Author Topic: Initial thoughts on Veer reviews (Read 18674 times)

Milinz · « **Reply #25 on:** June 19, 2009, 03:13 »

Quote from: puravida on June 18, 2009, 14:00

Quote from: Milinz on June 18, 2009, 08:43
.................- I review on some place too.

YES we know too, it's not Fotolia but F----------. Reading your posts, it's not that difficult to guess which site.

Well... I didn't stated anything. And that where is really not important at all!
BTW, most reviewers are changing agencies - so one day they may be at IS and other day they may be at SS... At the end I happen to know some people here who was reviewers or still are, but that where is really not relevant ;-)

sgcallaway1994 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 19, 2009, 10:07 »

Brian~

I think I may have received a questionable review. All my images were rejected for the SAME reason..." Pixel quality issue (noise, compression or resizing artifacts) ". Why I believe something went wrong is because each image was not related to the other. They are ALL from separate photo shoots (with the exception of 1). In addition, ALL of these images have been approved on other sites, many of which have an EXTREMELY tough review process. Could someone please look into this.... here are just a few examples.

http://us.fotolia.com/id/11256108
http://us.fotolia.com/id/13281300
http://us.fotolia.com/id/14589317
http://us.fotolia.com/id/14708214
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9041689
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=8953306

Thanks, I just wanted to confirm something strange didn't occur with my upload because I'm having a difficult time believing these images truly have issues with artifacts or pixel quality.

peresanz · « **Reply #27 on:** June 19, 2009, 10:29 »

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on June 19, 2009, 10:07

Brian~

I think I may have received a questionable review. All my images were rejected for the SAME reason..." Pixel quality issue (noise, compression or resizing artifacts) ". Why I believe something went wrong is because each image was not related to the other. They are ALL from separate photo shoots (with the exception of 1). In addition, ALL of these images have been approved on other sites, many of which have an EXTREMELY tough review process. Could someone please look into this.... here are just a few examples.

http://us.fotolia.com/id/11256108
http://us.fotolia.com/id/13281300
http://us.fotolia.com/id/14589317
http://us.fotolia.com/id/14708214
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9041689
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=8953306

Thanks, I just wanted to confirm something strange didn't occur with my upload because I'm having a difficult time believing these images truly have issues with artifacts or pixel quality.

Funny thing, last week I had 7 images in a row rejected for the same reason "Pixel quality issue...". The rest of submitted images have been approved included the initial 10, or sent back to the edit folder for further work. What is curious is having a rejection in a row for the same reason...Thought I found questionable these rejections, no complains here. I Just follow the question, in case that there is an error here.

Cheers,

Pere

Milinz · « **Reply #28 on:** June 19, 2009, 10:29 »

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on June 19, 2009, 10:07

Brian~

I think I may have received a questionable review. All my images were rejected for the SAME reason..." Pixel quality issue (noise, compression or resizing artifacts) ". Why I believe something went wrong is because each image was not related to the other. They are ALL from separate photo shoots (with the exception of 1). In addition, ALL of these images have been approved on other sites, many of which have an EXTREMELY tough review process. Could someone please look into this.... here are just a few examples.

http://us.fotolia.com/id/11256108
http://us.fotolia.com/id/13281300
http://us.fotolia.com/id/14589317
http://us.fotolia.com/id/14708214
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9041689
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=8953306

Thanks, I just wanted to confirm something strange didn't occur with my upload because I'm having a difficult time believing these images truly have issues with artifacts or pixel quality.

Well, for todays standards there is some bad pixels at first two images - at blue surfaces... You'd use some image denoiser and try to kill that noise.
At dog images there is also noise on eyes - slightly pixels and more reflections which are unwanted by many people now... Well I'd try to make that look a bit more natural if possible.

Those on iStock I leave to people from iStock to comment - I really don't understand iStock standards.... They've rejected some of my images for artifacts and that was not something I understood because I didn't find any...

null · « **Reply #29 on:** June 19, 2009, 10:52 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 19, 2009, 03:13

Quote from: puravida on June 18, 2009, 14:00
Quote from: Milinz on June 18, 2009, 08:43
.................- I review on some place too.

YES we know too, it's not Fotolia but F----------. Reading your posts, it's not that difficult to guess which site.

Well... I didn't stated anything. And that where is really not important at all!
BTW, most reviewers are changing agencies - so one day they may be at IS and other day they may be at SS... At the end I happen to know some people here who was reviewers or still are, but that where is really not relevant ;-)

At least we know who Atilla is now.

cathyslife · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2009, 16:44 »

@puravida

That was your biggest mistake : submit your 10 best sellers from IS and other sites.
You read that Veer wants to be different. Also, who would want to have images that have sold and sold and sold. Even an IS exclusive has pointed here on another thread re Yuri and another stock site,
"who wants a pile of images that have been sold so many times already on so many other sites" , or words to that effect.

Don't give up just yet. Stop trying to compare Veer to "all the other sites". Give them your best images that have not been submitted or sold . You don't give old shoes to a new man in town.
Good luck.

That is a good point. But if the images I'm submitting to Veer are not exclusive, that means I might have the same images on other sites. So if one of the images that I post on Veer takes off on another site I am on, then the photo on Veer isn't going to be different anymore, is it? To me, the only way to be different on Veer is to shoot exclusively for Veer. Hmmm....

I'll go through some of my latest uploads that haven't had a chance to sell yet and see if something there might be a better fit and give it one more shot. And all this time I thought my photography work was getting better and better...

puravida · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2009, 18:03 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 19, 2009, 16:44

That is a good point. But if the images I'm submitting to Veer are not exclusive, that means I might have the same images on other sites. So if one of the images that I post on Veer takes off on another site I am on, then the photo on Veer isn't going to be different anymore, is it? To me, the only way to be different on Veer is to shoot exclusively for Veer. Hmmm....

I'll go through some of my latest uploads that haven't had a chance to sell yet and see if something there might be a better fit and give it one more shot. And all this time I thought my photography work was getting better and better...

Rather than view it as rejects from the Big 5 , better to think from a different point.
The simplest analogy would be IS and SS, as we all know it. Many times the one you think is a sure thing for SS are the same ones that gets rejected by IS. It's not because they are lousy images, just that the buyers needs or culture is different . Same with DT and FT.
If you look at Veer , the elder brother, you will see what I mean. There is really no point of Veer opening a micro site that is a clone of SS , IS, DT , and FT is there?
They have to hold their own to succeed, so it's no surprise they are looking for something else.
I would say, submit the newest images you have, rather than the ones that already sold well elsewhere.

And as you say, they sell like the other sites, well, it really does not matter then. They just want to have the new images like the others, not your old stuff. Hope I explain properly my point.

melastmohican · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2009, 18:27 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 18, 2009, 19:41

I uploaded my initial 10 on 6/10. I just got notice today that all 10 were rejected. Here's the reason:

Based on these 10 images, we can't offer you contributor privileges at this time. You are welcome to submit 10 new images

I uploaded my 10 best sellers from IS and other sites. I am really bummed. Not only am I a reject, but the reason is so generic and lame, I don't even know why they were rejected. Not good enough? Not the right content?

Wow, I feel like such a loser.

I bet bestsellers from other agencies might be your oldest images not necessary your best images :-) I am not sure what percentage of reviewers comes from SV, how many from macro and how many are newbies. You might need a fresh look. Your bestsellers might fail if you apply to IS again today :-)

mattb · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2009, 20:52 »

I had something really strange happen with my initial batch, they all got sent to "needs work" for releases. There was an issue with the model release I used, so I understand why those got pushed back but I'm confused as to the rest of them. Has anyone had to supply releases for images at Veer when non of the other agencies needed one?

null · « **Reply #34 on:** June 20, 2009, 06:58 »

Quote from: mattb on June 19, 2009, 20:52

Has anyone had to supply releases for images at Veer when non of the other agencies needed one?

Yes, this one was accepted but needed a model release. I don't understand why since the facial screen of the firefighter is one-way vision to reflect the heath and the light, and all skin parts included hands are covered with thick protective clothes. No way they could recognize themselves here. It's two girls.

Crop at 100%:

It was accepted without MRF at DT and SS, but I put a remark for the reviewer there. Perhaps Veer should have a field like that too.
Incidentally, BigStock rejected it for "not interesting for stock". Go figure

puravida · « **Reply #35 on:** June 20, 2009, 07:23 »

Then again, not with Veer but with DT,etc...I had similar images of unidentifiable professional people at worksites rejected due to MR. One set was even just a silhouette of construction workers in the distance, occupying not even 20% of the image. I can relate to the fact that perharps even though these professionals are (unable to recognize themselves), the setting is recognizable and (could) be connected and in turn be recognized.
eg. the building site , or in your case FD, the demo of the firefighters. Just guessing the reason, though.

mattb · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2009, 18:46 »

If I really stretch I could maybe understand the firefighters, but I'm still scratching my head on this one.

cathyslife · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2009, 19:54 »

puravida: I understood your explanation perfectly and appreciate the advice. Everything you say makes sense.

I went back through my portfolio and submitted newer images. I also notice that they like people images, so I uploaded some of those, too. Fingers crossed.

Milinz · « **Reply #38 on:** June 22, 2009, 04:58 »

@ Brian:

Hi!

I got some rejections due to irrelevant keywords on some images... I'd be very grateful if your system becomes able for reviewers to mark that irrelevant keywords and show them to contributors... Some of us are not experts in English language and I must admit that marking irrelevant keywords can help to many international contributors to avoid hassle for all.

Cheers!

P.S. Keywords are edited by agencies crews on most sites without asking authors. Maybe you can do the same? Just delete irrelevant keywords? This way we all have lost time (and money).

Milinz · « **Reply #39 on:** June 22, 2009, 05:07 »

I don't buy your oppinion about 'different needs and culture' - that is crap!
Stock Image is either good or not - No one can persuade me that there is something as LCV or 'not needed' for good stock image!

The other thing is about 'new' or 'old' images... That is crap too! Buyers will buy image they need - not the new one or old one... It is really not relevant for buyers if image illustrates what is needed to illustrate.

Quote from: puravida on June 19, 2009, 18:03

Quote from: cclapper on June 19, 2009, 16:44
That is a good point. But if the images I'm submitting to Veer are not exclusive, that means I might have the same images on other sites. So if one of the images that I post on Veer takes off on another site I am on, then the photo on Veer isn't going to be different anymore, is it? To me, the only way to be different on Veer is to shoot exclusively for Veer. Hmmm....

I'll go through some of my latest uploads that haven't had a chance to sell yet and see if something there might be a better fit and give it one more shot. And all this time I thought my photography work was getting better and better...

Rather than view it as rejects from the Big 5 , better to think from a different point.
The simplest analogy would be IS and SS, as we all know it. Many times the one you think is a sure thing for SS are the same ones that gets rejected by IS. It's not because they are lousy images, just that the buyers needs or culture is different . Same with DT and FT.
If you look at Veer , the elder brother, you will see what I mean. There is really no point of Veer opening a micro site that is a clone of SS , IS, DT , and FT is there?
They have to hold their own to succeed, so it's no surprise they are looking for something else.
I would say, submit the newest images you have, rather than the ones that already sold well elsewhere.

And as you say, they sell like the other sites, well, it really does not matter then. They just want to have the new images like the others, not your old stuff. Hope I explain properly my point.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #40 on:** June 22, 2009, 06:48 »

My acceptance ratio is good there. The only thing that surprised me was rejection of some of the best images I had.
About MR: I don't know for Veer, but Alamy needs model release even for silhouettes, unrecognizable people and body parts. I had an image of a beach taken from great distance, so people looked like dark dots. When I wrote to Alamy support, they told me I need model release for all of them, otherwise, the image must be licensed.

bittersweet · « **Reply #41 on:** June 22, 2009, 08:08 »

Quote from: Milinz on June 22, 2009, 05:07

I don't buy your oppinion about 'different needs and culture' - that is crap!
Stock Image is either good or not - No one can persuade me that there is something as LCV or 'not needed' for good stock image!

The other thing is about 'new' or 'old' images... That is crap too! Buyers will buy image they need - not the new one or old one... It is really not relevant for buyers if image illustrates what is needed to illustrate.

Well, his theory was pretty much confirmed by the email that Cathy got. They may edit their collection however they choose. If you don't agree with their editing philosophies, then perhaps they are not a good match for your efforts, and your time would be better spent uploading to an agency that accepts everything you send them.

puravida · « **Reply #42 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:23 »

Quote from: whatalife on June 22, 2009, 08:08

Quote from: Milinz on June 22, 2009, 05:07
I don't buy your oppinion about 'different needs and culture' - that is crap!
Stock Image is either good or not - No one can persuade me that there is something as LCV or 'not needed' for good stock image!

The other thing is about 'new' or 'old' images... That is crap too! Buyers will buy image they need - not the new one or old one... It is really not relevant for buyers if image illustrates what is needed to illustrate.

Well, his theory was pretty much confirmed by the email that Cathy got. They may edit their collection however they choose. If you don't agree with their editing philosophies, then perhaps they are not a good match for your efforts, and your time would be better spent uploading to an agency that accepts everything you send them.

Yes, whatalife understands what I meant by CULTURE.
Milinz, I answer to you on your latest bant (banding) but I will repeat it here for your convenience:
-
You said you are a reviewer. I am shocked that you do not respect another reviewer's judgement for the agency they work. This is what I meant on the other site when I said - the culture of a site . It's not crap, it's what the site tells their reviewers the criteria of what is wanted and what is not.
As whatalife mentioned there too, if you disagree, you can always stop uploading to IS, or Veer, and perharps, upload to the site you review. This way, you don't have to keep crapping on how everyone is unfair to you here on MSG. --

sgcallaway1994 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 22, 2009, 12:56 »

How disappointing....

I guess no one (from VEER) is going to respond to my above rejection issue , I will have to accept that my review wasn't bad, it just is what it is. I won't be questioning any further reviews either. I just thought there was a possiblility of a problem, but I guess not. However, I do find it VERY frustrating to have images denied for reasons which don't make any sense. I-Stock would NEVER approve an image if their was a pixel or artifact issues, they are just too STRICT! If VEER doesn't want my images because they don't fit into their "collection" or big picture, I'd much rather have them say, this isn't the type of image we need right now. It would be far less frustating and confusing for someone like me who is still learning.

Milinz · « **Reply #44 on:** June 22, 2009, 12:58 »

Quote from: puravida on June 22, 2009, 10:23

Quote from: whatalife on June 22, 2009, 08:08
Quote from: Milinz on June 22, 2009, 05:07
I don't buy your oppinion about 'different needs and culture' - that is crap!
Stock Image is either good or not - No one can persuade me that there is something as LCV or 'not needed' for good stock image!

The other thing is about 'new' or 'old' images... That is crap too! Buyers will buy image they need - not the new one or old one... It is really not relevant for buyers if image illustrates what is needed to illustrate.

Well, his theory was pretty much confirmed by the email that Cathy got. They may edit their collection however they choose. If you don't agree with their editing philosophies, then perhaps they are not a good match for your efforts, and your time would be better spent uploading to an agency that accepts everything you send them.

Yes, whatalife understands what I meant by CULTURE.
Milinz, I answer to you on your latest bant (banding) but I will repeat it here for your convenience:
-
You said you are a reviewer. I am shocked that you do not respect another reviewer's judgement for the agency they work. This is what I meant on the other site when I said - the culture of a site . It's not crap, it's what the site tells their reviewers the criteria of what is wanted and what is not.
As whatalife mentioned there too, if you disagree, you can always stop uploading to IS, or Veer, and perharps, upload to the site you review. This way, you don't have to keep crapping on how everyone is unfair to you here on MSG. --

Am I getting on your nerves? You pop in here and say something about some other reviewers as it is connected to veer people? What is your interest in that? Yes I don't respect stupid rules which are enforced by even more stupid people. After this your pop-in here and taking that as I personally offended you, I am sure you have some connection with CULTURE which is NOT COMPATIBLE to my culture. Don't forget one thing: I am liberatian - you are obeyatian!
Do you feel like policeman? Am I someone who must obey some rules which are not fit to me? Forget it man and don't even try to teach me about your moral standards!

As liberatian - I am for possibility that buyers decide what they will or will not buy. Not to give them choice in between basically the same things! That is why I don't fit in 'controlled' environment.

Also, if you don't like to see what I have to say, please press IGNORE button - and voila - no more milinz.

Milinz · « **Reply #45 on:** June 22, 2009, 13:10 »

Quote from: whatalife on June 22, 2009, 08:08

Quote from: Milinz on June 22, 2009, 05:07
I don't buy your oppinion about 'different needs and culture' - that is crap!
Stock Image is either good or not - No one can persuade me that there is something as LCV or 'not needed' for good stock image!

The other thing is about 'new' or 'old' images... That is crap too! Buyers will buy image they need - not the new one or old one... It is really not relevant for buyers if image illustrates what is needed to illustrate.

Well, his theory was pretty much confirmed by the email that Cathy got. They may edit their collection however they choose. If you don't agree with their editing philosophies, then perhaps they are not a good match for your efforts, and your time would be better spent uploading to an agency that accepts everything you send them.

I am pretty sure that Veer review process is far from unfair as on iStock... So far no rejections without reason and therefor I am OK with Veer inspectors!

As for your concerns about what where I should upload or not, I think you should keep your own business and take care about your images. Also, try not to give advices before you are asked for advice!

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** June 22, 2009, 13:41 »

Cathy, I just checked out your latest images on DT. Your newer pictures definitely have more vibrant colors and better lighting than the older ones. I can't imagine they would reject many of them. Your taco series, along with the chili, mac & cheese, and broccoli ones are outstanding. Try submitting some from those.

bittersweet · « **Reply #47 on:** June 22, 2009, 13:52 »

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on June 22, 2009, 12:56

How disappointing....

I guess no one (from VEER) is going to respond to my above rejection issue , I will have to accept that my review wasn't bad, it just is what it is. I won't be questioning any further reviews either. I just thought there was a possiblility of a problem, but I guess not.

Have you contacted them directly? I believe Cathy did that, and received a very detailed explanation (as posted). I wouldn't fault them for not dealing with your personal business on an independent forum. If you contact them through their own web site, and they do not respond, then you would be rightfully disappointed. Don't read too much into them not responding here.

null · « **Reply #48 on:** June 22, 2009, 13:53 »

Quote from: Whitechild on June 22, 2009, 06:48

When I wrote to Alamy support, they told me I need model release for all of them, otherwise, the image must be licensed.

What is "licensed"? Turned into editorial?

Milinz · « **Reply #49 on:** June 22, 2009, 15:22 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on June 22, 2009, 13:49

Quote from: Milinz on June 22, 2009, 13:10
where I should upload or not, I think you should keep your own business and take care about your images. Also, try not to give advices before you are asked for advice!

You must be about the biggest self-indulging moron I ever read here.
At least we stole you Kosovo
Back into my garbage bin.

Well, now I have docummented this and you can hope to get legal court invite for insult!

What civilized people?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Initial thoughts on Veer reviews (Read 18674 times)

Milinz

sgcallaway1994

peresanz

Milinz

null

cathyslife

puravida

melastmohican

mattb

null

puravida

mattb

cathyslife

Milinz

Milinz

Dreamframer

bittersweet

puravida

sgcallaway1994

Milinz

Milinz

lisafx

bittersweet

null

Milinz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors