|
|
Is this a photo over under exposed?
maybe it's my monitor, but i doubt. Every rejection today for overunderexposure problem. But none of the shot are under or overexposed. Maybe the reviewer should learn how to read an histogram.
http://www.crestock.com/images/260000-269999/265630-xs.jpg
|
Gregi
Mississauga, ON, Canada
|
I have the same problem with my today's submissions. . I submitted pictures of a lighthouse and they were rejected due to over/underexposed. That weird I found in Crestock library lots pictures much more over or underexposed. by the way those rejected pictures were approved on other stock sites.
|
|
|
Jon11,
Our apologies for what appears to just have been a case of human error. The pictures in question have been reevaluated and should now be visible in your profile.
|
|
|
That's interesting. Seven out of my batch of eleven were rejected yesterday for over/under exposure. I'm not the type to complain about rejections, and I'm new to Crestock so I was just going to let it pass. But I'm not at all convinced that mine had exposure problems either, and I'm sure they didn't ALL have exposure problems.
|
mbravo
St.Petersburg, Russian Federation
|
This seems to be common. I have a lot of submissions rejected here for mostly imaginary problems. It is not my intention to complain, because at any of the stock photo sites you will find loads of such complaints: my images that are accepted (and they are in my case, too) on other stocks and are already selling there (and they are), are not accepted here, blah-blah-blah. It's ok, every stock team has their own criteria. However, randomly clicking reason checkboxes when rejecting, inventing non-existent problems, and not deigning to write several words pointing to the actual problem,speaks nothing good about editorial team and will eventually only create antagonism in your contributors. Crestock could take a line out of some of your competitors books and - mind you, I'm not talking about compromises in quality - take a bit less snobbish approach to the suppliers of your creative content.
|
|
|
I wasn't accusing anyone of being an idiot, certainly. I had just wondered, given that jon11 and I and others all got almost whole batches rejected for under/over exposure at virtually the same time, if someone had a monitor that needed adjusting.
|
|
|
I should put my money where my mouth is and post some of the exposure rejections here. If other members also think they are wrongly exposed, I'll shut up. (They are accepted on other sites, btw, though I realise this is no criteria) I'm not suggesting they are great images, and if Crestock doesn't want them, that's fair enough. I just don't think they are over or under-exposed.
http://www.crestock.com/images/260000-269999/264453-xs.jpg
http://www.crestock.com/images/260000-269999/264457-xs.jpg
http://www.crestock.com/images/260000-269999/267875-xs.jpg
|
mbravo
St.Petersburg, Russian Federation
|
On some further consideration, and seeing as such a well-known persons as Mr. Dolgachov are weighing in in the same vein (albeit with anger proportional to their photographic status :) ), I'd like to add the following. I am not by any means an accomplished commercial photographer, and a relative newbie in the (micro)stock. However, I have been taking photographs since late 1970s, and work with computers since mid-1980s, and I can see when something is sharp, or has artifacts, or is somehow otherwise impaired in quality. I also very easily accept criticism, especially well-founded, and from qualified authority. However - and being a relative newcomer I have an extensive field of data between multiple stock agencies to compare - Crestock so far has been an absolute champion in rejections, and not just in percentage, but in an almost absolute unexplainability, carpet bombing with irrelevant rejection reasons, and other things that amount to, well, cold shoulder.
From the point of view of your fellow human person, I ask that you step back and consider the framework of this whole business. This is a place where you ask people to come and contribute well-polished imagery, which you then endeavour to sell for cents per piece. Cents! It is very understandable that as a creative agency with an agenda of perfection, you want to have just the very best. But it would only help everyone - your agency, your customers, and last but not at all least - your creative pool of contributors, if you stopped thinking that you are a division of Metropolitan, or Hermitage, or Christie's, and started to work with contributors, talk to them, accept them as the people who actually create your bread an butter (in this particular business instance). All it takes is a change of attitude, review of edtitorial practice (note: not the rules), and one line pointing to the real rejection reason in a friendly tone. It's doable. Others do it, and it helps. A lot.
Otherwise, when enough people start to get fed up with receiving rejections like: artifacting, technical quality, out of focus, over/underexposed - on a perfectly clear, sharp, correctly exposed picture on which artifacts can't be found at 3:1, they will start to leave, and since this is the Internet age, they will do it in flocks. And I sincerely hope that noone at the helm entertains the ideas like: "there will always be some poor souls who are willing to spend gigabytes of traffic and hours of work to supply us with pictures, no matter the actual return on investment".
|
|
|
http://www.crestock.com/images/270000-279999/278968-xs.jpg
rejected for "bad isolation". as the other of this series. out-f@#ing-standing. shadow means "bad isolation" here.
dear @#$$% reviewers. will any of you be brave enough to say "sorry" at least? huh?
|
|
|
I noticed that a couple of the images I posted here as rejected have now appeared in my portfolio.Many thanks to whoever is responsible for looking at them again! :)
|
|
|
Our apologies for any lack of communication over the past few weeks, we're experiencing major increases in upload traffic that requires a lot of our attention.
We value your uploads and wish that all of you can continue working together with Crestock. We're currently looking into all complaints, and we're aware that some mistakes have occured.
You will be contacted personally by email to keep you updated about the progress we're making in clearing up any bad inspections.
Meanwhile, if you have further enquiries, please feel free to contact josh@crestock.com or helpdesk@crestock.com
Regards,
Josh
|
|
|
i agree. I'm new here, but I've been selling pretty well on other stock sites.
If you want to use only 10% of the pictures i uploaded, that's fine, I'm sure you have your standards and reasons. It's just a shame that we are both losing potential income since quite a few of the pictures you rejected for the obscure overexposed / underexposed reason are selling very well elsewhere.
|
|
|
Our response to to the recent inspection issues.
|
|
|
Our response to to the recent inspection issues.
|