|
|
Hello,
What is happening with reviews again? I just submitted 45 images and only 9 were accepted. Mind you I am not your typical whiner! I work hard, I am in top 20 best selling photographers on many sites, in top 10 here, had several "images of the day" here on Crestock, I had images on the front pages here and several other stock agencies, and I take pride in submitting quality photos. No I don't claim I am 100% perfect, all of us can make mistakes here and there, sometimes it's just differences in perception, but please, not 9 out of 45. It's ridiculous, and a huge waste of time from both sides. The images are in focus, they are stock worthy, there are no artifacts, there is no color fringing, the content is clear and simple.... Can anybody explain to me what is wrong with them?
Again, I don't usually complain, I have tons on my hd to submit, even more ideas to shoot, I usually just move on. I guess I am writing this here because I like Crestock and I want you guys to succeed, and rejecting good stock images is not the way to do it.
|
|
|
I do not normally complain either, I am the one that tries to motivate everyone to just keep going. The reason for why I write here is that I feel the approval and rejection of images have become more like bingo lately.I am not professional, but I love taking photos. Lately I have found that some og the images I think would be approved actually gets rejected and images I am not sure about are approved. I would like to hear from the team why this approval/rejection rate "changes" so often? Is it a big percentage of personal opinion of the person approving? ThomGolf
|
|
|
I understand your irritation, Elenathewise. I've seen your amazing stuff everywhere-- it seems VERY odd to me that you would have such a high rejection rate here. It IS hard to keep going, because it takes so much time to upload and edit all the info. When I look at the rewards for spending all that time here, and see that I have 89 photos rejected and only 18 or 19 accepted, it's hard to stay. I came here because I liked the look of the site & wanted to contribute to it. I feel that if a microstock agency is going to have such a high rejection rate, they need to consider allowing uploads without text edtiting. Then if the image gets approved, we could go ahead and edit it. Otherwise, it's just not worth the time. I worry that photographers are going to leave here in droves if something doesn't get better.
I had thought that the introduction of the new policy-- some images being allowed at smaller sizes and not large-- was supposedly going to improve the acceptance rate. But I don't see a difference yet. I also don't see many of the suggestions getting implemented. It's hard for me to see why some simple and very needed changes aren't happening. For instance, there are still many links missing from several of the contributor pages. An "upload image" link is needed on every page. And a "my portfolio" link is also needed on every page.
I really want Crestock to succeed, but it's just very unclear how it will, with so many discouraged contributors. I hope something will get better soon. We contributors need to understand the real reasons behind the slim acceptance rate so that we really WANT to upload more photos here. I've wondered if what Crestock wants is to have images that no one else has. If that's the case, maybe that could be stated upfront and there could be a good way to motivate contributors to upload some images only to Crestock.
|
|
|
I completely agree with AardLumens. I also gone & going through the frustration of rejection. Recently when i replied for for my rejections then I got the reply saying that..
>>Thanks for pointing this out, it appears that one of our inspectors have
> > been a bitoverzealous with regards to your images. I go through erroneous
> > inspections every two weeks with our inspectors, to make up for problems
> > such as this, and I would like to use these images as examples of
> > wrongful rejections.
What lesson should we get after hearing this?
|
|
|
Dear uploaders,
I feel it necessary to respond to the criticism quite often lumped upon the inspection team that I both work with and am responsible for. Firstly, we work independently from Crestock, though, of course, using Crestock's standards of quality as guidelines for our decisions. So, any suggestion that Crestock is trying to build a collection of unique pictures not found on any other stock sites, is not quite true because we don't actually know every picture thats on other stock sites. There is too many to know that. We judge every picture on its merits, as a stock photo, regardless of who the photographer is. We are a group of people working together who have experience or education in photography, a high proportion of who are stock photographers themselves. We understand your dissatisfaction at rejections, you put a lot of work into your pictures, something we never forget to respect. But, please remember that the people inspecting your pictures are among some of the best-trained individuals in the entire stock industry.
And, we all want to improve at what we do. That's the lesson we can learn from getting such an email from Crestock, bnilesh.
Please remember that Crestock is trying to build a large and diverse collection of quality pictures that are aimed to sell, and in large amounts to satisfied customers. Obviously, this is a process that takes time and can only be made better with good communication and collaboration between Crestock, the photographers, and the inspection team.
Regards,
Josh
Senior Inspector
|
|
|
Just back here (Crestock) after some time I've gave up with new uploads becouse same reason as Elena. This fresh Elena's post just confirm me in the belief that I did right for now. Well...maybe another time...
Dash / floum.com
|
|
|
I appreciate your reply to previous questions about rejections, but, as someone who never complains about rejections I am going to complain too. Just had a series of photos rejected. The reasons given were ;
* Composition
* Sharp shadows
* Technical Quality
I am none the wiser.
Im British, we never complain, its a cultural thing!
Alex
|
|
|
Haven't logged in to this site in quite some time. I gave up on it a long ago for the very same issue this thread is discussing. Thought I'd pop back in and see if anything has changed. This thread certainly answers that... Maybe I'll log in again in a few months time, or, maybe I won't bother.
|
|
|
Again, photographers and uploaders, if you feel you've been hard done by with inspections please take your concerns to us, either by contacting helpdesk or by posting on the forum. We welcome constructive collaboration of this kind.
I've had communication with Spanishalex, and I hope he doesn't mind me saying that out of the 10 or so disputed rejections we could find one that really could have been approved. I couldn't agree more though that the rejection reasons are often either misplaced or lacking any real explanation of the real issues with the picture. We're actively working on this.
But,a rejection is more a statement that we don't feel that picture would sell. We approve a lot of fantastic pictures (resized) that are a bit lacking in technical quality simply because it has that 'something' that makes it a great and usable picture. We rate them highly too, so that customers will see them and buy them, simply because they're usable and they look good.
You ask what is wrong with the reviews at Crestock? Fair question. But, as a customer, I ask what is wrong with reviews at other sites?? Because when I'm looking for a picture, 80% of what comes up is lazy photography that I can't really feel good about using for anything. Other sites are swamped down by large amounts of pictures that don't sell and are an eyesore. I don't believe Crestock is trying to redefine stock photography. As I understand it, they're just trying to sell your pictures to satisfied customers.
I want to say again, that everything we do here should be done with open collaboration with the photographers, the customers and the staff at Crestock. Trying to make everyone happy is impossible, but hopefully we can challenge ourselves to all improve at what we're doing, which is to the advancement of the stock industry.
Regards,
Josh
Senior Inspector
|
|
|
The series of photos that I recently had rejected were rejected beacause they had sharp shadows. This is because they were taken in direct sunlight by the side of a swimming pool. I thought they would look more realistic without diffusion but I can see why the reviewers thought otherwise. In general, I can see why the photos I submit are rejected when they are.
I would appreciate a more detailed reason as to why photos are rejected, perhaps even with "resubmit if x,y or x is improved" or "good concept, bad execution" suggestion.
My main dilemma as a contributor is that I submit to several sites and my technical standards have been geared towards the strictest of them, which is also a large seller for me. Hopefully sales here will continue to improve to the point where it is actively worth contributors while working towards Crestock's higher standards. Sometimes this is as easy as diffusing direct sunlight. Other times it is a little harder to know exactly what to do to meet the standards here.
The idea here to build up a high quality collection of original photos seems to me to be a good one, and the Microstock industry is now big enough to support the model, especially as the largest sites continue to grow their collections exponentially.
I used to work in written media and the company I worked for developed a style guide for our writer's work. While I understand that this would be much harder to do for photograpy than for words, a simple guide to what Crestock expects would be helpful. Perhaps the best/worst photo concept could be expanded slightly to include an analysis of a photo a day that nearly made and the reasons why it didn't. Eg; object cut off at edge of frame, sharp shadows, no shadow detail, etc.
|
|
|
Josh, I totally agree that we should work hard to satisfy customers. Give them what they are looking for. If we all believe is true, please explain why you just rejected this highly sellable picture of a family in front of their home:
http://www.crestock.com/rejected-image.aspx?id=215048
Where please tell me do you see "sharp shadows" there? Mind you it's an outdoor shot, people do cast shadows unless they are friggin' ghosts. And no the shadows are not sharp. Period. It's a soft late afternoon light.
To people who can't see what image I am talking about, I was considering posting a URL to another site (in fact it was accepted on every site that I am working with), but it would not be appropriate. If you are curious, please go to one of the major sites and sort images by "most popular"... Apparently customers like it! Despite of the mythical "sharp shadows"... hmmm.....
|
|
|
Spanishalex (5/24/2007)
The series of photos that I recently had rejected were rejected beacause they had sharp shadows. This is because they were taken in direct sunlight by the side of a swimming pool. I thought they would look more realistic without diffusion but I can see why the reviewers thought otherwise. In general, I can see why the photos I submit are rejected when they are.
I would appreciate a more detailed reason as to why photos are rejected, perhaps even with "resubmit if x,y or x is improved" or "good concept, bad execution" suggestion.
My main dilemma as a contributor is that I submit to several sites and my technical standards have been geared towards the strictest of them, which is also a large seller for me. Hopefully sales here will continue to improve to the point where it is actively worth contributors while working towards Crestock's higher standards. Sometimes this is as easy as diffusing direct sunlight. Other times it is a little harder to know exactly what to do to meet the standards here.
The idea here to build up a high quality collection of original photos seems to me to be a good one, and the Microstock industry is now big enough to support the model, especially as the largest sites continue to grow their collections exponentially.
I used to work in written media and the company I worked for developed a style guide for our writer's work. While I understand that this would be much harder to do for photograpy than for words, a simple guide to what Crestock expects would be helpful. Perhaps the best/worst photo concept could be expanded slightly to include an analysis of a photo a day that nearly made and the reasons why it didn't. Eg; object cut off at edge of frame, sharp shadows, no shadow detail, etc.
You raise some valid points Alex.
The issue of sharp shadows is a good illustration of the challenges that face our inspectors. Does the shadows in a photo shot in bright sunlight makes the image look more genuine/natural (which is good), or do they look bad, and lessen the general quality of the photo? It's very hard to put any fixed rules/guidelines on what is a "good" shadow and what isn't, so in the end, it's up to the subjective judgement of the inspectors to determine whether or not they like the image as a whole.
No matter what, errors happen, and in the vast majority of the cases, the problem is that the inspectors are too strict, rejecting good images for technical issues that aren't really that important. It's an issue we are working continualy on improving, but it's a process of continued feedback and training. It's getting better!
Another thing you mention, is the somewhat lacking feedback you as a photographer gets from Crestock, making it hard for you to understand what exactly it is we are looking for. We have been aware of this for a while, and trying to figure out some good ideas for improving the communication between the contributors and Crestock, so both parties can get a better understanding of each others needs and challenges.
First of all, we are laying the final touches on some new and much improved rejection notes, which will be more sensible than the one-word rejections we have been sending out for a while now. We hope to have this ready and implemented within a few weeks if all things go as planned.
Still, that's only part of the sollution. A while back, one of our staff members made a suggestion in our forums, to see if people would be interested in getting their images put through "public scrutiny" prior to uploading them to the regular Crestock collection. The idea here is that Crestock staff, inspectors and contributors could all share their views and discuss the qualities of potential stock photos in public for all to see. This would really help you get a better idea of the logic we at Crestock work by, and it would also be a valuable way for us to get feedback on our own quality standards, not to mention that it would be a great way for you to get relevant stock photography feedback, both from your colleagues and from "the industry". With regards to the forum thread linked to earlier, people seemed to like the idea, but no one submitted any images for public review, which is something of a problem since we want this to be on a voluntary basis. Perhaps you Alex, would be willing to be a test pilot? :)
We sincerely wish to open up and improve our communication with all of you, and we are open to suggestions in that regard.
|
|
|
Yes, no problem ,I'll give it a go. Questio is how do I add a photo to the forum that isn't on the site already? Can I upload one in reduced form or does it have to be a link from another site?
|
|
|
Its good to see some good, constructive points being raised here...
In response to Elenathewise's concerns regarding the inspection of one of her better-selling pictures. The picture can be seen here http://www.crestock.com/image/215048-Family-at-a-house.aspx
I can only say that we made a mistake, an inspector was a bit overzealous and managed to overlook the selling qualities of a solid, stock photo. Our humble apologies. I was considering opening it up for discussion on the boards before reinspection, in an attempt to gauge other photographers opinion about it. But, really, theres no need for that. In future, don't hesitate to contact Crestock when you think we've made a mistake. Its very easy for us to see whether a picture would be of benefit to us, by checking on its sales on other sites, for example. Despite our high standards, we don't want to miss out on pictures that sell.
I'd further encourage all of you to participate in Crestock's idea of an open forum for discussion of rejections. This would be something the inspection team would welcome and become active participants in, too.
|
|
|
I worked it out; Photo and 100% crop posted in the forum.
|
|
|
|