Author Topic: 100% Photo rejection - ouch (Read 11191 times)

bobkeenan · « **on:** July 06, 2009, 15:13 »

I have been at this for about 5 months now and have 100-400 photos on each major site. Fotolia's acceptance rate for me overall is about 25% but except for the last month or two was improving to closer to 50%.
I had not uploaded anything in the last few weeks and then uploaded 25 new photos. NONE were accepted. The common reason was "did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

A 100 % rejection has not happened on any of my submittals for any sites.

So something has changed and I am pretty sure that my skills have not gone down the tube.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2009, 15:22 »

I can't tell you what the problem was in your case, but I have had similar experiences.

Just my personal opinion, but I think some of the inspectors don't like to get a whole bunch of photos in a large batch. If they inspect one or two and don't like them they are a bit more likely to toss the whole bunch.

My acceptance rates are better if I keep my batches to 10 or 15 per day. Even better if those 10 or 15 are mixed from different shoots rather than all the same concept.

Peter · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2009, 15:47 »

We could say more if you show us rejected images.

bobkeenan · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2009, 20:46 »

Here is a link to some of the photos that got rejected.

http://bobbyk.smugmug.com/gallery/8818561_rXh8m/1/584031639_FTeWT

willie · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2009, 21:08 »

What Pixelbytes said is correct. If you have too much of a set, it's best not to upload all of it at once. Maybe 2 or 3 at the most.
Quickly looking at your rejected images, I felt they were too much of the same type of images. This is exactly what Pixelbytes is referring.
As for the reason, my guess (and it's a BIG guess) is that you rely heavily on a color tint and all very abstract. Maybe you might try cc them to more neutrality, and give it more variations in color tonality. Give it more dynamics, with highlight and shadow, to give the glass more luminence. Just a thought.

bobkeenan · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2009, 22:07 »

Thanks for the advice..... I will use it.

Bob Keenan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2009, 22:53 »

Quote from: bobkeenan on July 06, 2009, 20:46

Here is a link to some of the photos that got rejected.

http://bobbyk.smugmug.com/gallery/8818561_rXh8m/1/584031639_FTeWT

I can never tell, but except for the skyscraper with the clouds, which I liked best, they all look kind of soft? I'd say that all of them have interesting aspects that could be used for background on conceptual material.

Keep in mind that I don't use neat image because I don't like the way it makes photos soft, and I generally shoot everything at ISO 100.

Microstock and digital contrast may have ruined my perception of grain and natural looking images.

Hey, welcome to the 100% club, not everyone can be a member. I had a 100% acceptance month followed by what might as well have been a 100% rejection when one reviewer took everything waiting and rejected it in minutes. Amazing isn't it how we can go from doing fine, to producing utter crap in the blink of a reviewers eye?

Either that or I snuck the first pictures past and should consider myself lucky?

Peter · « **Reply #7 on:** July 07, 2009, 00:09 »

Quote from: bobkeenan on July 06, 2009, 20:46

Here is a link to some of the photos that got rejected.

http://bobbyk.smugmug.com/gallery/8818561_rXh8m/1/584031639_FTeWT

you should take care of:

low contrast
poor light
dull colors

russw · « **Reply #8 on:** July 07, 2009, 01:56 »

Well for what it's worth and from my point of view i'll probably stop uploading there now as I haven't had an image accepted there for about three or four months. Prior to the management change i was building up a sizable library there with an acceptance leval of about 60% - however since the change nothing has got through! I'll stop uploading there now as it's not worth my time and bother and concentrate on the others of the big 6 i'm with.
The theory of batches of images not accepted because of an overall similarity is valid however not in all cases including mine. More likely it's something like running out of server space, winding the company up in order to combine it with another one favouring uploads from specific geographical areas or subject matter - something like that. Frankly can't be bothered with them though anymore - they are taking the mick!

russw · « **Reply #9 on:** July 07, 2009, 02:10 »

Just seen the Fotolia blog where it seems the talk is of mass rejection of photos and acceptance of vectors. The few photos accepted are frankly shoddy quality - therefore the quality rejection excuse put out by them is implausible.

Just my 2 penneth!!

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:28 »

Quote from: Peter on July 07, 2009, 00:09

you should take care of:

low contrast
poor light
dull colors

Exactly. Also there are several images with obvious dirt/debris. Not bothering to clone stuff like that out is just sloppy work __ if you don't do it then any buyers will probably have to. As they say "stock imagery is largely about portraying the world as we'd like it to be, not how it actually is".

Nowadays FT are also very reluctant to accept images of buildings without property releases too.

Those images could have been rejected quite legitimately for any of several different reasons. They are simply not quality stock.

I'm actually quite surprised that any agency would continue to permit uploads from any contributor with an acceptance ratio of 25% or anything like it. The cost of dealing with such individuals must be hugely disproportionate in comparison with professional contributors who'd certainly expect to maintain 80% as a minimum __ and you can bet that it is the latter who generate the vast majority of sales too.

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** July 07, 2009, 06:00 »

Fotolia doesn`t easily accept abstract backgrounds, so if you are giong to try and upload them they have to be top quailty and even then they will mostly be rejected. You had some nice angles and textures but the images of bricks, and the two images with sky were a little dull thanks to the overcast sky.

puravida · « **Reply #12 on:** July 07, 2009, 09:48 »

Quote from: leaf on July 07, 2009, 06:00

Fotolia doesn`t easily accept abstract backgrounds, so if you are giong to try and upload them they have to be top quailty and even then they will mostly be rejected. You had some nice angles and textures but the images of bricks, and the two images with sky were a little dull thanks to the overcast sky.

Mr. Keenan,
Tyler is correct. Abstract esp this cropped is difficult to be unque. There is already too much of this sort.
Try variations... different perspective, longer view, fish eye efx, vanishing points, juxtapose reflections,etc,etc,etc...
As for the overcast sky, it can be piqued with a little work using Highlight / Shadow post processing, but naturally, it won't look as impressive as the real thing by waiting it out for the right light.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #13 on:** July 07, 2009, 12:26 »

Really great critiques in the above comments! I agree with them, but will also add that I think they are also very low demand subjects.

Stuff you can shoot just walking around with your camera is so common and everyone and his brother uploads that. The sites already have way more of these types of shots than they can sell.

Don't get me wrong, Bob, your angles and compositions are great. With some levels work and cleanup of the specs and such they would be nice looking pictures, but I don't think it is in demand as stock.

lroberg · « **Reply #14 on:** July 08, 2009, 05:51 »

I just had a large bunch of photos rejected as well. I certainly can live with the rejection, if they would at least tell me what the problem is. Instead, the response is, ""Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality".

A while back, their response was also absurd, listing everything that could be wrong:

The image contains one or more technical problems:

Blurry or out of focus
Over/Under exposure
Framing problem
Over or under saturated colors
Problems with contrast
Noise or Pixelation
Quality of routing
Interpolation problem

Why can't they do what most other sites do and list the specific problem(s) with the photos?

willie · « **Reply #15 on:** July 08, 2009, 08:29 »

Quote from: lroberg on July 08, 2009, 05:51

I just had a large bunch of photos rejected as well. I certainly can live with the rejection, if they would at least tell me what the problem is. Instead, the response is, ""Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality".

A while back, their response was also absurd, listing everything that could be wrong:

The image contains one or more technical problems:

Blurry or out of focus
Over/Under exposure
Framing problem
Over or under saturated colors
Problems with contrast
Noise or Pixelation
Quality of routing
Interpolation problem

Why can't they do what most other sites do and list the specific problem(s) with the photos?

This has already been overstated.
Rejection reasons, even as vague or canned as such you mentioned , are not really that mysterious, if you only practise a little more objectivity and lay aside your deflated ego of getting 100% rejection, or whatever.
To keep reeling over how vague the rejection reasons are is trendy and cool, but it really does nothing constructive to improve your photography , if you are that serious about working with Fotolia.

Bob Keenan has shown he was asking for inputs and he took what was provided here objectively. You can do the same too, if you want to succeed in getting more approvals. If not, as many experienced and straight shooting commentors said, then go find another site that is easy to get approval. If all you want is lots of approvals there is a whole list on the right of this forum to choose from.

Personally, I find Fotolia very picky and strict. Istock too, and all for a good reason. They want to be able to sell what they approve. Once I convinced myself of this , I more or less get the inkling why my images would subsequently be rejected. After studying what the editors are looking for, it's really not difficult to get a fair amount approved regularly. You have to make an effort to edit your work critically and objectively.

It won't be found simply to repeat this rant.

lroberg · « **Reply #16 on:** July 08, 2009, 09:08 »

Quote from: Perseus on July 08, 2009, 08:29

Quote from: lroberg on July 08, 2009, 05:51
I just had a large bunch of photos rejected as well. I certainly can live with the rejection, if they would at least tell me what the problem is. Instead, the response is, ""Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality".

A while back, their response was also absurd, listing everything that could be wrong:

The image contains one or more technical problems:

Blurry or out of focus
Over/Under exposure
Framing problem
Over or under saturated colors
Problems with contrast
Noise or Pixelation
Quality of routing
Interpolation problem

Why can't they do what most other sites do and list the specific problem(s) with the photos?

This has already been overstated.
Rejection reasons, even as vague or canned as such you mentioned , are not really that mysterious, if you only practise a little more objectivity and lay aside your deflated ego of getting 100% rejection, or whatever.
To keep reeling over how vague the rejection reasons are is trendy and cool, but it really does nothing constructive to improve your photography , if you are that serious about working with Fotolia.

Bob Keenan has shown he was asking for inputs and he took what was provided here objectively. You can do the same too, if you want to succeed in getting more approvals. If not, as many experienced and straight shooting commentors said, then go find another site that is easy to get approval. If all you want is lots of approvals there is a whole list on the right of this forum to choose from.

Personally, I find Fotolia very picky and strict. Istock too, and all for a good reason. They want to be able to sell what they approve. Once I convinced myself of this , I more or less get the inkling why my images would subsequently be rejected. After studying what the editors are looking for, it's really not difficult to get a fair amount approved regularly. You have to make an effort to edit your work critically and objectively.

It won't be found simply to repeat this rant.

I guess you dind't read my comments. I'm not complaining about getting rejected, nor have I had 100% rejected...(that was a different poster). I'm saying that they do NOT provide a reason WHY it's rejected. I belong to four other sites, all of which have rejected photos I've taken, but they provide a reason why, so I can possibly correct it and resubmit it, and/or improve my photography.

Part of their response to me about this issue:

"Unfortunately due to the high volume of revisions they are not able to provide the specific details of rejection."

The other four sites, Istock, SS, BS, and DT don't seem to have this problem.

willie · « **Reply #17 on:** July 08, 2009, 09:18 »

Quote from: lroberg on July 08, 2009, 09:08

I guess you dind't read my comments. I'm not complaining about getting rejected, nor have I had 100% rejected...(that was a different poster). I'm saying that they do NOT provide a reason WHY it's rejected. I belong to four other sites, all of which have rejected photos I've taken, but they provide a reason why, so I can possibly correct it and resubmit it, and/or improve my photography.

Correct, I was speaking in general terms as well, rather than answer to each comments individually. I contribute to those other sites you mentioned too, and yes, although I agree that some sites, incl more recently Veer Marketplace, give you an almost direct explanation to assist in re-submit.
While others are not so specific.

My point is, after a while you more or less know deep down your image MIGHT be rejected because of a certain thing. I find that nowadays after conscientiously trying to understand how each site display certain preference, dislike, ... to my images. Sometimes, you just submit the image anyway, to see if your inkling is correct. Most times Fotolia will in fact reject me on that image.

In other words, there are certain likely chances that you do get rejections, and there are other instances you know they will be approved. It comes with paying more attention to the rejections.

If I did not answer your question, it's because I wasn't. I was more or less trying to answer Bob's question, since this is his topic

bobkeenan · « **Reply #18 on:** July 08, 2009, 16:52 »

Yes.... the comments here were good feedback and they were a little ego bruising. But I went back to the photos and did a little work on them (contrast, color, clone clean up) AND.... they look much better. I think the key comment was that for commercial purposes the customers want images of things as they ought to be not as they are. Since Istockphoto only takes 15 at a time I can apply that to the remaining 10 images.

Note that the other nice thing is that there are 5 other big sites. Lots of those same photos got selected AND today some sold.

So I am not a total failure in life as the fotolia rejection made me feel but I just need some more work.

Squat · « **Reply #19 on:** July 08, 2009, 17:58 »

Quote from: bobkeenan on July 08, 2009, 16:52

So I am not a total failure in life as the fotolia rejection made me feel but I just need some more work.

Rejections are more common with Fotolia, but that's only because they are more picky to suit their buyers' need. Don't let it be negative to you, but more so, just be aware of what kinds of images they prefer. And like others said, try to stagger similar images in submission. 2 , 3 at the most per upload.
Variety works best with Fotolia.

Whatever, good luck and keep at it. Fotolia is worth it.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #20 on:** July 08, 2009, 18:12 »

Quote from: bobkeenan on July 08, 2009, 16:52

So I am not a total failure in life as the fotolia rejection made me feel but I just need some more work.

Oh yes, definitely Fotolia rejections are not the be all and end all. If most of us based our self worth on Fotolia's opinion of our work there would be a high suicide rate in this job

Squat · « **Reply #21 on:** July 08, 2009, 18:16 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 08, 2009, 18:12

Quote from: bobkeenan on July 08, 2009, 16:52

So I am not a total failure in life as the fotolia rejection made me feel but I just need some more work.

Oh yes, definitely Fotolia rejections are not the be all and end all. If most of us based our self worth on Fotolia's opinion of our work there would be a high suicide rate in this job

rofl Pixelbytes, yes I laughingly agree. When I first started in micro, I started to drink a lot more alcohol

But nowadays with less rejections, I went from hard liquor to a casual drinker of Guinness

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 100% Photo rejection - ouch (Read 11191 times)

bobkeenan

PixelBytes

Peter

bobkeenan

willie

bobkeenan

RacePhoto

Peter

russw

russw

gostwyck

leaf

puravida

PixelBytes

lroberg

willie

lroberg

willie

bobkeenan

Squat

PixelBytes

Squat

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors