Perhaps I am a little bit too demanding, but I have the impression that the quality of the accepted images has dropped: many of them are not sharp enough, many are very similar, not to mention the most common themes that on the "other" site had to be perfect and very special to be accepted. I know that our goal is to have a huge base of images, but the quality should come first... or is it a wrong impression of mine?
Our rejection ratio is fairly high Lusi but lately we have some new photographers signing up who had no portfolios with other free stock sites yet. Our goal is not to discourage them by rejecting all submissions but to balance between usability and quality while sending the lesser files back with improvement tips.
We are not dropping quality for the sake of a large database but if you feel some files need to be re-reviewed please send the links to us through the contact form.
I do feel the same and agree with Lusi, I wouldn't mind my own images being culled for the sake of quality (I try and submit my best, and sometimes, I am a bit nervous about some images - but I think that if the image makes it through the admins - it could be there so that someone might find it of some use. by no stretch of imagination is the noise in many of my images worth selling - since its fro ma consumer camera. however, those images are of good use for web usage - when shrunk to web quality - they make for a great image since the noise would not be visible.
some of the images I've provided here are good enough resolution for online work but just not good enough for print - and some publishers who contacted me for the cover page of books etc were disappointed when I broke the news that the image couldn't be salvaged for a high res print like a book cover.
there have been a lot of good images too - we now have a varied stock collection for a little less than 45000 images we have great variety!
I also blame the recent lot of cameras which have gone in for the megapixel race and ruined the quality on consumer cameras and to an extent the DSLRs too. the manufacturers have catered to the print market i suppose with the lower end of the market, and for the pixel peepers they always have a high end market whom they are happy selling expensive lenses and accessories.
Zela is quite correct. Encouragement of newbie contributors, whose skills needed to be nurtured and gradually polished, played a big part of making SXC ultimately successful. Many beginners went on to produce quality stock having first served their apprenticeship honing technique and developing an "eye" for an image.
Admins are not soft on newbies - I've just rejected approximately 85% of a largish upload because the photographer, who seems very enthusiastic and shows signs of possessing a basic "eye", has some way to go about learning to compose and edit images.. However, the images that are borderline passable I have accepted in order not to discourage. If we seem a little harder on other contributors it's because we know, from experience, that they are more than capable of delivering quality images and even the best can slip from time to time. But then, rejecting images from our top contributors is a fairly rare thing because you take care to ensure you upload acceptable and desirable images whether for web, or print, or both. Even I get the odd one rejected, always for a good reason - I've overlooked something that needs to be fixed.
RGB's aim is not just to build an impressive database of quality images but to help people improve in order to attain the high standards of the lusis and kraykers of this world. It was ever the same at SXC. This means a little compromise is required at an early stage. Since SXC appears to no longer perform such a function, forum feedback has all but dried up, then it is down to sites like RGB to encourage the next generation of microstock contributors.
We were all new to the microstock game once upon a time. Please be patient and allow us to cut the newbies a little slack so that we can help them improve.
Or i'll force feed you some of Dez's wonderful toxic soup and prod you with that really sharp pointy stick of hers...
Interesting thread. I am not really in a position to comment on the quality of the images; I am one of the newbies to stock photography that gets lots of images rejected!
However I do think it is very important to encourage and 'nurture' the newbies, the first rejects can be very painful and might put them off altogether.
With that said, what encourages me when an image is rejected is the little extra comments from the admins about the rejects: Either how to either improve and re-submit or why an image will never be suitable. Often it is these comments make me want to try to do a better job next time, because I understand what I did wrong.
I realise the admins already have a mammoth task just sifting through the images, but when they can comment, it is very encouraging.
Agree @ 5.
Also think it's up to us regular users to encourage users new to rgb with a comment or two on accepted images in a sparse gallery. This can spur on a few more uploads &, as we all know, once you're hooked you're hooked!
I agree too @ 5!
I get more than 50% rejected and often it's ok, but other timers the reasons for rejecting seems like assembly line rejections.
I appreciate the fact that there must be many photos to comment, but especially the 'poor lightning' rejection could be elaborated a bit more - that would be great!
I had a photo rejected because it was 'a bit out of focus', but how do I focus, when the object is "A misty morning"? ;-)
Also I think there needs to be a bit more 'artistic freedom' if we play with lights/sun/shadows, a different cutting, a different angle etc. Most photos are 'the usual stuff' - very nice, sharp, and so on, but I am missing artistic (different) angles, lightning, cropping etc.
Anyways... I will go on submitting photos - I might be just a little bit better and raise above my amateur status! ;-)
Thanks for a great site!
I too get some images rejected, but not nearly as many as when I first started (which was on the other site). This is due in no small part to the helpful criticisms I have had from time to time - I always try to improve where someone points out where I've gone wrong.
Sometimes however I've submitted an image because I'm genuinely not sure if it is up to standard or not. There is a degree of subjectivity in the boundary and I'm still learning! I find a rejection just as helpful as an acceptance.
However, one of the things that really hosed me off with a well-known commercial stock site to which I once submitted some images was that they rejected every one without adequate reason. Encouragement? Hah!
@7 if subject is blurred deliberately (misty morning, sea waves, abstract patterns... whatever) it may be worth letting the approvers know that You are aware of this. Use title field - "Foggy Blurs" or description field - "A misty morning, blurred for artistic effect". If you're not keen on the wording you can change it or delete it once approved (hopefully).
When seen at 100%, even artistic images can be a bit awful. It can pay to reduce the file size to a level where the noise and blur don't show. Blurring works for some things, but is seldom done well on static objects. Because this is a stock site - we need to keep in mind that print is one of the issues, and not all arty images would print well.
I started out with many bad images - many of which are still in my gallery here - but I learned some things over time, thanks to Marja, Lynne, and other approvers. If you have a particular image that you think is good, but it has been rejected, feel free to post it and we can all comment, or you can send it to me, and I am happy to give you some advice from my limited experience. I have advised a few people over the years, and the images were then accepted. And I can sometimes tell you if they are not save-able, and why.