MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Call for content  (Read 6615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 15, 2017, 16:01 »
0
So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason :D

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.


« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 16:06 by Sammy the Cat »


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #51 on: May 15, 2017, 22:06 »
+1
So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason :D

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

I know this is a crazy, far-out idea... but have you considered that the wish list has been filtered down to the reviewers, but your submissions actually lacked aesthetic and commercial appeal?

« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2017, 01:56 »
0
So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason :D

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

I know this is a crazy, far-out idea... but have you considered that the wish list has been filtered down to the reviewers, but your submissions actually lacked aesthetic and commercial appeal?

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe. 

« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2017, 08:22 »
0
Hello All,

Not a week goes by where I'm not asked at least once what type of content Adobe Stock is looking for. The general, catch-all answer is that regardless of the subject matter, buyers are looking for authenticity. Real looking people in real situations with genuine expressions and interactions.

That remains true and I expect it always will. That being said, a more specific list of content needs and requests has been generated. If you are looking for some motivation on what to shoot next..look no further than the list linked below....

 https://adobe.ly/2pdvHeB



Thanks for the list - tons of useful info there.

« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2017, 09:12 »
0
You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

:)

« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2017, 12:34 »
+2
You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

:)

Yeah you are right  ::)

DOH!

and No I don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of my work ;D

« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2017, 12:52 »
0
You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

:)

Yeah you are right  ::)

DOH!

and No I don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of my work ;D

Come on Sammy!  show us some pics will ya! :D

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2017, 14:00 »
0
You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

:)

Yeah you are right  ::)

DOH!

and No I don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of my work ;D

You're absolutely right, you don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of your work. You only need confirmation as to the quality of your work from the stock sites you intend to sell them on... but unfortunately you didn't get that.

Don't get me wrong, your work could be great and Adobe have made a bad call, but your refusal to accept that the issue might actually be the quality of your work, precariously straddles the line between confidence in your work, and arrogance. Just sayin'.

« Reply #58 on: May 16, 2017, 14:19 »
+1
So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason :D

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

I know this is a crazy, far-out idea... but have you considered that the wish list has been filtered down to the reviewers, but your submissions actually lacked aesthetic and commercial appeal?

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.
They want trees! Though I seem to remember when I sent some they said they had enough already.  I should do more random leaves I reckon.

« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2017, 14:20 »
+1
You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

:)

Yeah you are right  ::)

DOH!

and No I don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of my work ;D

You're absolutely right, you don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of your work. You only need confirmation as to the quality of your work from the stock sites you intend to sell them on... but unfortunately you didn't get that.

Don't get me wrong, your work could be great and Adobe have made a bad call, but your refusal to accept that the issue might actually be the quality of your work, precariously straddles the line between confidence in your work, and arrogance. Just sayin'.

Nah been doing this long enough now to know if I am in the wrong.

And no I'm not arrogant I know the difference between a bad call and stupid reviews FT has always been full of it when it comes down to reviews.

My point is that Fotolia/Adobe issue a call for shots that are quite clearly going to run in to problems with their own acceptance rules.

They should either adjust their rules and accept editorial like other agencies or just state very clearly that their call for images is worthless.

As it is you can supply an image that is quite clearly editorial in nature and sometimes it gets accepted by FT and sometimes it gets rejected.

It's a halfway house as it stands.

I think they need to clarify and not leave contributors guessing.





« Reply #60 on: May 16, 2017, 14:21 »
0
So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason :D

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

I know this is a crazy, far-out idea... but have you considered that the wish list has been filtered down to the reviewers, but your submissions actually lacked aesthetic and commercial appeal?

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.
They want trees! Though I seem to remember when I sent some they said they had enough already.  I should do more random leaves I reckon.

Yeah found lots of trees on the site :D

Including trees that are staircases or gold coins or rocks :D

https://en.fotolia.com/search?k=trees&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&search-submit=Search&order=creation
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 14:24 by Sammy the Cat »

« Reply #61 on: May 16, 2017, 14:36 »
+2
Another niche I'm late to

« Reply #62 on: May 16, 2017, 20:05 »
+2
You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

:)

Yeah you are right  ::)

DOH!

and No I don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of my work ;D

You're absolutely right, you don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of your work. You only need confirmation as to the quality of your work from the stock sites you intend to sell them on... but unfortunately you didn't get that.

Don't get me wrong, your work could be great and Adobe have made a bad call, but your refusal to accept that the issue might actually be the quality of your work, precariously straddles the line between confidence in your work, and arrogance. Just sayin'.

Nah been doing this long enough now to know if I am in the wrong.

And no I'm not arrogant I know the difference between a bad call and stupid reviews FT has always been full of it when it comes down to reviews.

My point is that Fotolia/Adobe issue a call for shots that are quite clearly going to run in to problems with their own acceptance rules.

They should either adjust their rules and accept editorial like other agencies or just state very clearly that their call for images is worthless.

As it is you can supply an image that is quite clearly editorial in nature and sometimes it gets accepted by FT and sometimes it gets rejected.

It's a halfway house as it stands.

I think they need to clarify and not leave contributors guessing.

@Sammy The Cat, send me a link to your portfolio directly along with the image numbers in question that were rejected. I'll be happy to take a look and provide you with some feedback. 

email: mhayward@adobe.com

Kind regards,

Mat Hayward

« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2017, 02:02 »
0
While I appreciate the offer Mat I prefer my anonymity.

I'd say Adobe/FT really do need to clarify their image acceptance policy though where public spaces are concerned.

« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2017, 04:09 »
0
Adobe Stock/FOTLIA calls for content. On the other hand they do their best to discourage contributors.

I am very frustrated and I am fed up with Adobe Stock/FOTOLIA rejections of a number of my images for lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal, intellectual property violation, artifacts problem or technical errors. The images they reject for those reasons are accepted and doing well on other agencies.
So if Mat is listening in this forum I want to tell Adobe that:

I am knowledgeable about photography and related processing software. I have successfully been practicing photography for many years, and I am a contributor for several years now. And no I can not accept that another "photographer" reviews and classifies my work as "lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal, intellectual property violation, artifacts problem or technical errors" without giving me a real good reason.

1. My photos contain no noise and/or artifacts of any sort, and they do have a model and Property releases when needed.
2. When my photos are shot all photographic composition and other image quality factors are taken in consideration for each image.
3. I post process all my images using exactly the same procedures and techniques.
4. In regard to intellectual property violation, Adobe Stock/Fotolia has already accepted many images and similar series shot in the same areas, and under the same conditions with those rejected.

I understand rejections may occasionally  happen; however, those reviewing  the image, should specify the exact reason the image was rejected for. Show me where the noise or artifact is, tell me why should I provide a property release for the image in question, tell me why the image lacks aesthetic and commercial appeal

Hope I get an answer....

« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2017, 04:42 »
+2
those reviewing  the image, should specify the exact reason the image was rejected for. Show me where the noise or artifact is, tell me why should I provide a property release for the image in question, tell me why the image lacks aesthetic and commercial appeal

You do know what reviewers are paid, don't you?  How would you like to fund the detailed rejection reason - a cut in your earnings per image perhaps?

Fotolia has been quite helpful to me in the past explaining why they considered something needed a property release but I dont think its reviewers understand the house rules which is why, with two similar (in location and content) images, one gets through and the other does not.  Recently, though, I have had images where I guess the reviewer might conceivably have thought an image needed a PR but maybe didnt want to stick his or her neck out and rejected the image because of artifacts.  It seems a strange strategy if anyone reviews the reviewer.  There are either artefacts or there are not, its cut and dried, and, as no other agency has found them, I would think thats more reason for the reviewer to get a bollocking than an opinion on PRs.

No commercial or artistic value is a nonsense: we all think we know what will sell but I doubt we do.  My best selling image on SS was rejected as LCV by Fotolia.  My top seller on Fotolia was rejected by SS (though I cant remember why) so there are differences in what sells where but Im sure the reviewers are as much in the dark on that as we are. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1641 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 19:15
by News Feed
2 Replies
2929 Views
Last post March 09, 2011, 12:52
by ErickN
235 Replies
42087 Views
Last post February 24, 2016, 22:52
by goober
Call to Artists 2015

Started by jen « 1 2 3 4 5 » Stocksy

118 Replies
27569 Views
Last post March 31, 2016, 16:23
by Indie
24 Replies
2513 Views
Last post December 22, 2016, 13:31
by pixel8

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors