Author Topic: Is it just me, or is EVERYTHING being rejected over at Fotolia? (Read 8750 times)

StockBoy · « **on:** November 17, 2012, 01:29 »

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?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2012, 01:51 »

care to show us some rejections?

oscarcwilliams · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2012, 05:04 »

Yes, I am having the same problem. The reviewer must have voted for Mitt Roomey.

Dan · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2012, 05:38 »

Same here also. There was a point earlier this year when a couple got in - then everything went belly up.

Bauman · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2012, 05:46 »

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 »

Quote from: StockBoy on November 17, 2012, 01:29

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.).

Oldhand · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2012, 07:57 »

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.

mino21 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 17, 2012, 07:59 »

The same here for a long time. I have AR 60-85% on other agencies, but less than 5% at FT. They reject EVERYTHING.

heywoody · « **Reply #8 on:** November 17, 2012, 10:31 »

This is FT being discussed and not IS?

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** November 17, 2012, 10:36 »

Poncke · « **Reply #10 on:** November 17, 2012, 10:50 »

Its almost fascism over there, trigger happy bunch of fickle reviewers is what they are

nicku · « **Reply #11 on:** November 17, 2012, 10:58 »

Quote from: StockBoy on November 17, 2012, 01:29

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 »

Quote from: nicku on November 17, 2012, 10:58

Quote from: StockBoy on November 17, 2012, 01:29
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

Dantheman · « **Reply #13 on:** November 17, 2012, 11:20 »

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 »

Quote from: Dantheman on November 17, 2012, 11:20

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 »

Quote from: nicku on November 17, 2012, 10:58

Quote from: StockBoy on November 17, 2012, 01:29
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

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2012, 11:33 »

have said this before about FT but will say again

isolations, people, food

tab62 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2012, 11:50 »

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 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 17, 2012, 12:04 »

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

fotografer · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2012, 12:05 »

I do people shots and rarely ever get a refusal.

sharpshot · « **Reply #20 on:** November 18, 2012, 04:48 »

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.

StockBoy · « **Reply #21 on:** November 18, 2012, 12:34 »

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 »

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)

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

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #23 on:** November 18, 2012, 13:03 »

Quote from: nicku on November 17, 2012, 10:58

Quote from: StockBoy on November 17, 2012, 01:29
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.

rimglow · « **Reply #24 on:** November 18, 2012, 13:24 »

Quote from: StockBoy on November 18, 2012, 12:34

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.

StockBoy · « **Reply #25 on:** November 18, 2012, 15:28 »

Like I said, "at least it should be entertaining."

Sadly, the literacy rate in the world is staggeringly low.

CD123 · « **Reply #26 on:** November 18, 2012, 17:27 »

Quote from: StockBoy on November 18, 2012, 15:28

Like I said, "at least it should be entertaining."

Sadly, the literacy rate in the world is staggeringly low.

Clearly you are under the impression that your quoted statement disallows anyone elses opinion.
Well so much for trying to compliment the illiterate/confused then it seems

OM · « **Reply #27 on:** November 18, 2012, 18:22 »

Quote from: Dantheman on November 17, 2012, 11:20

Nearly all my stuff gets accepted there. But i do 90% People Photography. I think they really like people photos!

Of my last 50 uploads, more than 90% accepted........zero people, mostly food and related but with industrial, golf and all sorts of other stuff including a couple of isolations. So, I should be so lucky except most of the last batch accepted by FT was rejected by SS (where I also had 90% AR until now) and I would rather have had it accepted by SS than FT!
I guess this is a Dirty Harry business after all......"Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?"

CD123 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 18, 2012, 18:26 »

Quote from: OM on November 18, 2012, 18:22

Quote from: Dantheman on November 17, 2012, 11:20
Nearly all my stuff gets accepted there. But i do 90% People Photography. I think they really like people photos!

Of my last 50 uploads, more than 90% accepted........zero people, mostly food and related but with industrial, golf and all sorts of other stuff including a couple of isolations. So, I should be so lucky except most of the last batch accepted by FT was rejected by SS (where I also had 90% AR until now) and I would rather have had it accepted by SS than FT!
I guess this is a Dirty Harry business after all......"Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?"

Luck of the "draw" I guess

StockBoy · « **Reply #29 on:** November 18, 2012, 19:44 »

Wow, I'd say CD123 you are being a bit sensitive, but I was not referring to you with my comment I was only commenting on what I'm sure is the impending flood of people who will critique the image I posted, even though I mentioned I wasn't looking for a critique of the image . . .

And for those people who will come to this thread and post about how great they are and how they rarely have anything rejected and how when they touch water it turns to wine and on, and on . . .

And for those people I say "Well, isn't that nice for you"

OM · « **Reply #30 on:** November 18, 2012, 20:33 »

No criticism from me on your image. It's excellent. If I did landscapes, I would aspire to creating images like yours. The sole point of my comment was to indicate that I think it's impossible to predict what any agency accepts and rejects. Reviewers are individuals with their tastes and 'biases' and we, as contributors, can have no idea about anything that goes on behind the scenes of the agencies and with their reviewers. Having said that, if the shot you posted was rejected, as far as I can see, it should have been accepted.

(I think there was a case about a year or so ago of a contributor who submitted a whole series of great landscapes to FT. All were rejected but then all were accepted on appeal..........rogue reviewer, bad hair day, etc etc...who knows).

cybernesco · « **Reply #31 on:** November 18, 2012, 21:04 »

In my last 100 files, three were rejected. My previous 100 files, 7 were rejected. Among those, I have people, a bit of nature, wildlife and food.

CD123 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 18, 2012, 23:10 »

Quote from: StockBoy on November 18, 2012, 19:44

Wow, I'd say CD123 you are being a bit sensitive, . . .

Well thank you kindly. Not so sure if it is a step up from being illiterate to being over sensitive. For the first I need a teacher, for the second probably a psychiatrist.

fotografer · « **Reply #33 on:** November 19, 2012, 05:22 »

Quote from: StockBoy on November 18, 2012, 19:44

And for those people who will come to this thread and post about how great they are and how they rarely have anything rejected and how when they touch water it turns to wine and on, and on . . .

We were answering the part of your question, is EVERYTHING being rejected over at Fotolia? If you only wanted negative answers then you should have stated that. As far as I'm concerened if I uploaded for instance nature photos then I would also have a lot of rejections. I think it is a lot to do with what sort of photos you upload. Somebody that uploads mainly people shots and gets lots of rejections needs to improve their photography but somebody that uploads mostly nature maybe just needs to change the subject of their photography.

heywoody · « **Reply #34 on:** November 19, 2012, 13:38 »

At the end of the day different sites like different things. Personally I hardly ever get rejections at FT as I probably do the stuff they like and sales are only ok. However, on IS, where they don't like the type of stuff I do, whatever is accepted does much better than elsewhere - seems similar to the landscape scenario on FT. Maybe the strategy should be to submit what a site doesn't like as low acceptance will probaly be compensated by higher sales as a result of less competition?

CD123 · « **Reply #35 on:** November 19, 2012, 14:10 »

Quote from: heywoody on November 19, 2012, 13:38

At the end of the day different sites like different things. Personally I hardly ever get rejections at FT as I probably do the stuff they like and sales are only ok. However, on IS, where they don't like the type of stuff I do, whatever is accepted does much better than elsewhere - seems similar to the landscape scenario on FT. Maybe the strategy should be to submit what a site doesn't like as low acceptance will probaly be compensated by higher sales as a result of less competition?

Interesting approach, except that their customer base is probably more prone to be looking for the general things they do approve, as that is what they expect from the site's niche. The other problem is that some sites tends to limit your uploading capacity due to low approval rate.

stockastic · « **Reply #36 on:** November 19, 2012, 16:27 »

There's nothing wrong with that photo at all, so don't drive yourself nuts trying to understand the rejection. FYI, my software says the color space is Nikon sRGB which is fine. IMHO Fotolia is a screwy and very possibly not completely honest company and it was the first agency I dropped after I got into microstock and gained some understanding of it..

cascoly · « **Reply #37 on:** November 19, 2012, 19:28 »

for me, FT has always been one of the worst for subjective reviews - combined with their low sales, i just upload and forget about it - if they take it and it sells, fine.

Livingstonatlarge · « **Reply #38 on:** November 20, 2012, 12:37 »

Yes.

I was rolling along with them pretty well and then I think the reviewer on crack from SS moved to France. (There's some on crack and some on dope. The crackheads reject everything but 1 and the dopers accept everything but 1).

CD123 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 20, 2012, 13:38 »

Quote from: Livingstonatlarge on November 20, 2012, 12:37

Yes.

I was rolling along with them pretty well and then I think the reviewer on crack from SS moved to France. (There's some on crack and some on dope. The crackheads reject everything but 1 and the dopers accept everything but 1).

I think the crackhead has set up a distribution channel within the industry. His influence seems to span over more than one site these days.

aly · « **Reply #40 on:** November 21, 2012, 04:15 »

I have just joined, the first 4 were accepted then everything since has been rejected lock stock and barrel all because does not meet level of aesthetic quality! I feel like they do not want any more to submit to their site perhaps.

CJH · « **Reply #41 on:** November 21, 2012, 12:12 »

They have a clear preference for certain styles, as others have mentioned. People that can get that style down seem to do really well and others really poorly. Almost everything I send them is rejected, and when they accept something it is usually not up to the technical quality of the ones I upload elsewhere. For example, one of the isolations they accepted has blown highlights and poorly done isolation. It is also my best seller there. I am still a beginner to stock, but have a much better acceptance and sales at DT. Still trying to qualify for IS and SS, which has been a great learning experience for me!

uvox4 · « **Reply #42 on:** November 21, 2012, 12:34 »

I have a high FT failure rate (80%). It seems to be the way it is. I feel they have stricter rules and you need to understand the style of photos they want. I have considered leaving them but as a relative newcomer I will give it some time to adjust to their style.

friese · « **Reply #43 on:** November 30, 2012, 13:01 »

Quote from: StockBoy on November 17, 2012, 01:29

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?

lol.. i get that all the time and then upload to shutterstock and make $100 on sales...
aethetic quality is subjective... i wonder about their reviewers sometimes...

JPSDK · « **Reply #44 on:** November 30, 2012, 13:21 »

We are a few that have driven our selves nuts trying to understand rejections:

CD123 · « **Reply #45 on:** November 30, 2012, 13:49 »

Quote from: friese on November 30, 2012, 13:01

... i wonder about their reviewers sometimes...

I wonder about them constantly........

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is it just me, or is EVERYTHING being rejected over at Fotolia? (Read 8750 times)

CD123

Poncke

Poncke

CD123

CD123

tab62

CD123

CD123

CD123

CD123

CD123

CD123

CD123

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors