MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is it just me, or is EVERYTHING being rejected over at Fotolia?  (Read 8685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 17, 2012, 01:29 »
0
It seems like whatever I upload, stuff that I check and double check at 100% is being rejected for "does not meet our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Have I all of the sudden become a really bad photographer or are other contributors finding the same results?


« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2012, 01:51 »
0
care to show us some rejections?

« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2012, 05:04 »
0
Yes, I am having the same problem.  The reviewer must have voted for Mitt Roomey.

Dan

« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2012, 05:38 »
0
     Same  here  also.  There  was  a  point  earlier  this  year  when  a  couple  got  in  -  then  everything  went  belly  up.

« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2012, 05:46 »
0
No, regarding my latest 40 images:  37 accepted, 3 rejected. And the rejections were on my worst files.

I have some issue with IS and their "overfiltered" rejection. I upload few high quality images (i work hard in PS otherwise will not sell) but IS often want a snapshot quality ... FT want images with a lot of postproduction, IS don't want postproduction.

CD123

« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2012, 06:36 »
+1
It seems like whatever I upload, stuff that I check and double check at 100% is being rejected for "does not meet our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Have I all of the sudden become a really bad photographer or are other contributors finding the same results?

I am lucky if I get 1 or 2 accepted out of every batch (20-30) I upload. You do not have to upload anything here to prove your point to me, my whole computer is full of them (images approved by SS, BS, DP, etc.).

« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2012, 07:57 »
0
Same problem - I'm not convinced they review them properly. One way to get through your review quota - reject most out of hand rather than actually inspect them.

« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2012, 07:59 »
0
The same here for a long time. I have AR 60-85% on other agencies, but less than 5% at FT. They reject EVERYTHING.

« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2012, 10:31 »
0
This is FT being discussed and not IS????

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2012, 10:36 »
0
.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2012, 10:43 by ShadySue »

Poncke

« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2012, 10:50 »
0
Its almost fascism over there, trigger happy bunch of fickle reviewers is what they are

« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2012, 10:58 »
0
It seems like whatever I upload, stuff that I check and double check at 100% is being rejected for "does not meet our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Have I all of the sudden become a really bad photographer or are other contributors finding the same results?

Is just you... i have 95% acceptance ratio on FT.

Poncke

« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2012, 11:01 »
0
It seems like whatever I upload, stuff that I check and double check at 100% is being rejected for "does not meet our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Have I all of the sudden become a really bad photographer or are other contributors finding the same results?

Is just you... i have 95% acceptance ratio on FT.

Read up on the other comments, its not just him. FT has the weirdest rejections, fact. The trick for FT is to figure out what they want. Meaning SS accepts everything that is technically sound, at FT they can accept utter crap as long as they want it


« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2012, 11:20 »
+1
Nearly all my stuff gets accepted there. But i do 90% People Photography. I think they really like people photos!

CD123

« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2012, 11:28 »
0
Nearly all my stuff gets accepted there. But i do 90% People Photography. I think they really like people photos!
You might have a point, I only do about 1% people.

CD123

« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2012, 11:30 »
0
It seems like whatever I upload, stuff that I check and double check at 100% is being rejected for "does not meet our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Have I all of the sudden become a really bad photographer or are other contributors finding the same results?

Is just you... i have 95% acceptance ratio on FT.

Are other contributors with high acceptance ratios also paying them to place their stuff, or is it just you  ;)

« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2012, 11:33 »
+1
have said this before about FT but will say again ;D

isolations, people, food ;)

tab62

« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2012, 11:50 »
0
Landscape = 15%
People= 90%
Table Top= 90%
Flowers = 10%

My best sellers are of people and a few objects on a table top. These same pics have sold over and over- I did sell on tiger lily one day...

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2012, 12:04 »
0
I agree - they have a clear view of what they want - isolations, people food as Luis says. I have a high acceptance on those, but only 15 out of 84 on my recent St Martin's images. Funnily enough, my best sellers are travel and landscape shots - exactly the ones they reject! Even got an extended one this month for $25:



Steve

« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2012, 12:05 »
0
I do people shots and rarely ever get a refusal.

« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2012, 04:48 »
+1
I don't have a rejections problem but they aren't selling my new images.  Sales are abysmal compared to the other top tier sites, so there's little motivation to upload new images for me.

« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2012, 12:34 »
+1
Interesting group of responses, thank you to everyone for the input.

Most of what is being rejected is landscape stuff, but like what someone else said that is what is selling best for me on FT.

I do have some people and food on FT but is doesn't seem to sell as well as Antelope Canyon shots, and I don't have many isolation shots because I just don't shoot that kind of stuff.

I guess if I want FT to work for me, rather than me working hard to get everything rejected I should shoot more people and food, that is good information to know. Thanks for that bit of insight it is helpful.

Let's see if this works: Here is an example.



Please understand that I am NOT looking for you to critique this image, I don't care because there are equal numbers of people that will tell me what THEY THINK is wrong with it as there are people that will tell me it is fine.  I don't worry about rejections, I just move on to the next image because it's not worth my time to get upset over.

My guess is that the reviewer's over at FT are looking for images of the level of quality you would get from a medium or large format camera, perfect sharpness from corner to corner with absolutely no CA or digital noise anywhere, etc. The kind of image where the equipment needed to produce could cost in upwards of $30k to $60k to produce, i.e. Phase One digital backs on large format view cameras with $10,000 dollar lens used . . .

All so they can sell the image for 25 cents!

Personally I think their expectations are a bit high, but what do I know . . .

The information about "figure out what THEY are looking for" is good and the "people, food and isolation shots" is exactly the kind of tips I wanted when I posted this thread.

I realize posting a picture and giving my opinion will open a big ole' can O' worms, but oh well . . .

at least it should be entertaining.


 

CD123

« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2012, 12:53 »
+1
My friend StockBoy, shall I kick of the critique ironies in this industry to remark that this is probably much better than some of my images I had accepted at FT - hahaha (but seriously)  ::)  :P

PS You are very brave to open yourself to probably a lot of worthless, self serving (horn blowing), irrelevant and totally misleading comments. 

« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2012, 13:03 »
0
It seems like whatever I upload, stuff that I check and double check at 100% is being rejected for "does not meet our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Have I all of the sudden become a really bad photographer or are other contributors finding the same results?

Is just you... i have 95% acceptance ratio on FT.

Same here, very high acceptance rate.

« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2012, 13:24 »
0



Let's see if this works: Here is an example.







Stockboy,

I just dragged your image to my desktop and discovered that it was saved in RBG. You should save them in sRBG, if you want to maintain accurate color across all browsers. Could be your problem. You want the inspectors to see what you're seeing on your monitor.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5056 Views
Last post October 29, 2010, 06:30
by Perry
11 Replies
7135 Views
Last post June 27, 2011, 14:22
by Jo Ann Snover
13 Replies
3829 Views
Last post October 14, 2012, 13:36
by Mantis
0 Replies
3411 Views
Last post August 09, 2013, 02:33
by Yay Images Billionaire
3 Replies
3035 Views
Last post June 19, 2016, 17:24
by KONJINA

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors