MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Call for content  (Read 7975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2017, 21:11 »
+7
Space stuff. People go wild for the space stuff.

substancep

  • Medical, science, nature, and macro photography

« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2017, 00:25 »
+12
I think one area Adobe should improve is with the rejections reasons, especially when the reason is due to a "lack of aesthetic/commercial appeal." The reviewer should say why they do not think the images are suitable. I find that Adobe often rejects images with a medical/science theme, despite such images selling very well once accepted. Other stuff, like landscapes, get accepted more easily, but in my experience, rarely get sold.

substancep

  • Medical, science, nature, and macro photography

« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2017, 00:33 »
0
Thanks for the list, by the way, will try them out.

« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2017, 02:22 »
0
Thanks.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 02:28 by LDV81 »

« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2017, 02:30 »
+6
whenever i submit authentic looking models/image they get rejected for commercial appeal or not needed. lol

« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2017, 04:08 »
0
Tnx for sharing  ;D

« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2017, 04:18 »
+1
whenever i submit authentic looking models/image they get rejected for commercial appeal or not needed. lol

Same here.
I think that they still prefer the old fake bluish "Arcurs style"
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 04:21 by Chichikov »

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2017, 09:10 »
+3
Very nice list! Too bad micro is going downhill though ...

« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2017, 10:13 »
+1
whenever i submit authentic looking models/image they get rejected for commercial appeal or not needed. lol

Same here.
I think that they still prefer the old fake bluish "Arcurs style"
They like "fake" authenticity if you can do that you've got it made.

« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2017, 10:25 »
0
Thanks Mr.Mat

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2017, 12:51 »
+2
I'm wondering when the hipster with a beard and skateboard will become cliche ...

50%

« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2017, 14:03 »
0
I'm wondering when the hipster with a beard and skateboard will become cliche ...
Well they are cliche.....

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2017, 14:12 »
+1
Hi...!! my best images went to offset. Open infinite-premiun and i will send you "authentic" images... but stocky images sell best!!


Shelma1

« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2017, 14:20 »
0
Waaaaaaay down at the bottom, vector artists are allowed to submit common icons and textures. Yay.

« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2017, 15:07 »
+2
OK I'm stuck in the travel section Adobe say

"Scenes from popular ....[insert location]... destinations,
such as London, Barcelona, Lisbon, Paris, Brussels, Vienna,
Athens, and Rome. People in everyday settings, as well as at tourist attractions"

But the only way to shoot that kind of thing is via editorial and Adobe/Fotolia do not accept editorial

So how can we submit that kind of imagery??

« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2017, 15:24 »
+2
OK I'm stuck in the travel section Adobe say

"Scenes from popular ....[insert location]... destinations,
such as London, Barcelona, Lisbon, Paris, Brussels, Vienna,
Athens, and Rome. People in everyday settings, as well as at tourist attractions"

But the only way to shoot that kind of thing is via editorial and Adobe/Fotolia do not accept editorial

So how can we submit that kind of imagery??
You just next several hundred model releases patience and deep pockets.

« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2017, 15:31 »
0
OK I'm stuck in the travel section Adobe say

"Scenes from popular ....[insert location]... destinations,
such as London, Barcelona, Lisbon, Paris, Brussels, Vienna,
Athens, and Rome. People in everyday settings, as well as at tourist attractions"

But the only way to shoot that kind of thing is via editorial and Adobe/Fotolia do not accept editorial

So how can we submit that kind of imagery??
You just next several hundred model releases patience and deep pockets.

Which shows that whoever drew up this list has no clue as to how Adobe/Fotolia work

Sigh...

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2017, 22:05 »
+1
Well if you search for 'tourist attraction' you get about half a million results, so maybe they have a slight clue.

k_t_g

  • Made you look!
« Reply #19 on: May 09, 2017, 22:09 »
0
Realism is one of my specialties.  :)
But I hope you guys will regularly update that list because I would imagine that list will get obsolete fast.

« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2017, 00:12 »
0
whenever i submit authentic looking models/image they get rejected for commercial appeal or not needed. lol

Same here.
I think that they still prefer the old fake bluish "Arcurs style"
They like "fake" authenticity if you can do that you've got it made.
Yes, they like natural 45 teeth smiles!

« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2017, 01:11 »
+1
Well if you search for 'tourist attraction' you get about half a million results, so maybe they have a slight clue.

In that case they should change their submission process and rules

But searching for "tourist attraction" you see lots of images without anyone in them

Strangely empty places.

Do the same search for "tourist attraction people" you get 40,000 hits but this time with single people or couples obviously model released but not natural


« Last Edit: May 10, 2017, 01:56 by Sammy the Cat »

« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2017, 01:39 »
0
Well if you search for 'tourist attraction' you get about half a million results, so maybe they have a slight clue.
and they want more?

« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2017, 04:30 »
+2
The list states they also look for all kinds of cars, rv's etc. but when you submit these (I do a lot of vintage cars photography), with brands etc. removed they are almost always rejected for Intellectual Property Violation.....
« Last Edit: May 10, 2017, 04:37 by Luuk »

« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2017, 13:41 »
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

That's funny ... I was out on rainy old monday and had decided I'd shoot textures. So I shot some tree bark and stuff, I don't think I put them in the folder to upload though ... and here is bark on the list. I'll have to give it a go.

« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2017, 13:42 »
+2
The list states they also look for all kinds of cars, rv's etc. but when you submit these (I do a lot of vintage cars photography), with brands etc. removed they are almost always rejected for Intellectual Property Violation.....

Did you have the car sign a model release?

« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2017, 18:27 »
+2
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

That's funny ... I was out on rainy old monday and had decided I'd shoot textures. So I shot some tree bark and stuff, I don't think I put them in the folder to upload though ... and here is bark on the list. I'll have to give it a go.

Double post, so while I was out today I kept the list of needed content in my mind but, there are tons of pretty similar images in there already. I'm thinking this is more of a ploy to keep us submitting fresh stuff than an actual need of content.

« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2017, 18:44 »
0
The link no longer works.

« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2017, 11:07 »
+1
The link worked for me.

Do you really need pictures of people shaking hands?

Also it seems a bit ambitious to expect us to get model releases for city and tourist location crowds and property releases for the latest tech and major city buildings.

Still, it is good to see what is said to be needed (I still am doubtful about the handshakes).

Also as far as I can tell when they say "authentic" they usually mean "authentically beautiful people in poses that look like they aren't poses".

« Reply #29 on: May 11, 2017, 14:01 »
0
The list states they also look for all kinds of cars, rv's etc. but when you submit these (I do a lot of vintage cars photography), with brands etc. removed they are almost always rejected for Intellectual Property Violation.....

Did you have the car sign a model release?

Always! T-Ford #221, Chevrolet Corvette #675, written and signed in oil

« Reply #30 on: May 11, 2017, 15:11 »
0
Love to get people shots, but what about editorial? Most of mine with people will never have a model release as they are natural and on the fly.

« Reply #31 on: May 11, 2017, 19:13 »
+2
you cant take pics of the city anywhere in the world specially stunning cityscapes like they are asking you to and not post them as editorial.Even in the parks and with no people you post them as editorial.
this only works if you take pics from an exotic island from a very distance, or use a drone, or if you take pics of empty streets  but no buildings aside.
so the  we are lookin for tourist attraction thing from them but commercialy only, doesnt make any sence.
UNLES UNLESS. if you make a big production like a steven speilberg movie,hire actors and extras,built two houses in new york like james cameron built the titanic again for the titanic movie ;D and spent millions of bucks and post them as commercials and they will finally get accepted and you will receive,,,,,,, 24 p :'(   

« Reply #32 on: May 12, 2017, 01:10 »
+1
"Freedom of panorama"

« Reply #33 on: May 12, 2017, 01:49 »
0
Link not working.404 error.
Anybody got a copy?

« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2017, 06:22 »
0
It worked for me just now.

« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2017, 11:37 »
0
The link still works for me.

« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2017, 11:54 »
+3
It really doesnt matter what we supply or how good it is at the next sort algorithm change it will be all in vain and we are back to square one. ::) that goes for all the micros.

« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2017, 02:02 »
0
It really doesnt matter what we supply or how good it is at the next sort algorithm change it will be all in vain and we are back to square one. ::) that goes for all the micros.
Does changing the algorithm reduce the demand for content? Are buyers so stupid they just buy anything? Everytime the algoritmm changes there are winners and losers who is to judge whether the "winners" content is worse than the losers?

« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2017, 02:49 »
0
They are all in desperate needs of handshakes and young business men as well as cats and dogs not forgetting flowers and babies! ;D

« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2017, 03:05 »
+3
It really doesnt matter what we supply or how good it is at the next sort algorithm change it will be all in vain and we are back to square one. ::) that goes for all the micros.

Precisely, because the sole purpose of algorithm changes is to make sure no one sells anything. It's the perfect plan.

« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2017, 03:14 »
+1
It really doesnt matter what we supply or how good it is at the next sort algorithm change it will be all in vain and we are back to square one. ::) that goes for all the micros.

Precisely, because the sole purpose of algorithm changes is to make sure no one sells anything. It's the perfect plan.
Not quite it is targeted at certain people for no logical reason just to annoy them I guess.

« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2017, 06:45 »
0
The final solution!! last of the summer wine!

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2017, 07:05 »
0
I'm assuming that any changes to the search algorithm are to make sure that the people searching get more accurate and relevant results. If they don't, then people will probably get a bit fed up and looks somewhere else.

So a decent algorithm will result in consistent or even better sales. A bad algorithm will result in less sales. And if an algorithm does result in less ales then they'll change it back or try something different.

The thing is that any change will affect everyone to some extent. Some will get more sales, some will get less and some will stay about the same. If sales are up then it's rare people will be out complaining about it or adding to threads about algorithm changes. But when somebody loses from the changes, I'd like to think that others will benefit... and if the site itself is losing out then they will make changes accordingly. Maybe I'm wrong!

« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2017, 07:12 »
+1
I'm assuming that any changes to the search algorithm are to make sure that the people searching get more accurate and relevant results. If they don't, then people will probably get a bit fed up and looks somewhere else.

So a decent algorithm will result in consistent or even better sales. A bad algorithm will result in less sales. And if an algorithm does result in less ales then they'll change it back or try something different.

The thing is that any change will affect everyone to some extent. Some will get more sales, some will get less and some will stay about the same. If sales are up then it's rare people will be out complaining about it or adding to threads about algorithm changes. But when somebody loses from the changes, I'd like to think that others will benefit... and if the site itself is losing out then they will make changes accordingly. Maybe I'm wrong!

Sounds right to me, but if the algorythm is price sensitive and returns an increase to Adobe when it excludes those on a higher percentage some contributors lose out more than others.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2017, 07:42 »
+2
That's a good point, but I'd like to think that any benefit from putting lower commission images at the top would be offset by the loss in customer satisfaction (and therefore possible sales) from being presented with images that don't fit the bill.

I mean, these higher commision images are higher commission because they sell better. There's probably a good reason for that, so a buyer presented with better selling images would probably be better than presenting them with a bunch of low selling items. Saving 5 to 10% on payouts isn't much good if sales are down 5 to 10%.

« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2017, 07:45 »
0
That's a good point, but I'd like to think that any benefit from putting lower commission images at the top would be offset by the loss in customer satisfaction (and therefore possible sales) from being presented with images that don't fit the bill.

I mean, these higher commision images are higher commission because they sell better. There's probably a good reason for that, so a buyer presented with better selling images would probably be better than presenting them with a bunch of low selling items. Saving 5 to 10% on payouts isn't much good if sales are down 5 to 10%.
I think you are spot on but with the lack of transparency on algorithms means we will never be sure so the debate will continue. Of course if they DID do that there's nothing we can do so its academic really.

« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2017, 08:25 »
0
That's a good point, but I'd like to think that any benefit from putting lower commission images at the top would be offset by the loss in customer satisfaction (and therefore possible sales) from being presented with images that don't fit the bill.

I mean, these higher commision images are higher commission because they sell better. There's probably a good reason for that, so a buyer presented with better selling images would probably be better than presenting them with a bunch of low selling items. Saving 5 to 10% on payouts isn't much good if sales are down 5 to 10%.

"returns an increase to Adobe" I think you may have missed that bit.

« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2017, 09:41 »
+1
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

MatHayward, thanks for your help!

« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2017, 10:38 »
+1

I think you are spot on but with the lack of transparency on algorithms means we will never be sure so the debate will continue. Of course if they DID do that there's nothing we can do so its academic really.

I'm pretty sure that a crowdsourcing model pretty much demands the lack of transparency on algorithm. Otherwise a metrics becomes a target.

I am looking at the list and I can bet my pants that some of the content will not sell well for a given contributor. It is probably good for Adobe's business though. I don't mind, it's fair.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2017, 10:43 by niktol »

« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2017, 13:34 »
+1
Thanks for bringing the list to our attention Mat.

I have so many of the types of images Adobe is seeking, but, as people pointed out, most are editorial. Lots of travel in the cities you mention but with crowds, firefighters fighting a real fire, that sort of thing. The only thing I can add are some natural disaster photos since Sandy took its toll on our house and cars some years back (since tree damage can be from any kind of disaster-we are away from the water but a huge oak tree fell on our house and two cars). I'll have to check they may all be RM, in which case, no luck there either. 

I was reminded of that when I uploaded some travel images last weekend and one in the batch was rejected for lack of a property release. I hadn't meant to upload it.

But, it's a good comprehensive list, with some good ideas. So, thanks again.

« 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
1669 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 19:15
by News Feed
2 Replies
3072 Views
Last post March 09, 2011, 12:52
by ErickN
235 Replies
43267 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
28863 Views
Last post March 31, 2016, 16:23
by Indie
24 Replies
3162 Views
Last post December 22, 2016, 13:31
by pixel8

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors