MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections, rejections, rejections...  (Read 37022 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 15, 2008, 11:47 »
0
This does it. The 100% rejection streak continues and I have just got an "Overabundant photo category" for a 25 shot stitched panorama of the northern Malta as seen from Mdina battlements.  A search revealed only one panorama from Velletta, and that was uploaded by me... The other 33 files show one-frame views from various loactions on Malta.

Here is the image in questuon, awaiting validation at iStock:


« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2008, 11:59 »
0
If you read carefuly......

Quote

    * Photos must be in JPEG format.
    * Photo resolution must be greater than or equal to 2400 x 1600 (4 Million pixels).
    * Upload images with normal proportions.
    * Files must be less than 30 Megabytes.


They do not accept panoramas.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 12:01 by Peter »

« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2008, 12:00 »
0
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 12:04 by Nemo1024 »

« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2008, 12:03 »
0
Then what is this:

http://us.fotolia.com/id/7615447

:/


Why do you ask me? I told you what are the rules. You can call that "reviewer's mistake" if you like....

« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2008, 12:10 »
0
I got so fed up with the combination of my landscape images and Fotolia that about a month ago I decided to send them only landscapes that had "run the gauntlet" and been approved at IS, SS, DT, BS, 123, and StockXpert .. I sent them 9 images that were 100% approved through those other six agencies and some others .. and Fotolia rejected all 9 (I should add they were not all in one batch).

Their actions (at least toward my images) speak quite loudly on this issue ..

so in the least you are not alone.

take care,

John

« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2008, 12:13 »
0
Lets be real: even if accepted, chances are great that it would never sell. So what's the point? Landscapes are not good sellers, well known fact. Unleas they are extraodrinary. (in that case they would be accepted for sure). Stock is not about art, stock is about comercial use.

« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2008, 12:16 »
0
Oh man, I think your gonna catch hell for that statement!

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2008, 12:17 »
0
This does it. The 100% rejection streak continues and I have just got an "Overabundant photo category" for a 25 shot stitched panorama of the northern Malta as seen from Mdina battlements.  A search revealed only one panorama from Velletta, and that was uploaded by me... The other 33 files show one-frame views from various loactions on Malta.

Here is the image in questuon, awaiting validation at iStock:



That's a pretty specialized type of image, a great image, but specialized because of it's proportions. Why not try Panoramic Images for, yes, your panoramas. You can deduce that that is what they specialize in.

« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2008, 12:22 »
0
One more point, that is really difficult for people new to stock to accept and that is the amount of money an image will make has nothing to do with the amount of time you spend working on it. For every image I risked my life shooting and made nearly nothing on I'll show you a dozen I banged off while eating lunch that keep on selling.

« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2008, 12:24 »
0
rjmiz, your sarcasm is appreciated, but there are times, when you simply have to resort to irony. :)

Oh, and you missed one more option - give up Fotolia as bad job...

Peter, one of my panoramas sold at iStock within a month of being uploaded, many of the panoramas, which come up on Fotolia search sold over 15 times.

EDIT: Thanks, Zeus, I'll look into "Panoramic Images"
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 12:26 by Nemo1024 »

« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2008, 16:09 »
0
They are getting tough with rejections. Most my stuff now gets rejected as well, and it sells well other spots.

Maybe they have enough images on line and now want something specific.

« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2008, 17:17 »
0
Yeah! tough on rejections for me recently also.
I suppose as the pool of contributors and images gets bigger they can afford to be fussy!

But - rejections for us are never nice.

« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2008, 17:38 »
0
If the panorama proportion is the reason why the image was rejected, this should have been the explanation (even if they have other panoramas).  As the rejection was for "overabundant photo category", Nemo's complaint is valid. 

A reviewer should give the proper reason for rejection.  That would reduce the number of complaints a site receives.  We all have seen cases of inappropriate rejection reason (even if the image should be really rejected).

Why not try Panoramic Images for, yes, your panoramas. You can deduce that that is what they specialize in.

But do they sell anything?  I don't know if this is the site I saw once, but didn't look very successful.

Regards,
Adelaide

dullegg

« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2008, 17:56 »
0
well, let's play devil's advocate ...ya, i am related to satan the mass rejection reviewers  ;D ;D ;D

if panoramic is really the reason, and there are so few panoramic shots with FT, then maybe the panoramic shot is that of the reviewer, or reviewer's best friend  ;D ;D ;D
or they want no other to fill that niche.

if it's not for due to it being panoramic, then maybe it's the quality or composition, or lack of composition, or maybe the contrast,etc...
if so, then the reviewer should have been more specific with the reason of rejection.

but then again, there is a certain handful of stinky reviewers who cannot
write anything constructive to save their own life  ;D ;D ;D
maybe they're truly illiterate, so they push that disposition code key. ::) ::) ::)

i suggest to roll with the punches, and not pay too much attention
to this site, and try other sites.
if you get rejected elsewhere, then maybe you get the real message.

meanwhile, lighten up, chill, and enjoy MIZ lighthearted cynicism,
there is a silver lining to that dark cloud that MIZ sends to people
complaining here.
don't take it all so seriously. after all, it's not like we're all making
a gracious living with stock photography  ::)

« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2008, 20:36 »
0
fotolia DOES take panoramas
fotolia is rejecting EVERYTHING
but who cares they are just one of many places to sell your work.
Bitch about the rejections, but NEVER take them personal

« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2008, 03:49 »
0
Bitch about the rejections, but NEVER take them personal

Don't mess with our god-given right to whine and moan in online forums about things we have little control over, it's one of the constants of online business and communities.  It's what some of us live for! :-)

Oh, and 'Me too' I'm getting a high rejection rate with FT, Although a few new ones got in this month, breaking my loosing streak that started in mid may when I started uploading again...

« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2008, 04:50 »
0
Fotolia should not forget the old problem of getting microstock sites up and running. Uploads to site v Downloads and income from the site...to generate income you need uploads.

They have certainly slowed down...I don't believe there is any ceiling for the number of images. If you discourage uploading you are effectively cutting off your supply. Cut off the supply, no matter how many images you have, means to cut off your future income.

I do agree with culling non selling images...18mths and no sales...in the bin...but to have a carte blanche attitude to many types of images is suicide...

May to debate continue...

Cheers

Mollypix


« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2008, 06:29 »
0
I already feel much better after reading all the replies here :)

I lookad at Panoramic Images. They seem to be a Macro site, still mainly mention film in their submittion info and seem to be pretty lucrative. I only evere done 6 panoramas in my protographic career, stitching them from multiple exposures.

In Panoramic Images submittion guide they instruct to select not more than 50 of your best images and have many high level quality, technical and presentation demands.

I think I'll stick to distributing my panoramas through IS and DT.

« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2008, 12:07 »
0
Fotolia should not forget the old problem of getting microstock sites up and running. Uploads to site v Downloads and income from the site...to generate income you need uploads.

They have certainly slowed down...I don't believe there is any ceiling for the number of images. If you discourage uploading you are effectively cutting off your supply. Cut off the supply, no matter how many images you have, means to cut off your future income.

I do agree with culling non selling images...18mths and no sales...in the bin...but to have a carte blanche attitude to many types of images is suicide...

May to debate continue...

Cheers

Mollypix


Ahhh....but Molly, you're using "logic" and "good business sense"....something that FT has chosen NOT to use. In order to understand, you must wrap your head around the concepts of "illogic", ostrisizing", and good old fashioned "schizophrenia".

« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2008, 13:36 »
0
I already feel much better after reading all the replies here :)

I lookad at Panoramic Images. They seem to be a Macro site, still mainly mention film in their submittion info and seem to be pretty lucrative. I only evere done 6 panoramas in my protographic career, stitching them from multiple exposures.

In Panoramic Images submittion guide they instruct to select not more than 50 of your best images and have many high level quality, technical and presentation demands.

I think I'll stick to distributing my panoramas through IS and DT.

if you stay at FT, keep trying the panoramas -- i have the same exp as others -- FT now rejects 95% where it used to be about 50% - even s other agencies stay the same

and i have a number of panoramas at FT -- some sites do require a minimum of 800 or 1000 on the narrow side, so a 6000 x 750 woud get rejected

s

« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2008, 15:37 »
0

Ahhh....but Molly, you're using "logic" and "good business sense"....something that FT has chosen NOT to use. In order to understand, you must wrap your head around the concepts of "illogic", ostrisizing", and good old fashioned "schizophrenia".
[/quote]

Well that puts me right out .... best pack my bags and go... :)

Cheers

Mollypix


« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2008, 17:17 »
0

Ahhh....but Molly, you're using "logic" and "good business sense"....something that FT has chosen NOT to use. In order to understand, you must wrap your head around the concepts of "illogic", ostrisizing", and good old fashioned "schizophrenia".

Well that puts me right out .... best pack my bags and go... :)

Cheers

Mollypix


[/quote]
The truly sad part is, there was a time when FT was one of the coolest micros out there. All of the images they now shoot down for "type of photograph...or whatever they call it" (for me anyway), are images from the same shoots that sell very well. This is why i don't jump ship as they generate about 10% of my monthly revenue. That said, they lambast everything I send them now. I hope they don't go under but they're setting the stage for a very methodical disappearing act from the bizzness (aka LO).

tan510jomast

« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2008, 17:35 »
0
wow, panoramic...
this is pretty much a niche market.

as i understand from the discussion somewhere else on this forum, microstock is more or less generic. anything unusual or not general should be sent to macrostock or a site with non RF license.

maybe you should check out the other thread re: RF vs RM .
 8)

« Reply #23 on: June 17, 2008, 04:09 »
0
anonomous

Not about to leave Fotolia but they have slipped in - my time v site rating...
(ie I have x amount of time and 9 sites) Fotolia dropped to fourth on the list, and I'll be regulating that as well.

Still they make 13% of my microstock income.

What I don't like loosing is my market share...

Cheers

Mollypix

« Reply #24 on: June 17, 2008, 07:10 »
0
Interesting reading - and helpful to know that others are wondering why rejections are up so sharply on Fotolia.

My acceptance rate has plummeted to about 20% after being at 70% for over a year - so there is definitely something different about their reviewers in the last few months.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2008, 10:56 by jeffclow »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
8973 Views
Last post September 28, 2008, 09:42
by grp_photo
7 Replies
3641 Views
Last post March 26, 2011, 10:25
by tab62
60 Replies
10631 Views
Last post February 03, 2014, 21:14
by ArenaCreative
1 Replies
977 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 08:31
by sgoodwin4813
2 Replies
469 Views
Last post June 09, 2019, 13:03
by Tenebroso

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results