Author Topic: Fotolia tightening up standards a bit? (Read 22274 times)

PaulieWalnuts · « **on:** January 09, 2008, 18:09 »

Seems like they now only want one image for each subject. So if your batch has an image of a laptop, and an image that has a laptop and a phone, they'll reject one saying they're too similar.

They tightening up a bit? New reviewer?

vphoto · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2008, 18:15 »

No, I have sent to them 4 images of vegetable soup yesterday, all 4 were accepted.

vphoto

vonkara · « **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2008, 18:53 »

Sorry was thinking it was about DT...

vphoto · « **Reply #3 on:** January 09, 2008, 18:58 »

FT reviewing is ad hoc, no science or malice behind it.

vhpoto

ParisEye · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:23 »

As a first proposal I sent them a batch of 10 pictures and they accepted four of the same place (Trafalgar square), so I don't think they are limiting access to one photo per subject.

ason · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2008, 17:26 »

Hmm ...Fotolia is my hardest rewier(?)...Maybe Im not to much commercial...bit Istock, DT,Crestock accept alot more of my pics then Fotolia...

mwp1969 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 15, 2008, 13:18 »

I think Fotolia has tightened up quite a bit on their reviewing in the last two months.

Mark

dbvirago · « **Reply #7 on:** January 15, 2008, 13:52 »

Haven't seen it until today. 80% rejected. All for Type of Photograph reason. This sounds a lot like th SX, we are not looking for such images now, reason. A variety of images including food, architecture, landscapes, and people, including some model shots that are getting 100% acceptance.

Hope this was a fluke. FT is only 6% of my income, if my numbers get slashed, their tedious upload process becomes even more so.

Kiya · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2008, 14:51 »

I noticed more rejections in the last month or so. I had a pretty good acceptance rate at Fotolia until recently. Hopefully this is temporary.

pixelbrat · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2008, 15:42 »

Quote from: dbvirago on January 15, 2008, 13:52

Haven't seen it until today. 80% rejected. All for Type of Photograph reason. This sounds a lot like th SX, we are not looking for such images now, reason. A variety of images including food, architecture, landscapes, and people, including some model shots that are getting 100% acceptance.

Hope this was a fluke. FT is only 6% of my income, if my numbers get slashed, their tedious upload process becomes even more so.

This is disappointing to hear. Someone told me today that StockXpert had lightened up a bit on their mass rejections. Maybe they left StockXpert and are reviewing for Fotolia now.

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2008, 17:21 »

The few images I have submitted in the past weeks were approved, but the amount isn't significant for any stats.

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara · « **Reply #11 on:** January 15, 2008, 18:01 »

I did a try lately whit pictures who was having a bit too much noise for me. So I say to me that the first site who reject them I was going to disabled them to others.

First reject was SS, so I deleted them everywhere. When it was FT time, they were all accepted.
I know SS is picky on noise but that wasn't a rejection I didn't expect

fotografer · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2008, 03:19 »

Fotolia take almost everything that I throw at them as do SS, DT, StockXpert, and BS but IS are getting extremely picky lately.
Sales are doing very well everywhere else at the moment but IS have gone from averaging about 40 dl's a day to 20 a day which even the price increase doesn't make up for the loss. I almost became exclusive at IS but find it depressing to even look at my stats there now and I had such high hopes for them.
I've recently started uploading to BS which is proving very good and is starting to make up for the loss in earnings at IS.

ZMB · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2008, 06:39 »

I find Fotalia rejects probably 30% of my images but I have had quite few large downloads from them lately so I persist. Bigstock is best for me and DT have been bad in the past but are starting to accept a lot more of my images.

ChasingMoments · « **Reply #14 on:** January 28, 2008, 09:36 »

9 out of 9 rejected today

- the "type of photo" & "did not reach the desired level of aesthetic quality"... I am at a complete loss...

Never happened like this before, and what's that with "aesthetic quality" - define it for me please... I mean, I can understand "technical quality", but what's "aesthetic quality", and how is it different from "type of photo" and "overabundant" rejection reasons
.. Argghh!

CCK · « **Reply #15 on:** January 28, 2008, 11:12 »

I've had a good acceptance rate so far this year, 6% of my photos were rejected, BUT the rejected photos are some of my bestsellers at Shutterstock and iStockphoto. I had one photo rejected for "did not reach the desired level of aesthetic quality". That specific photo has had 25 downloads at SS and 7 downloads at IS. I define "did not reach the desired level of aesthetic quality" as "I the reviewer do not personally like this image", so do not allow that to bother you at all.

ChasingMoments · « **Reply #16 on:** January 28, 2008, 11:28 »

Quote from: CCK on January 28, 2008, 11:12

I've had a good acceptance rate so far this year, 6% of my photos were rejected, BUT the rejected photos are some of my bestsellers at Shutterstock and iStockphoto. I had one photo rejected for "did not reach the desired level of aesthetic quality". That specific photo has had 25 downloads at SS and 7 downloads at IS. I define "did not reach the desired level of aesthetic quality" as "I the reviewer do not personally like this image", so do not allow that to bother you at all.

Thanks for support

... Frustrating though because reviewers didn't even bother to see if there are any other images of frozen Niagara Falls in winter before rejecting for "aesthetic quality"... and you know how many there are? According to the keywords search - ONE! What happened to FT?

Peter · « **Reply #17 on:** January 28, 2008, 12:49 »

fotolia has the most easiest criteria. they accept almost anything. I think they should be even more strict in terms of image quality such as - no acceptance for images taken by compact camera, due to poor lens quality, especialy purple fringing. Like istock.

Pywrit · « **Reply #18 on:** January 29, 2008, 06:09 »

Quote from: ChasingMoments on January 28, 2008, 09:36

9 out of 9 rejected today - the "type of photo" & "did not reach the desired level of aesthetic quality"... I am at a complete loss... Never happened like this before, and what's that with "aesthetic quality" - define it for me please... I mean, I can understand "technical quality", but what's "aesthetic quality", and how is it different from "type of photo" and "overabundant" rejection reasons
.. Argghh!

The way I take the "aesthetic quality" rejection is that the image is one where there is nothing really wrong, but that there is simply nothing that really makes the photo stand out. I don't get too bent out of shape on this one as I see it as a purely judgment call from the reviewer and maybe we simply see the image a little bit differently. I much prefer getting that rejection to the "type of image" rejections where I can see hundreds of ways to use a photo. Of course, I don't like any rejections, but I'm starting to get used to them.

anonymous · « **Reply #19 on:** January 29, 2008, 08:33 »

Had a 98% acceptance until 1 month ago. They hired Attila who now seems to know "what is and is not stock". He / she has shot down about 50% of my submissions. Will likely cease uploading there until they get re-hired back at StockXpert

CCK · « **Reply #20 on:** January 29, 2008, 12:51 »

Quote from: anonymous on January 29, 2008, 08:33

Had a 98% acceptance until 1 month ago. They hired Attila who now seems to know "what is and is not stock". He / she has shot down about 50% of my submissions. Will likely cease uploading there until they get re-hired back at StockXpert

Yes, I also met Attila today, everything rejected, while I've had a 92% acceptance rate (until today).

ParisEye · « **Reply #21 on:** January 29, 2008, 13:06 »

And I thought it was only me ! Nine rejected out of ten last week-end. The good part is that Attila did it only a few hours after I uploaded them. I still wonder why he kept that one...

anonymous · « **Reply #22 on:** January 29, 2008, 13:15 »

Quote from: ParisEye on January 29, 2008, 13:06

And I thought it was only me ! Nine rejected out of ten last week-end. The good part is that Attila did it only a few hours after I uploaded them. I still wonder why he kept that one...

Attila is a very busy executioner...chop off head, kick out of way, next victim in place, repeat...

vonkara · « **Reply #23 on:** January 29, 2008, 13:32 »

Quote from: Chode on January 28, 2008, 12:49

fotolia has the most easiest criteria. they accept almost anything. I think they should be even more strict in terms of image quality such as - no acceptance for images taken by compact camera, due to poor lens quality, especialy purple fringing. Like istock.

I have to agree. Even a bit more, I find that Fotolia have to tighten the standards a bit. Everybody is going to gain whit this and make Fotolia a have a better self image in my opinion...

mwp1969 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 29, 2008, 15:21 »

25 rejections in a row before gettinig a gift of 3 approvals which were very simple Valentine Illustrations as oppose to photos ... ugggggggggggggggghhhhhhhh

Mark

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia tightening up standards a bit? (Read 22274 times)

PaulieWalnuts

vphoto

vonkara

vphoto

ParisEye

ason

mwp1969

dbvirago

Kiya

pixelbrat

madelaide

vonkara

fotografer

ZMB

ChasingMoments

CCK

ChasingMoments

Peter

Pywrit

anonymous

CCK

ParisEye

anonymous

vonkara

mwp1969

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors