I really feel that I need to get this off my chest… isn’t it about time that reviewers for Stock Photo Agencies had to pass an eye test, and use calibrated screens, to ensure that what they are looking at is actually what the rest of us see?
My point being I’ve received (from one agency) an extremely large number of rejections recently – I’d go to say almost 85% of images submitted are rejected and generally for that wonderfully descriptive “Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution” reasoning.
Yet when I look at my screen (An Asus 27″ 1920×1200 ‘ProArt’ monitor, via HDMI connected to my Mac Mini) the images at 100% are about as sharp as your going to get – you could count the pebbles on the beach in one, and in another you can see a couple of bits of dodgy mortar, and another where you can see brush strokes in the paint.
Even more annoying is when those same images are accepted to ‘another’ stock photography agency. Why the quote marks? Well, ‘another’ stock agency is actually a subsidiary of the first – but you have to submit each image separately (and the process is different, also rather annoyingly).
I’m tempted to just scream at times, but then I think agency ‘a’ has managed to licence one of my images more than 150 times now which for a holiday snap is pretty good going!
As an aside, I’m growing my stock photography portfolios, but they are still comparatively small. Interesting to note that the one I was accepted to most recently (inside a month) is already generating sales, whilst the biggest out there is becoming more responsive and sales are increasing substantially as a result! The first agency I signed up to, about which the above rant originated, is slipping big time! Used to be 75% of my sales each month – now less than 50% and falling fast, for me at least. Some of that will be down to their lousy review process as they’re rejecting more than they accept and for spurious reasons.