Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

Pete Bax · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 1238 Location: Brighton England

Do we need a moderator? Yes I know I will be insulted for asking that question and thats my point I would not have been attacked by anyone before we had a moderator for asking any question. What we needed was a set of rules for the room and someone to uphold the rules. Not someone who interfers in every discussion or closes down conversations when he is loosing or in my opinion someone who allows spamming to other sites like Alamy.
If we do need a moderator we need someone who knows how to chair a meeting and to call order when it is needed but otherwise keeps his nose out.

rodehi · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:25 am

So your saying the moderator is not entitled to an opinion?I think in most cases Dewayne is just participating in the discussions.As far as locking that last thread he probably did you a favor and prevented others from spouting "personal attacks" as you call them,but here you are begging for more.I think you should start your own website based on Jons business model....except....with no reviewers,no moderators,no new photographers etc.You could accept all of the images that people have had rejected here.Designers could pay a low monthly fee of $20 thus allowing you to pay the photographers about $0.03 per dl,hell you could even have your very own swan lightbox!But seriously Pete,you know as well as the rest of us Shutterstock is the place to be,it is staffed by dedicated professionals so please quite second guessing their decisions.This is a great site with unlimited potential for all of us and I for one consider it a priveledge to be a part of it.....so should you....Ron
p.s. I have some great swan photos that were rejected just let me know where to send them..

jlye · Joined: 21 Jan 2005 Posts: 229 Location: Singapore

ha ha ha .. :) good one

i have quite a bit of rejected photo too .. probably can send them to rejectstock.com someday

Pete Bax · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 1238 Location: Brighton England

Before we had a moderator we never had any personnel attacks like the one you have just made. Haven't you ever contributed to a discussion without getting so wound up. What you should be telling me is how much he has improved things in a cool and sensible way. Every business as these type of
discussions they are called freedom of speach. I am asking a sensible question in a cool and sensible way "Do we need a moderator?" Now take a deep breath count to 10 and try and make a cool and reasonable case for having one, as it is you have just prooved my point.
My point is I think we had more "freedom of speech" before we had a moderator its really a case of how much value you place on "freedom of speech".

Sword Serenity · Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 237 Location: Cairns, Australia

I haven't seen this many contradictions for a while so I'll exercise some freedom of thought:

So you'd like to have full freedom of speech. I can understand that. Your solution: Banish moderators (or a particular one) from participating in the place they are moderating. Apart from the problems I see if someone completely uninvolved and unknowledgable fo the inner workings calling the shots, isn't that impeding on their freedom of speech?

On the note of personal attacks: I believe moderators are around to keep such things controlled. Sure, it's controlling someone's freedom of speech, but hey, if there were no moderators I'm quite sure there'd be more personal attacks, not less.

And I still don't know whether you're asking about having freedom of speech or controlled speech, so I'm assuming you'd like things to be changed so that you alone can have "freedom of speech".

Freedom of thought's so useful. I hope it never get moderated. :(

reviewer · Admin Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 1627

Kindly keep the converstaion civil.

Thanks.

-Reviewer, a Forum Moderator

crp · Joined: 26 Oct 2004 Posts: 338 Location: Colorado - USA

Pete,

Just a quick question... Do you have a personal web site?
The reason I am asking; I 've been following the threads from the other area to here, and had a thought. I'm sure others (including yourself), keep images that don't seem to measure up to what is policy, I have many in fact myself.

For those that are not accepted, since I have a site, I simply create a gallery there. I know it is costing a little money to operate, but I run it as I see fit, and could if I wanted offer the images for sale there I could. Just a thought there, by the way I got mine through TotalChoiceHosting.com (shameless plug, but great site), and they are really top-notch for hosting. In the two years I've been with them, my site has never been down or inaccessible.

It's something to consider, and a way to display your images as you elect, without anyone saying that there are too many of these, out of focus, or not really a stock image, etc (many other reasons, but you know what I'm saying).

Not much help, but perhaps a simple solution to what appears to have become more then it should have.

As for "Personal Attacks", that can be viewed differently by each person. Some are more thick skinned then others. From what I have learned, is if one can get into the field of "stock", it is best to put on an extra layer or two of rhino skin, and leave one's feelings at the door, as it is a "dog eat dog world". Personally, I don't care for dog, the kitty is looking good though ;)

I for one apprecaite good rhetoric coupled with a bit of character; it actually makes for a quality conversation.

Good Luck!

Randy

Pete Bax · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 1238 Location: Brighton England

I agree with you I think it all depends on what you think a moderators duties are. To me I see them like a Judge who as the right to sum up the discussion or a Chairman of a meeting who keeps order and can and does take part and as a casting vote or to put it very simply a referee.
I don't see that personnel attacks are ever justified, and I never liked that little boy who would take his ball away because he was loosing.
I think a moderator should have the right to bounce anyone who breaks the rules of the room. These should include personnel remarks, foul language, sexual remarks,spamming and any other rules agreed by the mebers of the room. I think that he should also ask for a vote on certain issues without fear of reprisals.
I think he should also fairly represent the feelings of the room to Jon if people have a genuine complaint.
At the moment I think several people have genuine concerns and this is the place to express and if possible resolve those concerns. It just needs to be done in a civil way and yes I do think we need a moderator.

reviewer · Admin Joined: 01 Jan 2005 Posts: 1627

Pete Bax · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 1238 Location: Brighton England

Thank you you have answered all my concerns. I would never intentionally
insult anyone and I am quite thick skinned enough to take any insult but when I raise an issue I wish people would deal with that issue rather than insult me it is rather childish.
The issue which concerns me at the moment is the way photographs are reviewed and I raised this issue to try and get a logical discussion and if possible a rethink. I do think some reviewing is important but I don't think most of the photographers here would be accepted by Corbis. Including me, I do my best but at times It is beyond my capabilities. The designers are paying the lowest prices on the web for photographs here and some people here think that all the photographers here should be as good as the photographers on corbis, many of whom are getting 100s of $ for their pictures.
My point is that the designers want as near to straight of the camera images they can get without them being messed up by us photographers and this should be took into account when reviewing. I think points like this and others need a civil discussion. Once again Thank you.

rodehi · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:41 am

I dont see how anyone has attacked you personnally Pete.I do see some of your comments as being personal though...calling ppl childish is a personal attack,referring to Dewayne as a little boy who took the ball away because he was losing is a personal attack...am I wrong?The first thing you need to do Pete is practice what you preach....I was not "wound up" as you say when I wrote the above comment,you are the reader and it is up to you to apply the tone you think is appropriate.Perhaps your comment at the beginning of this thread (Yes I know I will be insulted) gives us a clue as to the tone "you" expected to receive.Try reading it again but apply a calm,peacful tone..you might find it reads quite differently.......nothing personal.....Ron

fncdigital · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:47 am

Pete Bax · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 1238 Location: Brighton England

I did raise a issue, Dywane, which you shut down after I had received a series of attacks including from yourself. I have re-raised that issue I am quite aware of what you and your friends opinions are, what I was trying to get at was the 900 or so photgraphers who are not pros on here.
Quite frankly I don't agree with you and if you took a democratic vote amongst the designers they wouldn't agree with you either. Just try asking the designers, " Would you sooner have photos straight of the camera or photoshopped" I 'll save you the trouble the answer is straight from the camera. So why are you trying to introduce a system that the designers don't want. Could the answer be that because you have learnt how to do it then everyone else must? These new standards are already having an effect on
sales and I predict this month sales will fall because of something totally unnecessary. Now you can shut this topic down again. smiles Pete

fncdigital · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:30 pm

It was more so on creating a whole other side of shutterstock for rejections rather than about your rejected images, it has morphed into your rejected images slowley.

We need to define the term "photoshopped" because there is so many levels of photoshoping.

Noise reduction, contrast adjustments, and color balance are a far cry different from, cutting out the background (with poor results), over filtering and calling it "artistic" (I rejected some last night and told them to resubmit the originals with a note for the reviewers) and trying to place an object from one image into another with bad results, you're right designers don't want that.

Then why submit it? ;)

If you really asked designers, they will tell you they'd rather spend their time designing whatever it was they were working on than cleaning up a bad image. Whether its correcting improper PS work, or just overall flaws in an image. Many designers will clean up an image at a last resort...and we all have our moments of settling and desperation.

If i am spening 100+ a month, i expect to have that much of the work done already. And if I am lucky, there is aready a clipping path for me in the image.

As far as sales are concerned, you can only account for yours and the very few who have had a slow time, but these are also the same who comment on good times as well. It will fluxuate, and if your work is constantly on a downslope when others are improving...perhaps its time to rethink what you're shooting rather than blaming the system?

Again, you're taking all of this way to personal, this time should be spent on learning from the rejections, shooting more, or doing what i said above and get a critique.

dkgilbey · Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Posts: 730 Location: Hampshire - UK