pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The Mysteries of Fotolia  (Read 7615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 16, 2010, 09:20 »
0
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth.  Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation.  The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled.  Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are? 


« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2010, 09:55 »
0
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth.  Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation.  The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled.  Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are? 

I'm not sure I recognise your description of SS and IS to be honest. The odd rejects that I get at either place are for the most part somewhat haphazard and unpredictable __ I wouldn't generally upload an image if I assessed it to be technically borderline without addressing the potential issue. But still occasionally they 'find' one.

I get the impression that FT are more commercially oriented and are actually assessing the history and sales of the submitter as much as the image itself. If they consider you to be proven as a time-served stock photographer, say with 5-10K of sales behind you, (and you don't have a tendency to upload multiple similars) then you'll get very few if any rejections for technical reasons.

Xalanx

« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2010, 10:22 »
0
I upload exactly the same stuff to all agencies. At SS I have almost 100% approval rate and at FT around 90-something%. I don't think there are special patterns - or if there are, then their weight in review process is minimal.

« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2010, 12:00 »
0
Quote
I upload exactly the same stuff to all agencies.

Same here.

« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2010, 12:14 »
0
Perhaps I should clarify.  I shoot with an Olympus E3.  I love my lenses but the Olympus can be a tad noisy in certain situations.  That's why I process my photos a bit different for istock. 

Also, I'm merely a eager newbie.  I didn't mean my comments regarding shutterstock and istock to sound too factual.  It's just the observations of someone who's learning. 

Thanks

« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2010, 13:12 »
0
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth.  Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation.  The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled.  Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are? 

I'm not sure I recognise your description of SS and IS to be honest. The odd rejects that I get at either place are for the most part somewhat haphazard and unpredictable __ I wouldn't generally upload an image if I assessed it to be technically borderline without addressing the potential issue. But still occasionally they 'find' one.

I get the impression that FT are more commercially oriented and are actually assessing the history and sales of the submitter as much as the image itself. If they consider you to be proven as a time-served stock photographer, say with 5-10K of sales behind you, (and you don't have a tendency to upload multiple similars) then you'll get very few if any rejections for technical reasons.


your observation of IS vs SS is pretty close. winners of SS are consistent losers with the reviewers of IS. mainly because of post processing... ie over saturated, sharpening, etc.

gostwyck's observation on FT is also astute. yes, i find FT quite predictable and very consistent with my work. except for the short deviation of strange rejection during Xmas hols which i give as due to the absence of their regulars. but now that the hols are over, i am back to the approvals as usual.

another reason is that i think (here, repeat i think) FT's market is Euro vs IS and SS which are US,
so there is a diff in what they buy.   but clean images which are not over post processed like the ones IS take have been more or less the ones that FT prefer as well.

the only thing i don't care for is their disposition code rejection reason. but i don't get many of these, and for the little i get, i don't pay much attention either, as no site is perfect... or if you prefer,
they're all a bit of a pain ... if you have your preference  ;)  or disgust  :D

« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2010, 14:25 »
0
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth.  Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation.  The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled.  Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are? 

Excellent motive, a concept or idea....
Then they will forgive poorer quality before any other agency...
To the "usual" motives  theyare very strict...

« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2010, 04:07 »
0
Fotolia puzzles me enormously. I have been uploading there now for quite some time. I have a rank around 1000 and about 1350 images on line. Lately they hardly accept anything besides my photos with models. Anything else (accepted at the other big stocksites and doing well) is rejected for reasons I never grasp. I have about twenty images  which sell all the time but many others which are better and or newer never do. I've stopped uploading anything non model and I wonder if should not stop uploading altogether. Fotolia is my number three seller but on the brink of losing that position to my now number four.

« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2010, 05:20 »
0
Why would you stop uploading altogether if they are your no. 3 seller?  If your non people images don't get accepted then just upload your images with people.   I don't do many non MR images but the ones that I do I rarely upload to fotolia or Dreamstime as they don't seem to like them much but my MR images have almost 100% acceptance in the last year or two at both of those sites.

Fotolia puzzles me enormously. I have been uploading there now for quite some time. I have a rank around 1000 and about 1350 images on line. Lately they hardly accept anything besides my photos with models. Anything else (accepted at the other big stocksites and doing well) is rejected for reasons I never grasp. I have about twenty images  which sell all the time but many others which are better and or newer never do. I've stopped uploading anything non model and I wonder if should not stop uploading altogether. Fotolia is my number three seller but on the brink of losing that position to my now number four.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 05:23 by fotografer »

« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2010, 10:22 »
0
Istock likes submissions to be noise free and silky smooth.  Shutterstock likes sharpness and bolder saturation.  The nondescript technical rejections at Fotolia have be baffled.  Does anyone know what Fotolia's technical preferences are? 

I'm not sure I recognise your description of SS and IS to be honest. The odd rejects that I get at either place are for the most part somewhat haphazard and unpredictable __ I wouldn't generally upload an image if I assessed it to be technically borderline without addressing the potential issue. But still occasionally they 'find' one.

I get the impression that FT are more commercially oriented and are actually assessing the history and sales of the submitter as much as the image itself. If they consider you to be proven as a time-served stock photographer, say with 5-10K of sales behind you, (and you don't have a tendency to upload multiple similars) then you'll get very few if any rejections for technical reasons.


i have to agree wholeheartedly (this time ) with gostwyck as far as his insightful response to you on FT.  he took the words right out of my mouth...

except for the part (proven sales of 5-10K behind you... that certainly does not apply to me, as both IS and FT are my most recent entry. 

but yes, i too feel FT has been really quite "predictably" consistent , and have been approving most of my work. except for the strange rejection i got during Xmas, which as i already said before elsewhere could have been due to temp reviewers , since the regulars do deserve their time off .

i don't know who also pointed out that FT is placing themselves rather favorably to be a new equal to IS. funny, i actually feel all these past 5 months that FT and IS were actually thinking the same as far as reviewing goes.  except that there are certain images that i think FT would lean towards taking , which i think has more to do with my guess that FT's buyer base is more EC than USA prodiminant.
thus, the obvious preference to a certain genre, or perharps i should say, a certain "allure"
that Euro publishers have traditional favored vs North Am more flashy ads.

not sure if i described it well. it's way too early to think ( i haven't had my pint ).. :D

« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2010, 16:00 »
0
 I don't do many non MR images but the ones that I do I rarely upload to fotolia or Dreamstime as they don't seem to like them much but my MR images have almost 100% acceptance in the last year or two at both of those sites.

I have similar experience - most of my pictures are MR people and almost 100% of them is accepted. When I submit non-MR pictures, fotolia rejects the majority. Castles get sometimes accepted, but not generic architecture/city views, not generic landscapes, not nature.

« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2010, 16:06 »
0
I don't have a problem at Fotolia.  In fact, I can predict when they won't like an image... though it rarely happens to me there.

On the other hand, iStock baffles me.  In a single day, Dreamstime approved an image and liked it enough to make it an Editor's Choice, and a few hours later iStock rejected it for not being up to their standards.  That proves to me how subjective reviewers -- particularly IS reviewers -- can be.

When submitting to iStock, I try to look over my recent submissions to see what types of shots they approve or reject, and submit images from the same series or in the same style as my accepted pics, but they frequently get rejected for quality reasons... and their quality is exactly the same as other recently approved shots.  Argh!
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 16:09 by PowerDroid »

« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2010, 20:49 »
0
I know for sure Fotolia doesn't like nature, flowers and food: whatever I tried the last month: no luck!

« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2010, 21:08 »
0
I know for sure Fotolia doesn't like nature, flowers and food: whatever I tried the last month: no luck!

i agree, except when they do take nature, flowers and food!

i've never figured them out - but they're relatively easy to submit to, and a decent earner recently.  i just upload what i sbmit to SS & DT and don't worry about rejections

s

« Reply #14 on: January 23, 2010, 21:42 »
0
going a bit OT, did anybody remember how much better dls were when we were able to see who bought our works in FT?
at that time, I couldn't help to notice all of my images were dl-ed by European companies.  And also, I had more regular dls too, even ext licenses as well.

Then when they stopped showing us the buyers, the dls slowlly decreased.
I am not sure if it was because they changed markets with the new CEO from IS or just a coincidence.
But I remember when the markets were Euro , I did get more dls.
And also, the types of images the Euro market picked were different from the ones with the other Big 6 where I got my dls.

Do any of you notice a shift in dls? that now the images downloaded with FT  seem to be the same as what I get from the other Big 6.

« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2010, 21:52 »
0
to continue:

what I mean is, for example, when I had the dls from European companies,
they tended to prefer say a food image with nice table setting wine glass lighting ambience.
while the US buyers which are mostly I get from the other Big 6 go for straight big chunk of meat, sometimes raw meat even,
and not once did I get a dl of the stylish nice table setting, except for FT.
and with FT, the chunk of raw meat or whatnot got no dls at all.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 23:00 by PERSEUS »

ap

« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2010, 19:12 »
0
I know for sure Fotolia doesn't like nature, flowers and food: whatever I tried the last month: no luck!

try birds...i've done mysteriously well with a bird photo, in fact my first el ever on fotolia (unfortunately it doesn't pay much). they do like food though and some flowers.

xst

« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2010, 21:53 »
0
Also FT dislikes sensual nudity.
and genitals, even in art non-sensual images (although they claim that it's not true)

Every image with genitals visible is immediately rejected for "Moral standards"
« Last Edit: January 25, 2010, 21:55 by mocker »

« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2010, 02:01 »
0
going a bit OT, did anybody remember how much better dls were when we were able to see who bought our works in FT?
at that time, I couldn't help to notice all of my images were dl-ed by European companies.  And also, I had more regular dls too, even ext licenses as well.

Then when they stopped showing us the buyers, the dls slowlly decreased.
I am not sure if it was because they changed markets with the new CEO from IS or just a coincidence.
But I remember when the markets were Euro , I did get more dls.
And also, the types of images the Euro market picked were different from the ones with the other Big 6 where I got my dls.

Do any of you notice a shift in dls? that now the images downloaded with FT  seem to be the same as what I get from the other Big 6.

I find that an interesting observation from your point of view, perseus. FT has always been by far my best earner (how I wish it was rather IS!), last year, about  1 percent of my sales were from the US. Most sales seem to be from Germany. FT certainly rules in Europe! I'm not sure whether they concentrate on the European market anyway, or whether European buyers prefer their style (whatever it may be). But I'm quite sure that part of it is their awful translation tool. Quite a few of my images which I keyword in German because of FT's position here simply don't show up on the US-site because of the poor translation, and on the other hand I'm sure that European buyers are unable to find many of the American images. We've been moaning about that for years, and they've been promising to improve it for years...

They accept about 95 percent of my images (I shoot food). Someone said here that with FT, it might depend on your overall position there how many images you get accepted. That sounds plausible to me: I've been relatively successful with them, and I upload about 5 images a day, very regularly. I'm quite sure that plays a part. I don't think it would be difficult for me to get images of flowers accepted.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 02:06 by stardust »

« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2010, 03:10 »
0
going a bit OT, did anybody remember how much better dls were when we were able to see who bought our works in FT?
at that time, I couldn't help to notice all of my images were dl-ed by European companies.  And also, I had more regular dls too, even ext licenses as well.


Not the case for me.  My sales have gone up considerably since then.  Maybe there was a best match shift at about the same time that benefited some of us.

I'm sure that European buyers are unable to find many of the American images. We've been moaning about that for years, and they've been promising to improve it for years...

I doubt that as when we could see our buyers almost 90% were from non English speaking countries and I keyword in English.



« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2010, 18:46 »
0
Also FT dislikes sensual nudity.
and genitals, even in art non-sensual images (although they claim that it's not true)

Every image with genitals visible is immediately rejected for "Moral standards"




i havent found that to be true -- several of my khajuraho images have been accepted at FT, for example

http://www.fotolia.com/Member/IndexContent/19325088


maybe it's the captioning?  i keep the caption PG rated, but include more specific keywords

xst

« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2010, 20:40 »
0
Also FT dislikes sensual nudity.
and genitals, even in art non-sensual images (although they claim that it's not true)

Every image with genitals visible is immediately rejected for "Moral standards"




i havent found that to be true -- several of my khajuraho images have been accepted at FT, for example

http://www.fotolia.com/Member/IndexContent/19325088


maybe it's the captioning?  i keep the caption PG rated, but include more specific keywords


I'm talking about live people :)

RT


« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2010, 05:53 »
0
Here's another mystery of Fotolia, us mere mortals are allowed 50 keywords and one account, I just stumbled across two portfolios using the same name in which a lot of the images have over 150 keywords, it appears it's a Japenese agency using the FT API programme, having read the latest blog from FT about keywording this could prove a huge advantage for inputting terms.

No doubt they'll have their ranking boosted soon!


« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2010, 08:48 »
0
Also FT dislikes sensual nudity.
and genitals, even in art non-sensual images (although they claim that it's not true)

Every image with genitals visible is immediately rejected for "Moral standards"




i havent found that to be true -- several of my khajuraho images have been accepted at FT, for example

http://www.fotolia.com/Member/IndexContent/19325088


maybe it's the captioning?  i keep the caption PG rated, but include more specific keywords


I'm talking about live people :)

That's too funny!
It's not just nudes...if there's too much flesh or even a suggestive theme, the ejector seat button is pushed.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
10474 Views
Last post February 20, 2007, 12:29
by scubabartek
4 Replies
4056 Views
Last post February 12, 2007, 05:43
by leaf
Fotolia V.2

Started by leaf « 1 2 ... 10 11 » Adobe Stock

269 Replies
65538 Views
Last post July 30, 2007, 09:32
by jsnover
3 Replies
5869 Views
Last post June 01, 2007, 11:34
by bbettina
14 Replies
8614 Views
Last post August 01, 2007, 22:01
by sharply_done

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle