| Author |
Message |
Pierdelune
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 104
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:38 pm
|  |
| Joe Gough wrote: | Pierdelune,
OK, sorry __ I take back my remarks on your rejected images and have edited them out of my original post. Apologies for any offense too. No, I'm not a pro, just a keen amateur who hopes to make a little money to fund my interest in photography.
The point I was trying to make is that we have to trust the commercial judgement of the administrators in making the best use of their storage whilst giving due regard to the quality of the images that are presented to customers. If someone is paying $100+ per month to subscribe to this facility then they have a right to be presented with high quality images.
I appreciate what you say about the indistinct reasons for rejection but I feel this is primarily due to the fact that we have only been operational for about one month.
There are of course other stock photography sites that you could submit your images to but, in my limited experience, they take much, much longer to approve/reject and are very much more selective in what they accept, I guess because they have been going for longer.
Good luck with your future submissions!
Kind regards,
Joe |
Ok. I accept your apologize for sure . Thanks.
Please regard my portofolio .. I will be happy to look yours too if you put the link here.
It's a pleasure to see that somebody have so regrets when speaking to fast. You know .. I am not English speaker. Hope you understantd what I mean.
So long ... |
|
GeneralE
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 375
Location: Oakland, California
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:43 pm
| |
| shutterstock wrote: | Pierdelune - the bottom line is I spend 30 minutes explaining to you - what you could have figured out yourself!
I could have been approving more pictures.
I'm just showing that a detailed explanation for everybody slows down the whole site.
And I understand that photographers work a lot to upload - but you can save yourself a lot of time by looking at the top 100
Jon |
I'm finding this thread fraught with misunderstanding and defensiveness.
The original point of this thread had nothing to do with the quality of any photo or the site's judgement in accepting/rejecting them ... no one has had any argument with that.
I think it was simply that a seemingly irrelevant "reason" for rejecting an image creates more confusion -- like this whole thread -- than no reason at all, or a standardized one which at least makes the photographer think you were looking at their picture and not something else, as that one comment seems to do.
Although no one likes being rejected, I haven't read a single complaint on this site yet disagreeing with any of the decisions the site has made on any photo. I think the concerns have only been over fine-tuning the methods by which we can all work (in our common interest) to make the site as high-quality and commercially viable as possible. |
|
Pierdelune
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 104
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:48 pm
| |
| shutterstock wrote: | Pierdelune - the bottom line is I spend 30 minutes explaining to you - what you could have figured out yourself!
I could have been approving more pictures.
I'm just showing that a detailed explanation for everybody slows down the whole site.
And I understand that photographers work a lot to upload - but you can save yourself a lot of time by looking at the top 100
Jon |
I know that those pic are not the best of mines. Please take them out from the post here. I have better ones. I am not a photographer objetct ones. I am an artist. Objets' photos are the not best I could do. I did'nt ask that you post all those rejected pics . If you ever want to post some pics of mine, Why don't you post the best ones instead the bad ones ? Is realley depressing. |
|
shutterstock
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 1881
Location: New York, NY
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:14 pm
| |
You did ask me to post them.
You posted links to them - and then demanded an answer. You demanded a "clear answer"
The only way I could explain them was to show examples.
Jon |
|
shutterstock
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 1881
Location: New York, NY
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:27 pm
| |
| GeneralE wrote: | I think it was simply that a seemingly irrelevant "reason" for rejecting an image creates more confusion -- like this whole thread -- than no reason at all, or a standardized one which at least makes the photographer think you were looking at their picture and not something else, as that one comment seems to do.
|
Unfortunately I don't see us spending any more time on clear rejections than we are now.. We are here to sell your photos... We can all use the message boards to try to learn from each other, but im not sure if its the reviewers job to teach you how to make your pictures better. We do offer suggestions if the photos have potential - but if they clearly wont fit right now, then we don't. We have anywhere from 700-2000 photos to look through each day. Besides that, Dan and I code the site full of features that you guys suggest each day. There is only so many resources we have!
This was my first answer to Pier's question - but it wasn't ok. So I continued to explain. Why is that defensive? And if you say that its because my response seemed abrupt and possibly harsh -- then I ask you: what was I being asked to explain?
Jon |
|
shutterstock
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 1881
Location: New York, NY
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:47 pm
| |
Ugh - I don't want to continue this thread... It's just bringing me down.
Can we all just agree that sometimes the admins are too busy to give you more than a short explanation which may or may not be correct? And that this is all because we want to get as many photos reviewed as possible - so we can sell as many photos of yours as possible?
Sales are up 25% from 60 days ago... As so is the amount we are gonna pay out! This is what i spend my time doing instead of detailed reviews.. Getting your photos to sell........ Other sites may have different priorities.
Increasing sales by 25% every 60 days is my priority.
Jon |
|
taylor7127
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 69
Location: Marshfield, Missouri
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:53 pm
| |
I can't believe that this thread filled so quickly. I suppose that the last thing that is needed here is another opinion, but...
Shutterstock is a business, not a classroom. I know that if my photos aren't accepted, I can try to fit the mold here or go somewhere else. As a young (think experience) photographer, I know that I can learn from what the professionals reject and accept. If I were an experienced professional and my stuff was rejected, I'd assume that it just didn't fit the mold here and try somewhere else. I never assumed that the reasons given for rejection were anything but a bonus to help me learn. Jon is the boss, plain and simple. Our photos either fit his vision or they don't, again plain and simple. If I don't like it, I'll just try somewhere else.
Have a nice evening...uh, morning...well, whenever it is where you are ;)
David Taylor |
|
Pierdelune
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 104
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:15 pm
| |
| shutterstock wrote: | Ugh - I don't want to continue this thread... It's just bringing me down.
Jon |
Hey Jon ! Its bringing me down too !.. I just think that different language people is hard to understand each other. I have good and bad pics like everybody. I also like your web site. I was among the first to said it in the forum. So let's close that post and take out those ugly pics of mine, there no use in that forum. If I was so bad, there will be no sale of my pics on your web site. My sales increase day after day. That's mean, I an not so bad.
So long Jon..
Amically |
|
mk
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 13
Location: Minneapolis
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:04 pm
| |
I don't think Pierdelune was asking for more specific reasons why each of his photos was rejected. I think he just didn't understand what "Photo doesn't have a clear topic/feeling/idea" meant and wanted a better explanation. It's pretty clear that English is not his first language so I don't think asking for further clarification was that out of line. |
|
Pierdelune
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 104
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:36 am
| |
Thanks MK, that is exactl. It was the question and nothing else. |
|
| |
|
Log in
