Why are my film scans rejected by stock agencies?

[kelly_flanigan1]

G. V.; its also very rude to assume the customer is wrong, ie Edwards stock agency. <BR><BR>They are the ones PAYING for the image. <BR><BR>Getting a grasp of what one's customer wants is a very fundamental in business. This is an ancient concept, as old as mankind. They really do not have to PURCHASE as Edwards question says "noise, artifacts or hazing at full size", or even "too much upsizing."; if they dont want to. <BR><BR>Most successfull business learn from their rejections, instead of whining. There is really something retarded if folks dont examine what their customer wants, and strive to learn how to better your products. Successfull companies like to maintain quality, and not purchase products below certain standards. <BR><BR>The stock agency has given some feedback as to why the images were rejected as poor. They really don't have to play teacher, or waste time with educating their lay vendors. Many don't, and you just get rejected, with NO negative feedback. Edward should be thrilled to get feedback. Many just reject poor inputs, and move on to better quality suppliers. <BR><BR>The concept of quality is ancient. The concept of learning is ancient. <BR><BR>What is bizzare about this thread is the stock agency told Edward why his images were not accepted, and he then questions their "plain excuses". There seems to a very fundamental learning and listening problem of what the stock agency wants. <BR><BR>IF the stock agency has too tight standards, see what other customers require. Since their is no sample image, and their is just one stock agency, who the heck knows really what is the problem. It might be a garbage image, or a poor stock agency chap too.<BR><BR>What is the target market for the images?<BR><BR>Learning often is not agreeing with others whining, or agreeing to sloppy looser standards. It is real rude for folks to actual agree with a whining, and have global quality drop into the toilet. Some folks actually do maintain standards for quality, and there are no problems with images shot from film or digital. <BR><BR>This is really not even a film or digital problem, just one complaining that a stock agency rejected an image not up to their standards. <BR><BR>Companies who buy images have ALWAYS had standards they like to keep up. With newsworthy, one of a kind images, a lessor standard is often used, since its the only one available.<BR><BR>Normally in business you should listen to your customers, instead of asking a zillion others, to get a "lets feel good and not rude" feeling. The process of being rejected SHOULD feel rude, normally it should spark one to see if one can really provide a better product, and still make money too. The rudeness of rejection energy should be focused on learning to listen and make a better product.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In computer programing 4 decades ago, we used bloaded for bytes loaded, and also as a variant of bloated too.<BR><BR> Word variants seem to get the lay public excited in their little world. We also used disc, instead of disk, in Disc Pack Engineering. <BR><BR>Normally one writes it as bLoaded, but many times bloaded for fellow workers. The usage of the work bloaded is more common with code developers, then the lay public. In the computer field I have seen folks use <a href="http://blog.magenic.com/">"bloaded"</a> in place of "bloated", for fun, as a joke, or as an alternate to bloated, just like some folks use the variant of lens as lense. We used the term non bloaded code back in the 1960's at one of the seven dwarfs , and had signs with bloaded with a diagonal line thru it, meaning non bloated code. To a simpleton, strict correct spelling should be used in the classroom, to get your prof to sign your boring stale term papers, a journal published. Whats really funny is the journal chaps are often in a safe sheltered tenured world studying things industry did a decade or two ago. <BR><BR>The units, jargon, spelling of things often diverts when one is away from college, and working in the real world. It is interesting how the lay public reacts to word variants, like bloaded or lense. They go on a correctness drive, even if the terms were used before they were born.