Jump to content
Brian Kapp

Why Editorial required on this one?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Brian Kapp said:

A little help... why would this one be required to be Editorial? - Thanks ahead of time.

 

DSC_1169.jpg

You know it well, since you proposed it after a touch-up (small label on the table)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, have zoomed in and looked around but am blind to it. Well, I can seem some raised text or something on the right and left side. I can't read it, but have no problem removing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crowing Hen said:

I like the composition

 

it's hard to see with this image quality, but are there any logos or text on the 'table'?

text.JPG

if this was  rejected because of this then this is  a disgrace from SS evaluator... you cannot even see the text at max exposure

 

image.thumb.png.1d5263579d46349684b491ac1611da1b.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mehdi Kasumov said:

if this was  rejected because of this then this is  a disgrace from SS evaluator... you cannot even see the text at max exposure

Sorry, I had assumed the OP had posted a low res version of their image in this thread.  I thought the image had to be at least 4mega pixels to submit to SS and the image in this thread is only 600x399pixels.  If this is a smaller version of what they submitted, then I thought we wouldn't be able to see the same detail the reviewer saw.  But if this is the same resolution as what the OP submitted, then I too cannot see any text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reduced the image for the purpose of posting here, sorry. But I have studied the full size one. If I still can't find anything readable will just try resubmitting some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brian Kapp said:

I reduced the image for the purpose of posting here, sorry. But I have studied the full size one. If I still can't find anything readable will just try resubmitting some time.

I'm curious to solve the puzzle.  Could you post a full res crop of the top of the barrel? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Brian Kapp said:

A little help... why would this one be required to be Editorial? - Thanks ahead of time.

Oh obviously Portland cement used in those bricks. (yeah just kidding)

Without seeing the full size, some ideas are bad software, happy fingers, or a reviewer making fast money. If there is something so tiny, like a label, that's interesting. But on first inspection I'd say, rejected in error. If you have to look at 200% to see a letter or a word somewhere, that's getting ridiculous.

Off topic, kind of? Just had that QR or barcode rejection for the first time. I guess that's something new for the software. Fine, something new for me to watch out for. No barcodes...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did submit again, and it was accepted. I did remove some small raised text from the lid, although which at the angle of view was not readable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday 9 rejects (all photos submitted) due to required to be Editorial. I sent them again. I have seen one mistake more often. But this is quite different.

The Photo of the Clematis maybe because of the window, but the others are impossible.

paint 1 (2).jpg

paint 2 (2).jpg

paint 3 (2).jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello @Thijs de Graaf,

I see here some pattern that several times were mentioned by other contributors in the forum. Indeed in the window there is a plant that shows a label with trademark. The reviewer simply stopped reviewing and rejected the whole bunch at once. 

Other possibility could be that he selected by accident all images when he added the rejection reason. This versions looks for me more realistic.

Still should not happen. Good luck with resubmitting ;). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Studio 2 said:

That is so annoying @Thijs de Graaf I just had my first rejection for title on a butterfly and I hadn't even put the Latin name. It does put me off uploading as it has become a struggle 🙁

I imagine they press the wrong button once. No idea how they do that. But so much at once 😧
Yes it can be frustrating at times.
I first put the description and important keywords in Word. So I can look it up on rejection like this. It therefore does not take that much time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 1000 Words Photos said:

Hello @Thijs de Graaf,

I see here some pattern that several times were mentioned by other contributors in the forum. Indeed in the window there is a plant that shows a label with trademark. The reviewer simply stopped reviewing and rejected the whole bunch at once. 

Other possibility could be that he selected by accident all images when he added the rejection reason. This versions looks for me more realistic.

Still should not happen. Good luck with resubmitting ;). 

Thanks. That may indeed be the reason.

Although no trademark is visible (own house 🙂 ). I cropped the photo this time just to be sure, leaving only a small portion of the window visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, D. Pimborough said:

Its because you are using editorial location and dates in commercial photos

Example: Grammoptera ruficornis a small beetle in the family longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae) feeding on the white flowers of an apple tree (Malus). Spring, Bergen, Netherlands, April 24, 2020.

You do not need to put locations and dates in none editorial images.  By doing so the reviewer is assuming you are submitting an editorial image. 

I like to give as much information as possible. I am used to helping people on insect forums and the first thing you ask is When and where? Very similar insects can occur in other parts of the year or in other places. But I also like it when I can see it myself in older photos.
At Editorial I put that information first. With commercial photos at the back. I did not know this is a problem.

By the way:  Here I was forgotten to mention place and time. Also not right. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With review times so long and rejections getting a bit silly, I've stopped uploading images to SS until they can catch up.  Which is working out well for me as I can take all the things I learned from the SS reviews and improve my product photography for my etsy shop.  I'm really happy with how my technical skills are improving.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...