|
|
About batch of 100 photos (from few different sessions) were rejected becouse "out of focus" I dont know where your inspectors have eyes but Im pissed off enouch already. Its officialy. I wont upload even one new photo here. Its a waste of time. Im done.
Ps. Note for admin. Go and check those "out of focus" photos in my rejected area. Congratulate your inspectors also!
|
|
|
it makes a good company, Daniel.
i envy your nerve. i gave it up 3 months ago by the same reason.
|
|
|
Daniel, when viewed at 25% of full size, your images look amazing, but when we check them at 100%, there are problems with a lot of them. According to their meta-data, you shoot using a Fuji Finepix S3 Pro. The special thing about this camera is that is uses an unusual kind of sensor and picture processing system, which interpolates the images, making them artificially large. The result is that many of the photo show clear problems when viewed in full size.
In the future, I would suggest that you consider not uploading the images in full 12 megapixel size as they come out of the camera, but rather scale them down to a size where the technical issues are not that vissible, perhaps to 75% of their original size.
That said, our inspectors have perhaps been a bit too strict with these particular images, so one of our staff members will look through the recently rejected photos of yours, and a number of them will be approved, though not all.
|
|
|
To understand the technical issues in this case it would be great to see some crops so everyone can see what the problem is.
On other sites people are ranting the same way and when they are asked to post a 100% crop it is usually clear why the images got rejected.
Let everyone see and judge for themselves. Every agency has the right to reject any image and that's also why I have the smallest portfolio here on Crestock but I also know that they have a great collection that you can't find everywhere else!
Good luck.
|
|
|
I think I'm about to join you guys. I've been putting up with the crazy rejections for a long time and when I got a call from the Crestock office asking for suggestions, this was one of the first ones I pointed out.
I just got another batch of perfectly good shots rejected for some absurd reasons and I don't think I'm going to waste any more time in uploading till these guys get their act together.
Hopefully the suggestions that they're looking for will have some impact... but till then, I'll give my images to agencies that appreciate them.
Rohit
|
|
|
Yeah, photos from Fuji S3 pro and Canon MKII. They all are 'out of focus'. So what that that photos are taken with top lenses also. I wonder when you realize that 17Mpix photos are cant be that sharp as 6 or 8 Mpix.
Here is a tip: Try to make real money finnaly and do some serious changes.
|
|
|
Text: I have been in the photo stock business "from the beginning" and have (under different "names") nearly 4000 individual photos online. On the basis of my experience I got a few observations: All stock companies have their “profile” or “pattern of rejections” and that is OK. Problem is, though, when a stock site does NOT have a clear and recognisable “rejection pattern”. Submitting photographers get kind of confused or frustrated: What does this site want, really? This phenomena of no clear and recognizable "pattern of rejection and approval”, I believe, is to some extend the result of inexperienced inspectors and/or no real consensus in practice about what to reject and accept. To some degree, I believe Crestock does not have a fully recognizable rejection and approval pattern. I am confident, though, that this will change. Why? Because no stock site can survive in the long run with no easily recognisable “rejection pattern”, or too many rejections. The site will grow too slow compared to other sites to be competative. Why? Because photographers will be less encouraged to submit photos and consequently, the stock site will have too few photos to attract a serious number of buyers. End result: Bad business for everyone. Of course, a very radical (and understandable) rejection policy will be acceptable to photographers IF they get a significant payment for each photo sold, But $0,25 is hardly significant. Solution: Either a clear and recognisable rejection pattern WITHOUT too many rejections. Or a kind of super tough, recognisable rejections pattern with only super-super photos being accepted COMBINED with a very significant payment per photo sold. I am sure Crestock will handle these issues and succeed, so I don't stop submitting. :) PS: A comment to a former post, even a Canon 1Ds MarkII (with super L-lenses) is not immune to “out of focus” or blurred photos, it very much depends on how you handle the camera and the conditions in general (I know by experience, I use the MarkII myself). One is not a super photographer just because one has a super camera. Dhoxax
|
|
|
Jacob, you know me and you know Dash. why this "having good camera doesn't make you good protographer"? we are both belonging to the same "top 50 stock photographers worldwide" as you do. we are no less experts in sharpness and not less concerned on constant quality improvement than you. "rejection policy" stuff you wrote is smart. but "having a good camera doesn't make you" is bullshit considering the person you're communicating with. Daniel is good with any camera.
you, Dash, me - we are "creme de la creme" of microstock performers. so there's no need for us to "teach" each other. stop this "having good camera doesn't make you good". you know Dash is as good photographer as you. period.
|
|
|
To dolgachov Mistaken identity, I believe, so just to clear things up: I am not Jacob (the person you seem to know). And my comments that having a good camera does not automatically make one a good photographer, was a general observation, not a specific comment to you or anyone else. A general comment, but still a true comment. My main point was, of couse, "advising" Crestock to get provide a more clear rejection-approval policy than presently. Better for everyone's business. PS: I have seen your name (dolgachov) on different sites, and you have probably seen some of mine (Dhoxax, Vista, etc.). And from what I have seen of your photos, you are doing a greally great job. Dhoxax et al
|
|
|
outstanding!
"people are always asking me if i know tyler durden"
|
|
|
(Sorry for hitting the 'Post Reply' a second time by mistake. Can't delete the copy of my first post above (?))Anyway: To dolgachov: You wrote: "outstanding! "people are always asking me if i know tyler durden". What is your point? Dhoxax
|
|
|
I believe that dolgachov is referring to me, when he said “Jacob” to Dhoxax. How ironic it has been to watch this thread develop. Dhoxax is an oldschool SS’er from back just months after SS started. I know him personally and Ironicly also know Dolgachov personally.
Taking sharp pictures is an art-form and something that I have not even learned to fully master jet. I too also use the Mark II and the Canon 5D, and only shoot L prime glass mostly, and sharpness is still a daily concern to my business. I go to extremes to get as sharp pictures as possible, because after having paid my assistants for developing, retouching, keywording etc., it is very bad business getting files rejected.
Crestock accepts a lot more then for example IS and SS, so I really don’t understand what all this fuss is about. According to basic psychology, the degree of how offended a person gets from an insult heavily depends on the positive self evaluations made by that person. High degree of offended ness follows high degree of positive self evaluation. Off cause the degree of insult also impacts on the degree of offended ness, say, a big insult results in a larger degree of offendedness, then a small insult. Lets analyse these facts for a while.
Is the “insult” from a rejection bigger at crestock then at other places? Hardly, I would say even kinder and often a lot faster then other places.
This leaves us with one mayor contributor to the degree of offendedness: Self evaluation.
Micro stock has offered the opportunities for the rise of new photographers to into the stock industry. The stock industry is not new however, and holds a lot of old-timers that are extremely specialised and skilled in stock photography. I know this, because I do also sell pictures at non-micro stock agencies, and know of the competition at these places. Take a step back guys before being too proud to get rejections, and don’t put anything more then personal characteristics such as “persistency” and “effort” into being top 50 in micro stock.
There are many photographic leagues out there to compete in, and micro stock is just one of them, and probably also the easiest one to compete in.
“Creme da la crema” is about good pictures, but that’s not all, it is also about calibrating monitors, using irritatingly huge 16bit tiff files, shooting RAW and developing them the right way, using a tripod at irritatingly high shutterspeeds to get sharp pictures, checking, re-checking, triple-checking, reloading and checking again, using only the best and most expensive equipment, taking criticism seriously, reading tutorials, improving skills, hiring models, assistants, stylists, locations scouters and not just friends, going to photographic gatherings, building colleagues and leaning from them etc. Creme da la cream is NOT sitting at home making nicely looking files, but forgetting al about the matters that rally differentiates between professionals and semi-professionals. Selling at microstock agencies surely make you a professional in the sense “getting money from your pictures”, but it does not make you a top class photographer, that takes a whole lot more.
|
|
|
I'd have to agree with you. I have been working with 6 other stock agencies and today submitted my very best selling photos, which are pretty consistent across the different agencies.All but 2 were rejected, mostly because of "composition". Most amusing is the fact that several are very similar to "today's best image" in composition. What's also funny is that I had 2 identical photos only with 2 different children. One was accepted and the other rejected because of "composition". I have no interest in wasting my time here either. I asked them to close my account.
|
|
|
Not only that. If the concept is that only "la creme de la creme" belongs here, then please explain why customers buy from "la non creme"(such as me), or else ask the non-creme (what a messy scene) to exit crestock. I think this could be said straightforwardly, instead of all this funny philosophy and the no-time rejections. It's a stock agency, but others act differently. No animosity, I would just like clarity, and I believe most of the submitters would like the same.
BTW, a little story: The other day I was looking for some Italian wines in NYC and I asked the shop owner if he had more than I was looking at. He replied, bluntly "That's all I need". I laughed (inside me) and thought "Funny, that's not what I (the customer) need". I gently left the store and there are pretty good chances that I won't put my foot in that wine store again. Hey, this is New York City, right?:)
|
|
|
I too also use the Mark II and the Canon 5D, and only shoot L prime glass mostly, and sharpness is still a daily concern to my business. I go to extremes to get as sharp pictures as possible, because after having paid my assistants for developing, retouching, keywording etc., it is very bad business getting files rejected.
i repeat:
no need for us to "teach" each other. stop this "having good camera doesn't make you good". you know Dash is as good photographer as you. period.
|
|
|
"no need for us to "teach" each other", you said.Well, I guess everyone can learn something from everyone, no matter how good one is. Surely, if one does not, one will not make progress as fast as possible could be. And some things won't be learned at all. Why? Because no one has the time and the possibility to try out everything in the world of photography. Better to get engaged in a collective process of learning.
|
|
|
Yuri_Arcurs (1/31/2007)
Taking sharp pictures is an art-form and something that I have not even learned to fully master jet. I too also use the Mark II and the Canon 5D, and only shoot L prime glass mostly, and sharpness is still a daily concern to my business. I go to extremes to get as sharp pictures as possible, because after havi |