MicrostockGroup

what fotolia has taught me is if the image is isolated on white they almost always accept it .. no matter how horrid my technique .. if it has anything to do with nature they almost never accept .. anything else is a toss up ..

I have never posted something to the "academy board" section .. that said .. the few times I have looked at it (and to be fair most similar places at the other sites) .. what I have seen is since true perfection is an infinite goal anybody can take a photograph and find some justification to rationalize their preconception.

Wow, I agree FT is the weirdest place to submit. They batch reject like crazy. When I started in 2007 they was accepting much of people images. I pointed out at this time as many people here the lack of quality in their collection.

Now I wonder what they are trying to do. It seem now, that all images taken out of the studio worth nothing for them. As I am shooting urban shot in Montreal for all the summer, I'm in big trouble

Yeah this is by far the worst for a budding photographer, trying to grow a portfolio!
The smallest portfolio I have is with FT.
They reject my work like crazy.
I think I now have something stupid like an 8% acceptance ratio!!!!!! 
That's insane!!!!!!!

I'm actually beginning to think this is personal.
Most of the same images get accepted at SS, CS, 123, DT etc.
Seems FT is the absolute worst for me.

I'm frustrated. Maybe I'll start taking advice mentioned earlier and not submit anything nature related or anything that's not isolated on a white BG.
I'm ready to hurt someone around now - I'm mad!

I do mostly all isolated work and out of 97 they kept 35. where the other places keep almost 100% of them

Pixart,

I'm knocking on wood here because I'm having the opposite experience.  Of my latest 50 sales, 7 were subs.  Of the latest 20, only one was subs.  I was getting 30-50% subs before.

Your report makes me believe I just have been lucky and FT is still taken over by subs buyers.

Regards,
Adelaide

If you ask me, FT could leave just one reason for rejection: "Your photo did not meet aesthetic level"

what I think is frustrating on many sites oonce you have a certain percentage of acceptance/rejection - they will stick to that same ratio - even if you upload a batch of techniqly sound good stock photos - the magic ration will be applied.
So if your acceptance ratio is 8 % - I bet that if you uploaded a batch of great photos - only 10% will get accepted - no matter what.
Kind of crappy, but thats the way it is

In my case, out of all the top tiers FT has always been the best where reviewing is concerned, almost zero rejections there lately.

It seems to depend very much on the type of photo you are unloading.   I just looked at Fotolia's "latest uploads" page.   About 90% of what's accepted is photos of attractive models, vectors, and manipulated composite images.   Only 10% are traditional still life/scenic photos.   It appears that Fotolia doesn't want a lot more of the latter types, and for them Fotolia's rejection rate is much higher than for other micro sites.   

Strange to hear all this. I have almost never had any problems with the FT reviewing. Its always been fair to me. I think we have to understand that in this kind of business, rejections is something that goes with the territory, Its frustrating but there you are. Best to just forget it and move on really.

As an example I always use, is the Getty-RM housecollection, when sending them say 50 files, you are honored if they accept 4.