Author Topic: Reviewers allergy or global trend? (Read 26064 times)

lagereek · « **Reply #25 on:** June 26, 2010, 08:58 »

Quote from: FD-regular on June 26, 2010, 03:16

Quote from: lagereek on June 26, 2010, 02:45
Im not interested in acceptance rate, etc, rejects goes with the territory. Admins in these Micros tend to take the reviewers decisions as final, i.e. they simply CANT be wrong, well imagine telling a contributor he has to adjust the White-Balance in a blue-toning conceptual shot??? i.e. he didnt like the toning, etc. I mean how crazy can it get? ...
Bloody hell and this is what we invest our future in?
Reality check. Those sites are not interested in your art, and not in you, and certainly not in your future. They are interested in sheer volume, 1-2-3 million extra per year, they are interested in their own future. They are interested in the commissions that come with it, the more, the merrier. If they lose great art that way, they don't care: it's just collateral damage, justified by a 1000 other plain well lit F16 shots that will make them more commissions.

Microstock is getting very conservative, it plays on proven concepts.
Try iStock: they became very open for more artsy creations and they promote those actively on their homepage. Not so surprisingly, they also pay their reviewers the best.
If that fails, get ready for RM.

Oh! I know that, Im a sparkling Diamond at IS and an even more sparkling member of the Getty-RM since 93, so frankly youre not telling me anything new but however I will give you that:
none of them is interested in quality, just volume, what a pitty and pretty strange there are any rejects at all really, considering " crap in, crap out".

best.

Artemis · « **Reply #26 on:** June 26, 2010, 09:14 »

Not be an ass, but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too)

I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT) like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #27 on:** June 26, 2010, 10:58 »

Quote from: Artemis on June 26, 2010, 09:14

Not be an ass, but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too) I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT) like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.

I think the point is people ARE trying to get non typical images through. They just can't get them past the reviewers. Most recently I had many rejections for not indicating a picture as an illustration. So the reviewer doesn't have the ability to distinguish a photograph from a illustration. Then there is the group of 4 images where the first two get rejected for noise and the second two get rejected for too many similars. Sorry I don't understand that at all. Many rejections for focus, on limited focus images where there is in fact a focal point and that focal point is where it should be. But the guy with the button went to the school of f/64 and couldn't image such a thing.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #28 on:** June 26, 2010, 11:48 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 26, 2010, 10:58

Most recently I had many rejections for not indicating a picture as an illustration. So the reviewer doesn't have the ability to distinguish a photograph from a illustration. Then there is the group of 4 images where the first two get rejected for noise and the second two get rejected for too many similars. Sorry I don't understand that at all. Many rejections for focus, on limited focus images where there is in fact a focal point and that focal point is where it should be. But the guy with the button went to the school of f/64 and couldn't image such a thing.

I hear you! SS is especially bad. I tried to complain, and they sent me snippets of the out-of-focus areas of the images (which all had a clearly defined focal point) and told me my images are blurry! I couldn't believe my eyes! Seriously - how can you be in business for so long selling images and not understand even the basic concepts of depth of field? Apparently, easy enough:)
Your example about "noise" and "too similar" rejections made me laugh out loud:)
I think we all see where this is all going... At some point I'll just stop submitting to some of the micros. You know what else is funny? I was invited to participate in a survey by SS as one of their best-selling photographers a little while ago. One of the main questions was "how can we attract more talented photographers to our site" and get more good images in their collection. I told them - identify people that are selling well and stop getting in their way. Train your reviewers to be photography professionals and to recognize good sellable images. So they spent money on that survey and are doing exactly opposite - turning people away. Money well spent!:) Well it's their choice.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #29 on:** June 26, 2010, 11:52 »

Quote from: Artemis on June 26, 2010, 09:14

Not be an ass, but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too) I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT) like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.

We are talking here about the overall trend based on the reviews of thousands of images. Not to be an ass, but your "latest 4 accepted" does not statistically qualify:)

Artemis · « **Reply #30 on:** June 26, 2010, 12:09 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on June 26, 2010, 11:52

Quote from: Artemis on June 26, 2010, 09:14
Not be an ass, but i really can't relate to this thread... to me it always seemed reversed. My somewhat more 'special' stuff gets easier accepted than the typical stock things (which often come back as LCV, probably true these days too) I feel like now more than ever they ("they" being SS,iS, DT) like the stuff that is a bit different.
My latest 4 accepted at SS are pretty dark and/or B/W stuff and you see enough others in newest too... strange everyone else seems to have such a different experience.

We are talking here about the overall trend based on the reviews of thousands of images. Not to be an ass, but your "latest 4 accepted" does not statistically qualify:)

Oh i know, and never pretended they were, i usually also mention my port is small and not relevant for statistics (and thats why i also mentioned the newest too, as in newly accepted from others?). I can see what gets newly accepted on all sites and again, i can not relate to this thread. Especially iS seems very welcoming to 'different' stuff but i see it on SS as well, maybe less on DT.
I was merely pointing out i find it odd everyone seems to be agreeing on this. I can't, so i posted my humble experience; i do NOT have the pretention, nor had the intention to say you're all wrong. I just assumed it would be ok to post how i see it, even if i'm "insignificant"?

lagereek · « **Reply #31 on:** June 27, 2010, 12:49 »

Well to be fair, reviewers in the big 5 are in general good, cant complain really but theres got to be concistancy and know-how right across the board or else potential great sellers are lost at a loss for us and an even bigger loss for the agencies.
They have to look further then just technical stuff, etc or they will loose credibillity and once that happen the whole thing gets unsure and shakey.
I personally dont feel happy anymore uploading conceptual shots to SS and simply because these conceptuals have already been accepted by IS, FT, DT, etc.

They probably dont give a toss about threads like these but two years from now they would.

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #32 on:** June 29, 2010, 11:15 »

2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

lagereek · « **Reply #33 on:** June 29, 2010, 12:43 »

Quote from: MicrostockExp on June 29, 2010, 11:15

2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #34 on:** June 29, 2010, 13:05 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 29, 2010, 12:43

Quote from: MicrostockExp on June 29, 2010, 11:15
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.

Successive edits can go a couple of ways. If you took the selects of an edit and gave them to another editor then those selects to another editor etc. It's only a matter of time before no images were selected. Second way is to take the rejects of an edit and pass those to another editor and then take those rejects and pass them to another etc. It is only a matter of time before all the images are selected. This guy is working the second method.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #35 on:** June 29, 2010, 13:07 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 29, 2010, 13:05

Quote from: lagereek on June 29, 2010, 12:43
Quote from: MicrostockExp on June 29, 2010, 11:15
2/14 accepted on my last batch, annoying as it seems that they want all the picture to be in focus.....
Will resubmit these pics in few months I guess.....

Cant see the point in re-submitting really, once its a reject, thats it as far as Im concerned.

Successive edits can go a couple of ways. If you took the selects of an edit and gave them to another editor then those selects to another editor etc. It's only a matter of time before no images were selected. Second way is to take the rejects of an edit and pass those to another editor and then take those rejects and pass them to another etc. It is only a matter of time before all the images are selected. This guy is working the second method. I've known agencies to use the first and they are a real pain in the butt.

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #36 on:** June 29, 2010, 14:38 »

If you think that a picture has some sale potential at SS, then it is worth it, I am not talking about resubmitting everything although it is only a click with Isyndica:)

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #37 on:** June 30, 2010, 05:51 »

I'm sorry I have to disagree with my previous post - in which I basically said that reviews were fair.

I had 100% rejections in my last 2 batches: either I became completely dumb - after 3 years and thousands of pictures accepted - or there's something going on; I can accept rejections but an entire batch rejected for the same reason (focus one time, composition the other time) is weird.

However, I am still confident that it's just a passing phase and things will return to normal, as it happened before.

Should it be a new, stricter policy instead... I would completely agree: quality over quantity would save us from submitting insane quantities of photos; but they should let us know in advance if this is the case

MicrostockExp · « **Reply #38 on:** June 30, 2010, 06:56 »

definitely something going on there....I am surprise not to see any thread about it on SS forum....

Eireann · « **Reply #39 on:** June 30, 2010, 09:18 »

^^
I'll second that.
Something *is* happening and it affects both vectors and photos.
SS reviewers in summer holidays?

borg · « **Reply #40 on:** June 30, 2010, 17:55 »

Last two batches of four photos were rejected 3/4...

All photos are approved on FT and IS...

Something is going on...

lagereek · « **Reply #41 on:** July 01, 2010, 01:23 »

Yep! its called summer-stand-ins! unqualified fellas, trainees, who has great difficulty in separating a color-file from a B/W shot.

It sure as hell gives a lot of confidance, doesnt it?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #42 on:** July 01, 2010, 12:44 »

Quote from: lagereek on July 01, 2010, 01:23

Yep! its called summer-stand-ins! unqualified fellas, trainees, who has great difficulty in separating a color-file from a B/W shot.

It sure as hell gives a lot of confidance, doesnt it?

I thought it was just me. Now I have to try and make something decent, daylight, and see if it gets rejected for "artifacts at full size". I should know better than send in any Sunset image with silhouettes, they always get the boot.

Void · « **Reply #43 on:** July 03, 2010, 09:31 »

As for me, I know something is wrong when IS accepts what SS rejects......
And that is whats been happening here....
Thinking of making a SS summer rejects folder and resubbing when things get back to normal....

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #44 on:** July 04, 2010, 14:44 »

80% of my last two batches were approved - maybe a bit too early to draw statistical inference, but things may be returning to normal at SS

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #45 on:** July 04, 2010, 15:07 »

I was skeptical about this thread until my last batch. WHAM! Everything rejected??? It is being accepted at BigStock and at 123rf. Still pending (of course) at Dreamstime.

Maybe SS does have a summer allergy.

lagereek · « **Reply #46 on:** July 05, 2010, 08:30 »

On a serious note! from a business perspective, this is dreadful, bad reviewing is liable to cost money, theres no time or place for dilletants that cant do their job properly.

borg · « **Reply #47 on:** July 05, 2010, 11:55 »

There is one or more "phantom reviewers"...

Everything depend about his/their activity....

louoates · « **Reply #48 on:** July 05, 2010, 12:06 »

My theory:
If a reviewer rejects an image for whatever reason it is not likely to reflect badly on them with their bosses. Few submitters will challenge the rejection through normal channels even though they may re-submit it later unchanged and have it accepted by a different reviewer. So the rejections slither under the radar with management. From an employees point of view it's safer to have a higher reject rate rather than being called on the carpet for accepting an image that may have had some debatable flaw.

The other element is a reviewer's time. I bet rejections take less time to process thus earnings are higher with more rejections. Human nature being what it is. Again, my theory.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #49 on:** July 05, 2010, 14:02 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 25, 2010, 11:20

Yup! I think its about time to concentrate on RM portfolios, micro, RF, seems to be slipping, not much is working nowdays and as you say, any old generic rubbish is accepted almost as if the RM people are saying, Look! we want the creative stuff, you stick to the middle of the road.
might be a slight over the top but something fishy is going on.

I started concentrating on Editorial two years ago and started cutting Micro RF sites as they reached payout. I'm still happy with SS and IS RF returns, the rest need to go. (personal view, some may do fine with RF people on white. I never shot any of those.)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Reviewers allergy or global trend? (Read 26064 times)

lagereek

Artemis

PeterChigmaroff

Elenathewise

Elenathewise

Artemis

lagereek

MicrostockExp

lagereek

PeterChigmaroff

PeterChigmaroff

MicrostockExp

microstockphoto.co.uk

MicrostockExp

Eireann

borg

lagereek

RacePhoto

Void

microstockphoto.co.uk

WarrenPrice

lagereek

borg

louoates

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors