Rejection note improvement please!

Displaying 1 to 18 of 18 matches.
Sproetniek
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:33AM
So which one applies in your typical rejection note? What if none apply?


-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance


This note is the bane of my existence. I am happy to oblige, to alter, to improve and get the file accepted. If only I knew what the problem is. If flat/dull colours, OK, I'll push the saturation, increase contrast and brilliance to just south of being over-processed. I can tell there are no lens flares, the white balance is checked, and I took care during the taking of the shot to expose for detail in the highlights.


These are conscious decisions most photographers make to have files accepted here. We (mostly) take care to get everything right before uploading. Because we don't like rejections.


So why is our prudence and care rewarded with this vague, off-the-shelf one-size-fits-all rejection note? It's counterproductive, we learn nothing from it, hence we cannot improve.


Can we PLEASE have this note amended to be one or the other? If the rejection note is selected from a drop-down menu, adding three more options with the various rejection reasons is a matter of simple coding. Please.


 

(Edited on 2012-07-11 05:34:59 by Sproetniek)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:00AM

Posted By Sproetniek:
So why is our prudence and care rewarded with this vague, off-the-shelf one-size-fits-all rejection note? It's counterproductive, we learn nothing from it, hence we cannot improve.


Well, if you want to improve, try posting in the critique forum.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:15AM
Occasionally, an inspector will oblige by putting an asterisk or plus-sign next to the relevant defect.

Your suggestion is one that I made a couple of years ago. And it is still valid, I think.
Sproetniek
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:18AM
Posted By sjlocke:

Well, if you want to improve, try posting in the critique forum.

Sean, we're not talking one specific file. We're talking generally. The note sucks.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:20AM
Once you improve, or figure out the right kind of content to upload, you won't generally get it anymore.

Besides, look at your image, and use the list to look at it. Is there a lens flare? No? That isn't it then. Is there harsh lighting from an on-camera flash? No? Move on... etc...

(Edited on 2012-07-11 06:21:32 by sjlocke)
Sproetniek
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:07AM
Posted By sjlocke:
Besides, look at your image, and use the list to look at it. Is there a lens flare? No? That isn't it then. Is there harsh lighting from an on-camera flash? No? Move on... etc...


That's exactly what I do, and that was the point of the OP.


 
cmannphoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:21AM

I know it takes time, but I would like to see more notes from inspectors when there is an issue.


I have found the notes help narrow down the issue with that file. I look forward to the comments in between the + signs
gipi23
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:56AM
Yes, it is vague. I dont see it to be improved, however.
erniedecker
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:15PM
I too would like to see a little more of an explanation of what's wrong. A simple plus sign here or there would be sufficient. Occasionally an inspector does this and it really helps. My idea of harsh lighting and the inspectors idea may be different,for example.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:22AM
I'd like to see more of an explanation too. Particularly for new contributors. I don't think it's going to happen though, because it is simply a rejection for inclusion in the collection and not a tutorial. From the point of view of iStock it doesn't really need any more explanation. It's a bonus IMO that we get any feedback at all, and a critique forum where we're allowed to discuss rejections.
gipi23
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:27PM

Dave, you are absolutely right. Even though, adding '+' to the particular issue would not really do too much damage. Once I had a rejection that 'square-highlighted' the area in question and it was so easy to have it approved the next time, since I knew exactly what was wrong [what the particular inspector saw as wrong]. On the contrary, I had always thought, once you get exclusive, the rejections would get exclusive too, like special care, so that they are more to the point - which is a rather different take on the matter, as I see your reason for being more precise with newbies.


So improvement is possible, does not seem too 'costly', yet it seems highly unlikely. Sad, really
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:43AM
One upside of the present system is that it gets people who are getting rejections to go to the critique forum. The help they get there has to be much more detailed than an inspector has time for. Newbies in particular probably save themselves loads of rejections by going that way, until they "get" the requirements here.
Whiteway
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:23AM
Posted By Difydave:
One upside of the present system is that it gets people who are getting rejections to go to the critique forum.

Bearing in mind the number of unexplained lighting rejections that must be generated every day - and it would not surprise me if there were 1000s - that's probably possible only for a tiny percentage, Dave.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:23AM

Agreed Roger, but I'd guess that the vast majority of those are going to (probably) say "Yes right. It is a bit (whatever)" and either correct and resubmit or just move on.


At least some new people on the other hand are going to want more than a tick against "exposure" or whatever.


As I said earlier, I'd like to see a bit more of an explanation myself, but I just can't see it happening.


 
Sproetniek
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:37AM
Added to my original post, one would also like to see a reason for "no resubmit" when given. If the rejection reason is any of the four listed, and if the light is (let's say) dull and flat, why not be given the chance to resubmit a higher-contrast version?
Gregory_DUBUS
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:20AM

I agree with you, most of my releases are due this reasons -Flat/dull colors
Direct-on-camera flash and / or flash fall-off (subject bright, dark background)
Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights That LACK details and / or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance

it's a bit frustrating, because we do not know what is wrong with the picture (mostly none of these defects appear in the photo, but the inspector may want to say something specific but the picture is refused and that's it, we do not know why .... and I have several like that ...)
erniedecker
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:52PM
We complain enough already when inspections take too long, so adding notes,etc. would only make that worse. BUT,a simple + next to an item would not be asking too much, IMO. I know the inspectors are very busy and it's not an easy job. On the other hand having contributors better educated on what inspectors want might just make their job a little easier.
Sproetniek
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 1,249 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:26PM
Posted By erniedecker:
On the other hand having contributors better educated on what inspectors want might just make their job a little easier.

Such simple logic, yes.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 18 of 18 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)