Forum

Nicht wundern, einfach weitermachen. Crestock ist säääähr wählerisch. Keep trying, don`t worry!!!:hehe:

Grüße vom Meer, Susanne.

Me too, tons of rejections.  At least you got an explanation.  I have no idea what is wrong with my photos.  I'm new here, hope I get the hang of it soon.  Good Luck to you.:unsure:

I thought I would be smart and my first uploads I used 4 photos which are top earners on other sites, over 2000 downloads between them in 6 months. All barr 1 got rejected... go figure. I do take issue with reasons of poor composition, not sharp etc. Better to be honest and simply say I do not want this on my site. The owners have a right to have the content they wish.

Maybe it would be useful to give us some idea of what is wanted.

Hi Steve,
Sorry to hear about your disappointment regarding the evaluation of your images. We do try to be as honest and clear as we can in our reasons for rejecting images, although timeconstraints limit the level of detail we can go into for individual images.
On your point about giving some idea of what is wanted, we do recommend that all new contributors read ourFAQs for contributors.Although this does not give an exhaustive list of our requirements, it does outline our technical requirements. We also provide a list of subject matter that we generally do not require more images of – and where our evaluation is particularly strict; namely sunsets, seascapes, flowers, birds, insects, cats and dogs. As it happens, two of your submitted images fell into these categories, which perhaps to some extent explains your rejections.

Best regards,
The Crestock Team

In response to milwifekmd's earlier posting:
The emails we send out when rejecting an image, should specify the reason(s) for the image not being accepted. For most of milwifekmd's submitted images, the use of direct flash, causing flat lighting, hard shadows and distracting highlights was the reason for the rejection.
A few of the images were not quite sharp, or had visible jpeg compression artifacts.
We hope this clarifies our reasons for not accepting those images.

Best regards,
The Crestock Team

Hello, iv just started an account here and im wondering why u cant up-load images
that are drawing without them being an "ai" file or an "eps" or something like that.
I have no idea what those type of files are. I thought using a Jpg would be enough.
If u could get back to me on what those files are and why we can only use those that be very cool

-Thank alot, Jshade

You may upload illustrations as either AI/EPS (Vector files) or JPEG (Raster files). To submit a JPEG illustration, simply choose "Photo" instead of "Illustration".

milwifekmd (8/31/2006)

---

Me too, tons of rejections. At least you got an explanation. I have no idea what is wrong with my photos. I'm new here, hope I get the hang of it soon. Good Luck to you.:unsure:

I'm getting around 52 per cent of my submissions rejected. As an ex-pro photographer (film-based, in the 70s), I'm surprised by this, and would be very interested to know the overall rejection rate for Crestock.

As for explanations, I always get a reason why an image was rejected (often the 'your choice of composition did not accord with our standards' message - I wonder how that can apply to a continuous background image?) but sometimes an image I thought was good is rejected 'due to technical qualities'. When I asked what that actually means, I was told the judge can't remember, but there was definitely a technical qualities problem... so I'll be able to avoid that fault next time! ;)

I think it's a no brainer. They accept what they like and/or think can sell. Although it might not be exact all the time, I believe they have the right to accept or refuse whatever they want, since the site and business is theirs. Ain't that simple?

I guess, on the upside, what they have accepted, as left you with a pretty decent portfolio that you can show off. To me, it's peer critiquing at it's best. Makes me think harder and plan better shots. Though, it hasn't stopped me in trying other stock agencies.:Whistling:

relax guys.

crestock sometimes thinks business, sometimes not.

i've got one of topsellers rejected guess why? for naming. ;]

Late last month I submitted four images, each isolated on a white background. One was accepted, the other three rejected because 'Your isolation doesn't seem 100% complete, which it must be. This problem can be enhanced in photoshop, and you will then be able to resubmit'. This was fair enough because I had purposely left the suggestion of a shadow, to make the pictures look more 'real'.

I then went back to the original TIFF files of the rejected images and cut away the remnants of the non-white background, saved at JPEG compression 12 (maximum) and re-submitted them. The same pictures are now rejected because of 'Poor image quality caused by excessive jpeg compression either in-camera or in post production'.

So, by the second submission the JPEG compression artifacts had 'grown' to unacceptable levels. I certainly wasted my time addressing Crestock's original concerns, but I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm wasting my time by submitting photographs to them at all! :angry:

@dolgachov

The image you are refering to have been heavily discussed by the Crestock team, and we truly agree that this is one of the wierdest rejection-reasons we've ever given :)

In the future we will of course just correct small things like this instead of rejecting pictures for reasons like this.

Sorry about all this mess dolgachov! :hehe:


Marius
The Crestock Team

Dear mr. friendlydragon. I was the inspector inspecting your pictures. Your pictures inspected were initially rejected by reasons that did not require them to be viewed at 100% (the isolation rejection). After having viewed your pictures in 100% (det resubmitted file), we detected a lot of artefacts/jeggies at 100%. Your pictures also contains purple fringing. (blue outlining)

Please keep up the good work and keep submitting your images.

Best regards Ida Kiil, inspector at Crestock.

Hi all

I'm new here, but not so new as a professional photographer.
I tried to submit 3 pictures and only one got acepted, the other 2 got the:
"Poor image quality caused by excessive jpeg compression either in-camera or in post production."

Until this point nothing new if it could be true. I can't believe why a picture can have "excessive jpeg compression" when is comming from a scanned 35mm slide to a 16 bit tiff, and only passed to a 12 quality jpeg for submiting.

The other one is coming from a NEF (raw) file from a Nikon D1x, and had a similar workflow going from Raw to Tiff and only saved a Jpeg for submission.

In my point of view Crestock as the right to accept or not any picture, but also have the obligation to respect our inteligence by not giving stupid out of sense reasons for not accepting the pictures.
I like to think that people that is reviewing our submissions know what they are doing, but here it does not look like it.

Miguel: Digital compression distortion comes in a variety of shapes. I was the one who responded to your e-mail regarding the scanned image that was rejected. After having a look at your image, I could understand why it was rejected for compression issues. While this may not have been correct, there was a good deal of distortion in this images, which I would assume comes from the scanning of the image, and possibly also from the level of noise you will usually find to be higher in film photographies than in digital ones.

Distinguishing the fine differences between the distortion apparent in scanned film photos and digital images made subject to light JPEG compression is not necessarily an easy task, so as I said, I can understand why the inspector made this error. Since your image was submitted in a very high resolution, this distortion became very apparent when the image was viewed at 100% size.

That said, we are striving to improve the quality of our reviews, and we appreciate feedback like this in cases where a rejection is clearly done on the wrong grounds.