have sales elsewhere of 100 or more. That means buyers like them and that's the bottom line.

Now when I tried to log on today, all links to 123RF are directed to Inmagine and my Login/password no longer work. What's going on here?

That's strange...I just went to see if I could get on and it went right there. No problem

w7lwi · « **Reply #36 on:** January 14, 2010, 21:03 »

I see there's another thread about this 123RF/Inmagine problem. Apparently it's been going on, on and off, since last week. Something definitely screwy. I sent an e-mail to submittal support earlier today. I'll wait and see what they say before deciding whether or not to bail on them. Too many other companies out there to waste time with this foolishness.

donding · « **Reply #37 on:** January 14, 2010, 21:12 »

I haven't messed with uploading there for some time,,,,,got a total of 10 bucks or something on there so if they go away I won't be out to much

cascoly · « **Reply #38 on:** January 15, 2010, 01:58 »

Quote from: w7lwi on January 14, 2010, 20:50

Very same experience here. I wont say images that have been accepted elsewhere. That's a meaningless comment given different review criteria. However this last batch of 20 all have sales elsewhere of 100 or more. That means buyers like them and that's the bottom line.

the fact that others accept them IS important when there are mass rejects of those same images for alleged techncal reasons

s

Inger Anne Hulbækdal · « **Reply #39 on:** January 15, 2010, 16:50 »

Same here, the whole batch rejected for "poor lighting / composition"

Snufkin · « **Reply #40 on:** January 15, 2010, 17:51 »

could this be some glitch?

w7lwi · « **Reply #41 on:** January 15, 2010, 21:08 »

Well a quick response from Admin. After requesting a second look, all images accepted except for four. I can live with that. Those four are selling well elsewhere, but there is a common "look" to them that simply may not be on 123RF's want list. I'll try to weed out anything along this line in the future. Now we just need to see how future reviews go.

CCK · « **Reply #42 on:** January 16, 2010, 12:54 »

http://forum.123rf.com/viewtopic.php?t=450&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

RacePhoto · « **Reply #43 on:** January 17, 2010, 02:31 »

I have been reminding myself, not to post to any of the agency forums, not to complain, just sit back and shut up, but this one was just too funny!

To quote a response from 123 staff, a message from the above link, We just switched over to a new review system. Please be patient while we get used to this system. Yup, we understand that it's behaving a little weird, but we're still refining the review tool. If you didn't look at the top, it says this. Posted: Mon May 14, 2007

Seems this refining is still an ongoing project.

Here's the 2009 version of the same messages.

http://forum.123rf.com/viewtopic.php?t=1293

qwerty · « **Reply #44 on:** January 17, 2010, 03:30 »

my overall acceptance rate there is 85-90% last two months it's dropped to around 55-60%.

Did I read something about they were going to increase their quality required for acceptance or was that another agency.

My earnings at 123 are around 5% of my monthly total.

Hence why they sit around 6 or 7 on the list to the right.

m@m · « **Reply #45 on:** January 21, 2010, 13:44 »

Quote from: Whitechild on January 12, 2010, 22:01

Here we go again...poor lighting/composition....

I guess they still don't have their s..t together!...the same old poor lighting/composition crap, 4 of 5 rejection on a batch accepted elsewhere...mind you, all rejected shots under the Florida sun (yeah, I'm sure there's a lack of lighting there!!!)

FD · « **Reply #46 on:** January 23, 2010, 11:26 »

Some update. After they rejected 4/10 in my second last batch I emailed them to reconsider. They just reversed one and said the requirements were indeed stricter. My last batch was already under way then and they again rejected 4/10, more than iStock did. This image is on iStock and sold already a few times on SS:

My conclusion is that (1) they indeed got much stricter, even stricter than iStock and (2) they are emulating FT as to content: all lightbox-studio shots of people got through, none of the others.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #47 on:** February 05, 2010, 20:51 »

again, the same batch...the same reason

Dreamframer · « **Reply #48 on:** February 22, 2010, 15:00 »

And again.... whole batch... Also, the same batch is 100% accepted at IS. I emailed support... I'm waiting now.

donding · « **Reply #49 on:** February 22, 2010, 15:10 »

Quote from: Whitechild on February 22, 2010, 15:00

And again.... whole batch... Also, the same batch is 100% accepted at IS. I emailed support... I'm waiting now.

I wouldn't want you to feel lonely so I'm letting you know you're not the only one..

No really I just had 45 out of 72 rejected and they all said.."Poor lighting/ Composition"
Lights on a boat pier at night...good god there isn't any lighting other than the dock lighting. They even rejected one of my vectors/illustrations for poor lighting. I'm like you the ones they rejected were accepted everywhere else. They just aren't worth the aggravation.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Poor lighting/ Composition, Poorlighting/ composition.... (Read 26561 times)

leolintang

cascoly

cascoly

WarrenPrice

pixdeluxe

cascoly

eppic

CCK

donding

w7lwi

donding

w7lwi

donding

cascoly

Inger Anne Hulbækdal

Snufkin

w7lwi

CCK

RacePhoto

qwerty

m@m

FD

Dreamframer

Dreamframer

donding

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors