pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Just not worth the effort (for me, anyways)  (Read 5956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 24, 2008, 08:41 »
0
I recently just submitted a bunch of images to the site and went through the torture of having to submit them (a reason I enjoy submitting to StockXpert, not torturous at all).  To skip to the main point here, they rejected 95% of the images.  I am not new to this, I've been doing this stock photography for almost 2 years and I am pretty sure I've gotten pretty good at it (at least the dollar numbers would indicate that) so I've pretty much had enough with Fotolia and its terribly slow site and the ridiculous rejections. 

I just needed to rant a bit - sick and tired of second tier sites rejecting what SS and IS accept and what does well there.


« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2008, 08:52 »
0
very strange. I am both new  to photography (a year) and to microstock sites (less then a year). fotolia has accepted 812 of my 1251 photos. for the first few months I had no idea about proper lighting, keywording, or isolation. Still they accepted 150+ images.

I think FT is easy to get images in. I have had strange rejections from them also. I wrote to the support, and that stopped. May be just a coincidence though, they never replied to my complaints. Do not give up on FT, they are doing better and better.

« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2008, 10:15 »
0
Rejections have been increasing at Fotolia lately, and I don't know why. And, yes, some of them are pretty ridiculous. They are a good money-maker for me, so I'm sticking with them, but the increase in rejections is really annoying. I wonder what's behind it....

Linda B

« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2008, 13:03 »
0
In the last two months, I have had to upload over 450 new images. In all I had about 10
rejections. All of which were subsequently accepted after minor edits, and resubmitting.

Good luck,
The MIZ

« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2008, 13:11 »
0
I am very new to stock. Trying to learn, improve and find my own style. On all sites, where I started with ~50% rejection rate, I'm coming to >90% acceptance. All but fotolia, where I have recently  >90% rejects (most of them - non-technical)

« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2008, 13:21 »
0
That was my mentality before - just keep chugging and resubmit.  But 200 files are a pain to upload to such a terrible uploading system.  So we'll see, I submitted a request.  I liked the site originally, its where I got my first sale, but something is wild when they reject everything for quality and such when SS and IS are taking it.


« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2008, 13:36 »
0
I pretty much given up on the whole resubmit thing, it just isn't worth my time, except for some particular shots on IS or SS where there at least exists the potential to make back the time I spent redoing the PP work, even then, I'll wait until a shot has shown it's meddle elsewhere before I try to redo it, maybe I'm losing out on some earnings, but as my time is finite I just use that time for new shots for all sites instead of getting one shot on a second tier site.  When they rejected it in the first place, it at least was an indication that the shot will probably not be a hot one there, in which case even if I do get a few DL's out of it in the long run, I still wasted my time essentially.

« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2008, 13:59 »
0
That is close to my philosophy:
- my new shots are better than old ones
- my postprocessing is getting better too
- I shoot faster than I am able to process and submit
- re-doing old stuff is boring

Why waste time on old rejects? The only exception would be a proven best-earner.

« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2008, 14:59 »
0
Who knows what goes on in their minds sometimes? Just over the past few days. I had 4 3D renders of cocktails I submistted. In my mind, what was the best one , which is 2 martinis with olives against city lights with awesome reflections, a 3 hour render in radiosity, was rejected for type of photograph.  I already have an order from a local bar for this piece to do wall art with it. The other 3 "similars" (one is one martini, similar lighting, and the other 2 are champagne in a different but similarly lit scene) all went through no problem.

Otherwise, my acceptance there overall has been good. The 2 martini one though, which everyone pretty much gasps at trying to figure out if it's a real photo or digital art, perplexed me. Go figure. Will probably do a re-sub in the future. 

Good luck Unce Gene. Onward and upward.

« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2008, 15:11 »
0
That is close to my philosophy:
- my new shots are better than old ones
- my postprocessing is getting better too
- I shoot faster than I am able to process and submit
- re-doing old stuff is boring

Why waste time on old rejects? The only exception would be a proven best-earner.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, especially the part about shooting faster than able to process and submit.  I can always go back through the catalog and find gems that I has glassed over on the first pass (I shoot fast enough lately that that is all they get before I move on to new stuff) if I want to spend time processing old ones.  Heck I even have a few shots that I know are pretty good, but I also know that there will be a pretty involved processing time necessary to complete them, so I just move on to easier work where I can produce more shots in an equal amount of time.

« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2008, 15:12 »
0
Its stupidity like that Snurder mentioned that makes me upset, but if I followed that logic I wouldn't submit to SS or Dreamstime either.  However, those produce more money and their processes are much more user-friendly. 

« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2008, 16:03 »
0
Its stupidity like that Snurder mentioned that makes me upset, but if I followed that logic I wouldn't submit to SS or Dreamstime either.  However, those produce more money and their processes are much more user-friendly. 

They also tend to reject by saying that your photo has this or that technical problem, sure it may be iffy, but they usually have a point, and generally that is for the ones with fringe earning potential anyway (of course there are tons of exceptions, speaking in generalities here), whereas FT gives the "not stock" rejection relentlessly, which stings worse than the others since is is based more on opinion than fact, and the shot occasionally has done well elsewhere, proving that it is in fact stock.

« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2008, 17:24 »
0
Got a few responses back from my questions and they don't answer questions very well, if at all.  They just paste their generic crap (same answer in two different responses) and don't give a crap about what you are saying. 

So...I will stop uploading, leave whatever files I have and that will be my way of telling them where to go - I'd rather not deal with robots :)


« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2008, 16:19 »
0
Just had a bunch rejected with the "Type of photograph" rejection. I have to say I disagree rather a lot with them! It seems like the reviewer hits that "Type of photograph" button when he/she just doesnt feel like it today....

Btw...whats peoples experience with resubmitting? I did it once and had the image accepted - I had actually forgotten it had been rejected and only saw that it was "missing" from my portfolio, so to say.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2008, 16:31 by Secretariat »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
9946 Views
Last post January 15, 2008, 00:40
by mwp1969
21 Replies
6329 Views
Last post January 10, 2008, 16:58
by mwp1969
108 Replies
38790 Views
Last post May 11, 2009, 09:54
by RaFaLe
6 Replies
2948 Views
Last post June 02, 2010, 15:09
by Dreamframer
4 Replies
3572 Views
Last post March 08, 2011, 21:33
by Blufish

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results