Author Topic: The strangest rejection reason yet (Read 9046 times)

gaja · « **on:** January 26, 2009, 08:35 »

Picture added further down on the page.

Title: Child with Erb's Palsy showing how big she is

Rejection reason: She looks like a normal child.

I don't know if I should be happy that my little girl has worked so hard and gotten so well that people who haven't seen this type of injury before don't notice her disability, or if I should be annoyed over the prejudice against handicapped people. Maybe I should add som drooling the next time...
What I'm trying to illustrate? The muscles in the left arm are not fully developed, so she has trouble lifting it as high as the right one, and it's rotated outwards.

And just to be perfectly clear: I have no problem with rejections; the picture is in no way perfect, lighting is my biggest challenge, and suggestions on how to make it better are greatly appriciated.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:43 »

Do you have that image somewhere online so we could take a look please?

gaja · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:48 »

Can't you see it? I tried this [img]-thing. It shows here?

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:53 »

Hi,

you are trying to link to a private album, that is why we can't see it. Try the same thing except link from a microstock site, or directly upload it in your post by clicking on 'additional options' when you type your post.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2009, 08:57 »

Just leave it, and submit it to another site. Really, it doesn't serve you to fight with a reviewer. It only causes tension, and could work against you as a contributor. I know you've read about how some contributors make a stink and get what they want , but you have to some kind of record with them to do so (eg. your download is impressive).
Many here will tell you that it's not uncommon to have one image rejected by one reviewer of say DT , IS,SS, BST,etc.. only to be a good seller at the other site that took it.
Move on, don't take it personally. Your experience as a contributor will be more fun, or else you'll burn out before you even begin. Enjoy

gaja · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:06 »

can you see it now?

Dreamframer · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:07 »

If it's rejected on Dt and you are trying to put that link, I think it's not possible to see it. But if you are trying to post image from another site, open your portfolio like a guest (don't log in) and find that image, click on a thumbnail to open bigger version, click on it with your right mouse button and and choose "copy image address" if you use firefox, or cooshe equivalent in other browser.
After it, you have to paste that copied link here, between two [img] things.

Anyway, I think you should be happy because of this rejection. I believe reviewer didn't notice anything strange on the image and he/she rejected your image with this reason

gostwyck · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:07 »

It was obviously insensitively written but I presume the reviewer did not consider that the image adequately illustrated the symptons __ now that you've posted it I can see that is does.

Honestly, this is such a niche subject that microstock is really the wrong place for such an image. It's never going to sell in the volumes to make it worthwhile so really it needs to be on Alamy or somewhere similar.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:09 »

Now I see the picture

Now I am sure reviewer didn't notice anything strange. Your little girl did amazing job

And she is such a cutie

madelaide · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:15 »

gaja,

I agree that the image does not show disability - what is certainly a reason for joy - and that this type of image of a specific condition fits better the RM world, unless it's a very common problem (I don't know this name, however, but it may be just my ignorance or a different name in my language).

Regards,
Adelaide

gaja · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2009, 09:57 »

I think I'll send this picture and the rejection reason to her physical therapist, she will enjoy it as much as I'm beginning to.

Erb's palsy is quite common, and it is getting more common in the western world as the birth weights are rising. Both Stalin and Queen Victoria apparantly had this injury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erb%27s_palsy

Here is another picture that got accepted: http://www.dreamstime.com/child-with-erbs-palsy-playing-in-pool-image7657849

You who have fresh eyes; Why is that a better illustration than the one that got rejected?

fotografer · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2009, 10:20 »

If I was a reviewer I would probably have rejected both of these images for the use of those keywords. All I see in these images is a normal cute healthy little girl playing. Congratulations to your daughter her therapist and yourself for getting her to the stage where her disability isn't noticeable to the untrained eye.

Quote from: gaja on January 26, 2009, 09:57

I think I'll send this picture and the rejection reason to her physical therapist, she will enjoy it as much as I'm beginning to.

Erb's palsy is quite common, and it is getting more common in the western world as the birth weights are rising. Both Stalin and Queen Victoria apparantly had this injury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erb%27s_palsy

Here is another picture that got accepted: http://www.dreamstime.com/child-with-erbs-palsy-playing-in-pool-image7657849

You who have fresh eyes; Why is that a better illustration than the one that got rejected?

MikLav · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:32 »

Quote from: gaja on January 26, 2009, 09:57

You who have fresh eyes; Why is that a better illustration than the one that got rejected?

I suppose the other reviewer didn't pay that much attention to those special medical keywords

Mellimage · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2009, 11:48 »

or because of the better description?

"Sweet child with brachial plexus paralysis playing with the healty hand, while the paralyzed hand rests behind her."

tan510jomast · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2009, 12:00 »

gaja, if the reviewer sees only a normal child, so will the buyers.
i think we can try to look at it from yet another positive perspective.
1) we are happy for you that your lovely child looks normal
2) then reupload the same shot and just name it "happy baby playing in the pool".
this way your photo will be more generic. which means more potential to sell.
why limit your chances of selling it in a niche market?

gaja · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2009, 12:42 »

Thank you for all your kind words and advice, all of you! I guess I have had a quite narrow focus, I'll try to start photographing the normal kid that everyone else sees.

Calamity_John · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2009, 12:59 »

hi Gaja

Thank you for broaching this issue ..
I too struggle with lighting and am the parent of a disabled child.

and have been trying to figure out if and what kind of "place" (for lack of a better word) this has in my microstock portfolio ..

our son is severely autistic .. he is 15 .. 5'11 .. 250 lb and functions at about an 18 month old level (to oversimplify) ..

with the prevalence of autism I would guess there may be enough of a market for images on that topic .. but I am not sure about my desire or ability to really capture the essence of it (for microstock) ... how I feel about doing a model release for my son given his functioning level etc.

I have taken some baby steps using my daughters to do some really common symptoms and themes .. but I haven't really gotten what I want out of that ..

anyway thanks for going down this path.

take care,

John

tan510jomast · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2009, 13:05 »

Quote from: gaja on January 26, 2009, 12:42

Thank you for all your kind words and advice, all of you! I guess I have had a quite narrow focus, I'll try to start photographing the normal kid that everyone else sees.

Awesome ! we all have our "disability", even if we all look "normal". The world will see what it wants to see. I wish your child a fantastic life, living the way your child chooses to be.

I look forward to seeing more happy child photographs in your port. Keep well !

gaja · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2009, 13:43 »

John,

It is very difficult to show other people something that is so incredible clear to you. It is like another picture I tried to do, from a fossil dig in Africa. To other people it just looked like a pile of rocks, while I saw evidence of several different species.

It is a choice whether to publish pictures of those who can't decide for themselves. I would not upload an unflattering picture of the kids, or put them in uncomfortable positions. But I don't think there is a large difference between taking a photo of my oldest, compared to my youngest.

The good thing is, that even though I might not get good stock pictures, I get some quite decent family pictures for the grandparents.

all the best,
gaja

Quote from: Calamity_John on January 26, 2009, 12:59

hi Gaja

Thank you for broaching this issue ..
I too struggle with lighting and am the parent of a disabled child.

and have been trying to figure out if and what kind of "place" (for lack of a better word) this has in my microstock portfolio ..

our son is severely autistic .. he is 15 .. 5'11 .. 250 lb and functions at about an 18 month old level (to oversimplify) ..

with the prevalence of autism I would guess there may be enough of a market for images on that topic .. but I am not sure about my desire or ability to really capture the essence of it (for microstock) ... how I feel about doing a model release for my son given his functioning level etc.

I have taken some baby steps using my daughters to do some really common symptoms and themes .. but I haven't really gotten what I want out of that ..

anyway thanks for going down this path.

take care,

John

Phil · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2009, 18:22 »

well in my ignorance I just see a cute and happy baby

lephotography · « **Reply #20 on:** February 05, 2009, 22:52 »

sometimes when a reviewer sees a image, they have to think about "Is this keyworded and described and named pertaining to what is in the image." If you see a abandoned fishing boat on the beach and it is described with keywords as a vacation getaway... and keywords are sometimes wild and no where describing the image... that is an easy call to know what to do.
If you see a child and they look normal and in no way looks handicapped or shows a child looking different but shows in the image as a normal looking child in a normal pose or atmospher. what is a reviewer to do?

null · « **Reply #21 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:36 »

I worked with cerebral palsy children 8 years ago, and it's very difficult to see the inability on a still image. You would see it on a vid clearly since they are also spastic and they have odd eye movements. Stock is about what any average viewer can see immediately in the image, not all the circumstances or conditions around. The easiest way to picture disability is in a wheelchair or something very clearly visible at first glance in a still image.

What if I used this kid as a psychotic serial killer?

He actually is. He broke into a nursery two weeks ago with a large knife and a bullet proof vest, and he butchered a ward and 2 babies and injured many others. He had a plan to intrude other nurseries in the neighborhood, and he heard voices.

I you want an image to depict psychosis and a serial killer, this is not an image to chose.

anaire · « **Reply #22 on:** February 06, 2009, 16:46 »

I just think they're cute.
Both of them, the baby AND the baby-killer! (Oh my God! Baby killer!... )
And I'm very happy your daughter is doing so well.
. with microstock and selling that image! She is a cutie and is doing fine and that is all that matters.
Change the keywords, take more photos of her and enjoy having such a wonderful model all for yourself!
Wish you all the best!
@FlemishDreams - did you actually take that photo yourself? Do you know him?
What he did is terrible, but I almost feel sorry for him too. He's sick.
And he has such lovely hair...
But then, Ted Bundy wasn't that bad looking either. His hair was alright too, and so were his blue eyes

lisafx · « **Reply #23 on:** February 06, 2009, 18:08 »

I think the appearance of normalcy in psychopaths is what enables them to gain access to people and situations they shouldn't have.

But on the much more pleasant topic at hand, I too would have failed to see your daughter's disability. She is so darling and precious that her beauty is all that is visible

I wish microstock had been around when my daughter was that age. You are blessed to have the equipment and talent to document her growing up. Those pictures will be something you treasure as she gets older. And I agree with the others - enjoy uploading pictures of her and don't bother with the disability keywords unless they are extremely obvious.

null · « **Reply #24 on:** February 06, 2009, 18:52 »

Quote from: anaire on February 06, 2009, 16:46

@FlemishDreams - did you actually take that photo yourself

Of course not. The image is from a major newspaper but I cropped it to fit here. If it was somebody I knew or he wasn't a "celebrity" now I would never post his image for privacy reasons. He was a good student at school, comes from a normal family, never gave trouble, just had a history of some depressions. Unlike most serial killers he didn't attempt suicide. Mystery...

Most relevant BBC article (click).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The strangest rejection reason yet (Read 9046 times)

gaja

Dreamframer

gaja

leaf

tan510jomast

gaja

Dreamframer

gostwyck

Dreamframer

madelaide

gaja

fotografer

MikLav

Mellimage

tan510jomast

gaja

Calamity_John

tan510jomast

gaja

Phil

lephotography

null

anaire

lisafx

null

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors