Author Topic: Well, that was a waste of time... (Read 6464 times)

disorderly · « **on:** January 27, 2009, 17:22 »

After reading a few positive comments here, I thought I'd give Featurepics a try. I uploaded ten photos at random. (Okay, not really at random; I grabbed every fiftieth picture from my SS portfolio.) Checking back just now, I see that eight of ten were rejected. Which surprised me, but hey, I had a similar experience the first time I uploaded to Fotolia. But here's where it gets weird.

The reason for the first rejection: "we are limiting "balloons" category". Okay, I can accept that. It's a picture of a hot air balloon in flight, although what they have against balloons I can't imagine. But then I go to the second rejection. "we are limiting "balloons" category". Uhhh... that's not a balloon. It's a plane. And the third: "we are limiting "balloons" category". Um, guys? I'm pretty sure those aren't balloons under her blouse, if you know what I mean. Nor are the models in photos number four, five, six, seven or eight smuggling any balloons. And if you can't tell the difference, well, I think we have a problem...

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2009, 19:13 »

sorry for the post editing here... please keep the forum to a general pg..something er other level. This is a 'family' site

... no nude photos please.

If you need / want to talk about a photo with any nudity please just link it and put a NSFW or other warning.

null · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2009, 19:24 »

Quote from: leaf on January 27, 2009, 19:13

sorry for the post editing here... please keep the forum to a general pg..something er other level. This is a 'family' site ... no nude photos please.

Yes I forgot... "family values" in the US equate bigotry. Thanks for censoring. Not. Whatever...

Calamity_John · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2009, 20:19 »

you know the other very strange thing about your post is that I consider myself a pretty newbie photographic hack .. and I just counted and I have half a dozen balloons at FP .. all but one posted within the last couple months .. and none of them are God's great gift to micro (maybe it is my fault) .. and also I have 636 images up at FP and have had 1 rejection .. the idea of FP rejecting 8 out of 10 of anything seems pretty out there .. on the other hand the image they rejected of mine they own the only rejection for that image .. I think it is on 8 out of 9 agencies .. so maybe that says something good about your images. good luck .. John

Phil · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2009, 21:00 »

featurepics rejecting images?

seems odd.

disorderly · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2009, 21:06 »

Thanks, John. As I said, I'm mystified. If anybody's curious, here are Shutterstock links to the images in question, all but one of which are safe for work or family or whatever:

Accepted, accepted, rejected, rejected, rejected, rejected, rejected, rejected,
rejected (contains nudity), rejected.

Curious to say the least.

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2009, 01:40 »

i'm guessing that they might have rejected one photo or something then got their mouse stuck on the delete button.. Seems odd. I would contact feature pics.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2009, 11:23 »

It's a mistake for sure. I never heard of something like this at FP. Also, of course reviewer know what is a balloon and what is not. And, finally, FP support has always been nice and really helping. So, contact them. I am sure they will correct this

disorderly · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2009, 11:31 »

Thanks; I've sent them a message. I have to say that it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their competence.

disorderly · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2009, 02:57 »

Just to follow up, I received a response from Elena that was both an explanation (a bug in the software their reviewer used) and an apology, which was gracious of her. All ten images were re-reviewed and accepted. I'll upload a bunch more and see how I do.