pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Poll

Which agency you have more problems in submitting images?

IStock
Fotolia
Both are doing in similar way

Author Topic: Fotolia or IStock?  (Read 21401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2008, 22:04 »
0
iStock is far better for me.  I actually reduced my 'folio at FT some time ago due to my 'credits'  disappearing and no satisfactory answer given to me as to how it was happening. 

I believe the focus on the question is submission - FT is simpler (keyword sorting may be a problem to some, though), but acceptance ratios seem to vary given the statements here.

Other aspects such as earnings, search tool flaws and site functionalities are not (if I understand the poll correctly) in judgement here.

Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2008, 22:44 »
0
FT is less problem for me, very consistent approval time and sales.
IS is more picky and unconsistent approval time.

« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2008, 23:06 »
0
Many more rejected photos at IS but many more of the accepted photos sell. Even had one rejected at Fotolia for cropping and is a flamer at IS. Every site will be differant. sometimes it seems it just matters who reviews them. Just do both.  IS has strict upload limits also. Usually reviewed in a week or so. Good Luck.  8)

« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2008, 01:15 »
0

I believe the focus on the question is submission - FT is simpler (keyword sorting may be a problem to some, though), but acceptance ratios seem to vary given the statements here.

Other aspects such as earnings, search tool flaws and site functionalities are not (if I understand the poll correctly) in judgement here.

Regards,
Adelaide

sorry.... suppose I should read the entire thread before commenting.  I've removed it.

« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2008, 03:43 »
0
In terms of rejections I find iStock tend to be more picky though recently they have been accepting images that quite a few of the other sites rejected.

One positive aspect of iStock is that if their is a minor flaw in a photo they will tell you and you can resubmit, whereas Fotolia rejections are very vague

In terms of uploading FT are a bit easier than iStock.

If your acceptance rate at iStock is about 50% I would recommend disambiguating after your batch has been reviewed

« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2008, 14:27 »
0
I found FT very picky and unpredictable, but it has probably to do with the fact that I do only outdoor photography. Within two weeks they rejected like 90% of what I sent them, and e.g on DT I have 80% acceptance rate. FT even rejected images taken by SS and IS.

But, what is most annoying that their rejection emails list multiple rejection reasons, like out-of-focus, noise, lighting (I don't know if they have the same template in all languages, I got mine in German). Come on, my images my not be brilliant, but it is impossible that they have so many issues, if they had been accepted by IS or SS.
I found it quite disrespectful.

I don't mind SS or IS rejections because I can learn something from them and improve my skills, but FT rejections sometimes can be really pathetic - in some cases it hasn't anything to do with the image itself, but with their thinking that they cannot sell it.

So, I quit uploading to FT, deleted some images that I have uploaded to higher-priced agencies, and I don't regret it. Anyway, I don't think FT is strong in selling outdoor photos, so no big loss. I keep my account there only because maybe I will change my subjects or they will change their profile in the future.

For the time being though, I will keep uploading to IS and SS (because they are consistent in reviewing and have many more sales), but will focus on higher-priced sites.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2008, 14:33 by Tom »

« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2008, 18:23 »
0

DSLR is obviously an expensive next step, but you could conceivably go with a used Rebel or 30D (if you can find one), then throw on a $70 Plastic Fantastic 50mm 1.4. 


I think you meant the Plastic Fantastic 50mm 1.8, but in Europe it costs 99 EUR, which is more than 150 USD :( :( Anyway, I plan to purchase it in the near future.
The 50mm 1.4 is much more expensive, costs about 350 EUR.

« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2008, 10:11 »
0
I voted for Istock - they are definitely the pickiest.  The good thing though, unless you keep repeating the same mistakes over and over (edges of your isolation are too feathered or too rough!) you can learn a little something from each and every rejection.

And when it comes to selling photos, in 12 months my best seller on Istock has 407sales, it's my 3rd best seller at FT with 14 - so what does it matter if FT refuses a few with their unsuitable for magazines response?  (Note - to be fair, a similar has 19 sales and it's not on IS, so maybe I should combine their sales).

Other than the model releases that were corrupted with V2 - the only specific rejection I ever remember receiving from them was in Jan or Feb for "Morality" issues.  They don't accept nudes!  And they seemed to be very apologetic for it.  Glad to report that some other agencies approved it though, and Zymm didn't mind putting a nude on their front page.


« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2008, 10:32 »
0
Would be nice if the question was more clear... is this about the submission process itself, or acceptance/rejection of the inspectors?

fotoKmyst

« Reply #34 on: April 02, 2008, 10:48 »
0
everywhere... (maybe because of my 4mp camera and matter that for other sites I downsize my noisy pictures but for FT my resolution is marginally accepted so submit images as is).
Wonder am I alone in this or I've just got wrong initial impression and Fotolia is more picky to images than others?

funny, my uncle  just joined another service BigStock
which you guys all told him on this site it's the best for starters.
his shots are all shot HiRes and clean as he inspected them larger before submit.
his first submission, he just emailed me
15 submit all large and clean and clear.
15 rejects. all with the same response...
about noise and read the FAQ.

one look at  the email, he said, shoot , how can the same advice be for all 15 shots. they were all different types of photos and all different dates. they can't all have the same problems to be rejected.

his first 5 perharps, he said because he has set the quality to lower when he travelled so as to get more shots on his compact flash card.
but when he's home, he set it to the highest next to last setting .

oh, his camera is 8 Mp , SLR the newer E series from Olympus.

any good advice for my uncle, other than forget BigStock?
he wanted to delete the rest which are still wiating for approval but he can't find a delete button  ;D

thanks in advance people. you all sound like you know what you're talking about. so i just thought i put this in.

lisafx

« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2008, 11:16 »
0

funny, my uncle  just joined another service BigStock
which you guys all told him on this site it's the best for starters.
his shots are all shot HiRes and clean as he inspected them larger before submit.
his first submission, he just emailed me
15 submit all large and clean and clear.
15 rejects. all with the same response...
about noise and read the FAQ.

SNIP

any good advice for my uncle, other than forget BigStock?
he wanted to delete the rest which are still wiating for approval but he can't find a delete button  ;D


BigStock has recently been training new reviewers.  Unless he has monitor issues and can't see the noise in his images properly, then it is likely that he got one of these new reveiwers. 

Personally I would have him calibrate his monitor and check them again.  If he still sees no issues, then he should try resubmitting.

« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2008, 11:57 »
0
his first 5 perharps, he said because he has set the quality to lower when he travelled so as to get more shots on his compact flash card.
but when he's home, he set it to the highest next to last setting .

oh, his camera is 8 Mp , SLR the newer E series from Olympus.

any good advice for my uncle, other than forget BigStock?

Does the camera support RAW? I would assume that any shot taken on any camera in .jpeg that is not taken at the maximum quality settings that the camera supports would be rejected immediately, just a quick check of the exif data tells you that there will be artifact problems, an easy rejection for a reviewer, no need to even spend the time to look at the picture.  CF is cheap nowadays, $100 (US), if you look for deals, can at least get you the capacity to take 1000 shots in RAW, or 2000+ at minimum .jpeg compression (superfine on a Canon) on an 8 MP DLSR.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
8418 Views
Last post January 15, 2009, 17:19
by Whiz
20 Replies
5270 Views
Last post April 30, 2009, 05:23
by OM
7 Replies
3393 Views
Last post June 18, 2010, 20:24
by Phil
166 Replies
30999 Views
Last post February 18, 2011, 04:21
by Microbius
16 Replies
6447 Views
Last post April 21, 2011, 17:23
by donding

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results