Today, all (eight, and maybe ninth will be the same) my rejections on fotolia were type: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." So, I am asking my self, are my photos really so ugly, or maybe this is some new reviewer, or he has only one button for rejection, he's right and other reviewers on other sites don't know what is good photo, or it's maybe something else? 
 

oh come on, its fotolia. 

the agency is horrible with acceptances/rejections.  i'm pretty sure they have a narrow list of photos and anything outside of that isn't good enough for them

they haven't been the same since v1

Yeah guys The good thing is I really don't get so upset like before, when started with stock photography. I don't even correct my images anymore. Just leave it like that and submit new photos. I wanted to post it here because it's really funny when you get rejected because your images are ugly...all of them  

Quote
Please take better quality images

That's hilarious! But alas it's the truth in some cases.

FT has been on my sh&t list for awhile. I hate their category picking. I may do some more uploading there over winter months, but for right now going to spend time on them.

Quote
Please take better quality images

That's hilarious! But alas it's the truth in some cases.

Indeed, but when someone has a good acceptance ratio with them, even if the specific image is not good, it's a very inappropriate rejection reason.

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: whitechild on November 12, 2008, 11:28

Today, all (eight, and maybe ninth will be the same) my rejections on fotolia were type: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." So, I am asking my self, are my photos really so ugly, or maybe this is some new reviewer, or he has only one button for rejection, he's right and other reviewers on other sites don't know what is good photo, or it's maybe something else? 
 

how in the world we can answer to your question, when you didnt provide samples of rejected files? maybe they were that ugly. we dont know until you show them to us.

for a seasoned stock veteran who's been around for a while, whitechild probably knows what he's doing - especially if he knows how to accept rejections as he's stated.  He will probably post again saying that SS and DT and every other agency accepted at least one photo.  Which I wouldn't say is ridiculous.  Fotolia has been a crapper of a site for accepting new photos.  this is probably because they were so terrible at building up a database that they accepted everything they got in 2006 and early 2007.

Somehow they still get sales (and so do I)

Today, all (eight, and maybe ninth will be the same) my rejections on fotolia were type: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." So, I am asking my self, are my photos really so ugly, or maybe this is some new reviewer, or he has only one button for rejection, he's right and other reviewers on other sites don't know what is good photo, or it's maybe something else? 
 

Ya, really ugly, I went and looked, but if you want to get out of stock I'll buy your "ugly" photo collection for ten bucks.  They look fine and if the rejected ones are anything like the rest, that's in the eye of the reviewer. You can always sell them on the other sites.

I've had rejections, I forget where, for "snapshot" (which translated means poor lighting) and the problem is, they were right.

Today, all (eight, and maybe ninth will be the same) my rejections on fotolia were type: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." So, I am asking my self, are my photos really so ugly, or maybe this is some new reviewer, or he has only one button for rejection, he's right and other reviewers on other sites don't know what is good photo, or it's maybe something else? 
 

Whitechild, Remember always: reviewers are humans! They can ate something bad at morning breakfast or have a fight with their partner or whatever make them in bad mood...  this is where come from the inconsistency that everybody experience at microstock review. Plus, there is personal taste. Plus there is the fact that reviewers are many times less qualified (as for technical and basic photography skills) than photographers themselves... 

Of course one must learn to see also with objectivity own images. That usually happens to me a day or two after a rejection. I take the images and see if they weren't really right reason for the reviewer to reject...  The emotional approach is not good. Always do it with 'cool brain'. At least one day after. My 'wise man' suggestion...    

Thank you saniphoto. Well, I almost never had this kind of rejection on fotolia, and my acceptance rate there is pretty fine. Just this time I had this kind of rejection 8 in a row. I guess it's about reviewer rather than me. I don't consider FT as good seller of my photos, so I don't bother with them a lot. I mean, I never resubmit my photos there. I am focused on ss dt and is

we have also to remember that reviewers can work for other sites too. so maybe the stupid rejections from one is the same person rejecting from another site (s).
also it could be some hot shot photographer who also has stock photos and see you doing so well, so could want to cut you down.
not sure, but hey, human nature is full of jealous people.

but once again, as i said before, there are more nice people in stock photography, and good reviewers who are very helpful with their rejection reasons. i find that almost 90 % of the time. when i get the 10% like someone say..the genghis or atilla or what ever name they use, i just laugh at it, and then sometime down the road,
i submit again.
maybe after the christmas rush, atilla and genghis and their children will stop working , and life will be normal again 

Quote from: Stu99 on November 13, 2008, 08:07

Genghis has left the building and a friendly co-worker is approving most of the images I submitted over the last hour 

It seems so, I also had my latest two submissions approved.  After all people had been saying about FT, I feared they would be rejected. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Well, I'm still getting the same reviewer I always do. I think my account is marked: Do not approve more than 50% of his ugly images. This is after being on Fotolia for almost 2.5 years. I submitted a tiny batch of 3, to see if I could beat the odds. Instead, 2 of the 3 were rejected for "Quality of photo".

One of the two is new, so I don't know, maybe it is ugly. (Well, I think I do know, but it hasn't been verified yet elsewhere.) But the other one has been submitted to 6 other sites, including the top 4 besides Fotolia, and they all accepted it (and it's sold on 3 of them already).

So is Fotolia the only one who can find the poor quality in my images? Or might the alternative be a more reasonable explanation? (Those are rhetorical, of course, as I already know the answers.) 

Why all the angst over FT? I agree acceptance there is flawed badly. That's why I haven't uploaded there in over 6 months. Why bother with them?

For me they are hard to ignore as their sales have been quite good in recent months. If the sales weren't there I would have stopped uploading as well, but, I get more ELs per month at FT than anywhere else.

.....OMG, I'm tearing my hair out 

Lucky you! I can't do it ... I am bald.