The "visual impact" reject

I also believe our inspectors are not only looking at our work for quality issues.They are actually at the front line on decided what the company can produce in regards of future sales.


I am sure they have let files into the library that do not meet the 'full'quality control but let it into the library because it has the potential to make the company money.


It is after all a business and that business is based on good content !

^ An alternative to this, Shank, would be get rid of the "visual impact" rejection, but implement a strict time frame for sales; if no sales in, say, 13 months (to allow for seasonality, then it's out.


That would hurt me, unfortunately, because due to BM shifts this spring, I have some files that are years old that are just getting first and second downloads. But still, I cold roll with it maybe.

The rejection will stay of course as will our inspectors individual take on what they believe to be stock.The company trusts them to make that call and we have little choice but to follow suite or Scout it.

Truth is, doing microstock in such a competitive market is tough. You just can't get it right all the times. All in all, even with the odd rejections, inspectors are doing a very decent job. Other agencies do not even have Scout. And judgement based on visual impact seems to be unavoidable. Many times I was proud of a portrait for its technical details, just to have the subject put it down, since they do not look good. Let's face it, people want to look good and do not know much of DOF, bokeh and lights. So, while we focus on technical aspects, we tend to miss the main selling point.

Perhaps my concerns are a bit different, since I'm an illustrator, so the "visual impact" has a different meaning for me.


I mean, with photography, if the subject doesn't look good, there is not much you can do about it. With illustration on the other hand, everything is correctable, hence the "visual impact" becomes much a vaguer concept.


It can either be a weak concept, but than the inspectors should just say so, or some implementation defect, but again those can and should be spelled out specifically...

(Edited on 2010-05-20 08:03:10 by ma_rish)