|
|
"Bad blur or background" was the reason to reject all 10 of my images in the same upload:
Please they have to be kidding...those pic are selling like nuts on other sites...and it is the first time i hear for this kind of reason to reject ... Best regards
|
|
|
Dodoman,
There has been some kind of mistake here. Our apologies, I'll make sure this doesn't happen again.
Great pictures by the way, I'm not surprised they're selling.
Happy Holidays,
Josh
|
|
|
Im so happy :)!I was realy in bad mood...thanks for quick replay...i guess i will upload them again.. Best regards Dodoman
|
|
|
The images have already now been approved and should be visible in your portfolio and to the customers. There is never any need to re-upload unless there is problems in the uploading process the first time.
Hope they sell well,
Josh
|
|
|
Josh is there a special thread where we can maybe show rejected images to get feedback from other members?
|
|
|
Tonygers,
We've had the Public Jury thread in the past. It hasn't happened for a while, but if you send me a 100% copy of the image and a brief description of the shooting conditions and processing on the image, I can make a posting about it.
This is really educational for everybody.
|
|
|
joshDK (12/7/2007)
Tonygers,
We've had the Public Jury thread in the past. It hasn't happened for a while, but if you send me a 100% copy of the image and a brief description of the shooting conditions and processing on the image, I can make a posting about it.
This is really educational for everybody.
Not sure what you mean? But as an example here is one image that was rejected for being out of focus and over filtered. 
The background is out of focus because it's a background and NOT the main focus of the image! And the image wasn't filtered in any way what so ever. I've sold this image on a number of sounds now more than once. What do you think about it.
|
|
|
To make judgements about things like focus and amounts of filtering, we really need to see some 100% crops from the image. The crops should be 500x500px, because the forum will otherwise resize them.Post them here, if you like.
|
|
|
Like this?
|
|
|
I too just had a bunch of my photo's rejected for 'out of focus'. The reviewer even went to the extreme of sending me a seperate e-mail telling me to watch my focus. 9 other stock agencies just happened to miss that these where out of focus. I dont think so. Maybe the reviewer needs to put on some glasses so see focus??
|
nataq
Voesendorf, Austria
|
TLCarlin, those extra Emails are a way for us inspectors to give you a hint on what one could do better and are never meant and hopefully not written as an offence.
Here at Crestock we want to build a Stock of only the highest quality images and seprate us from others.
Even some of my well selling images have been rejected by my collegues and if I am honest, they haven´t been as good as they could have been.
here is a sample:
http://www.crestock.com/images/420000-429999/428647-xs.jpg
Other agencies sell them pretty well, but if you want to stand out of the croud you have to build a very special stock these days. And in time you will see that it´s all worth the effort. I hope you all are ready to go this way with us.
Write me a pm, I would be more than glad to discuss your images in detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nataq - I've pm'd you. My images where not rejected for not standing out in a crowd - they where rejected because the inspector thinks they're out of focus.
|
nataq
Voesendorf, Austria
|
Hi, I just answered in quite a long pml.
Just to explain here for others as well:
Imagine - you are a designer and purchase an image. You look at the smaller version and think: wow, this is just great - nice composition, nice colors - I´ll take the x-large version and pay 15US$. Once downloaded you realize, that the image is pretty soft - which you couldn´t see on the small image.
What are you going to do? I guess you will rant, try to look at other agencies.
We here at Crestock try to approve the very best images. Designers can decide whether they take an image that is not too well composed, but they can´t decide if an image is well focussed or not. These technical aspects have to be checked by the inspectors. And that is what we try to do with utmost precision.
Of course we frequently also use the Composition rejection, but going through our best/worst images of the day will explain why.
So our customers can rely on Crestock. If they like an image and buy it. They can expect high quality.
For the future I am sure this is the only way to go to stay in the market and be successfull. And if a stockagency is successfull, the contributing photographers are too - that´s all we want.
|
nataq
Voesendorf, Austria
|
Tony,
one of your rejection reasons was artifacts/compression flaws. Unfortunately one only can see that when viewing at full size - please take a close look at the border between the blue cupola and the water. These artifacts are either a result of the quality settings of your camera or from opening a file too often and resaving it as jpg (the quality gets worse with every single save operation) or when saving not at highest quality.
(try to shoot in raw as much as possible, or at least use the highest quality setting in camera).
As a stockphotographer you are competing with the pros, because you are trying to get money from what you are doing. Therefore you are asked to produce the best possible quality, even if that sometimes means a longer workflow than what you are used to.
|
|
|
Ok Nataq i'll take your advice on board.Would it not be a good idea for the buyer to have the ability to zoom into any section of an image so they can see for themselves the quality of the image? They do this on a number of sites! Just an idea. Tony
|
nataq
Voesendorf, Austria
|
Perhaps Josh will chime in on the idea for zooming in.
Anyway - comming from the designer side to the photographer side and still doing occasional designer jobs I have to say that I usually don´t like to use those zoom ins. Despite of having a fast internet connection, it takes up quite some time to find the right image anyway zooming in on all the candidates would make it even longer. As a designer I´d really appreciate if I could trust the eye of the inspectors about these issues.
Wow, I´m becomming multiple schizophrenic here :hehe::w00t::D
Perhaps other designer think different.
|
|
|
Love happy endings :DNice images doboman btw..... have to say I am impressed with inspections and this site so far, put up a few of my Images I knew to be technically sound to test the waters and they sailed through with a couple of reebo downloads, was a little conserned about the subscription thing with no 'opt out' as one main subscription Agency which works simply because of volume is enough for me..... so will be watching closely as I upload my Portfolio to see what persentage are subscriptions sales around here ;) Regards, Sue
|
|
|
Just to let everyone know, nataq has been extremely, out of the way helpful with my rejections and I really appreciate all the feedback he has given me. Thanks so much nataq!!!
|
nataq
Voesendorf, Austria
|
hahaha, wow. Well, that was more than one could hope for - though I didn´t really mean to be adressed personally- I´m now 1 foot taller ;-) .
Thanks, and good Luck!
|