MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections, rejections, rejections...  (Read 37009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KB

« Reply #125 on: August 18, 2008, 11:56 »
0
I am not pulling my port, but I am not uploading any more images until FT delivers some COHERENT statement about criteria/policies, categories they are looking for and categories they are not accepting and WHY.
I agree, but I don't see that happening. We are likely a small minority, and I doubt they will even notice that we have stopped uploading. They won't even learn of it, since I doubt anyone from there reads this forum (and a similar thread at fotolia's forum would be pulled faster than you can say "type of photo").

So I think we're in for a long wait. Which is fine with me, as I have many other, better performing sites to spend my time on.


« Reply #126 on: August 19, 2008, 04:35 »
0
Everybody there on vacations, one rookie reviewer has no vacation this year so he is pissed off and sends everything to void  ;D

LOL!

« Reply #127 on: August 19, 2008, 04:46 »
0
I didn't use to be that concerned with sort of (if not ridiculous) ambiguous rejections by  FT which I'd get  very rarely but  now they are getting more and more significant ,which drives me mad.I hope they will figure out who is responsible for it.I am confident with my work and know what shouldn't have been rejected.anyway I shall keep uploading but  it is also their loss not including some of the quality work which are already  available elsewhere.
and I think they should first clear all the crap photos on the site instead of rejecting new images if the reason behind this was being concerned about overloading the library.


DanP68

« Reply #128 on: August 19, 2008, 06:34 »
0
and I think they should first clear all the crap photos on the site instead of rejecting new images if the reason behind this was being concerned about overloading the library.


Bingo.  This should be tatooed on the forehead of every image library manager at the microstock agencies.

I have always considered it ridiculous, and actually stupid is a better word, that agencies would close their doors on new quality images because of quotas while at the same time keeping the initial questionable quality images they accepted while building up their library.  If they truly want to have a strong library, they should weed out the bad material and replace it with quality, fresh material.

If I managed a library, I would have a rule that any image which goes 2 years without a sale gets tagged for deletion.  I'd have the tagged images get sent to the reviewing team, and if they didn't meet current standards they'd be cut loose.  If they met standards, then fine.


« Reply #129 on: August 19, 2008, 06:56 »
0

If I managed a library, I would have a rule that any image which goes 2 years without a sale gets tagged for deletion.  I'd have the tagged images get sent to the reviewing team, and if they didn't meet current standards they'd be cut loose.  If they met standards, then fine.


Eeeh.... and you know what would happen immediately after all the allegedly crap images deleted? They'd be promptly reuploaded by authors thus jamming reviewers' time... of course they mostly wouldn't be approved, but you never know...there are plenty of amazing "unsold" stuff out there

« Reply #130 on: August 19, 2008, 07:08 »
0
Eeeh.... and you know what would happen immediately after all the allegedly crap images deleted? They'd be promptly reuploaded by authors thus jamming reviewers' time... of course they mostly wouldn't be approved, but you never know...there are plenty of amazing "unsold" stuff out there

if the photos were really too bad to sell than I don't think the authors would re-upload them  but I see your point on unseen good quality images with zero sales in that case they could introduce something like the dollar bin of IS.I think it is a good way to get rid of those low quality files files Imagine if no one  was willing to pay not even a dollar for a file that proves how bad they really are imo.

graficallyminded

« Reply #131 on: August 19, 2008, 08:02 »
0
And the amazing "unsold" stuff is usually unsold do to bonehead keywording.  There's just no excuse for that.

Fotolia makes me sad.  Things have taken a turn for the worse.  I'm still making plenty of income from them, but how am I motivated to upload if 90% of my new uploads are being denied? 

« Reply #132 on: August 21, 2008, 16:42 »
0
I'm totally frustrated at Fotolia, cause I just don't understand what it's reasonable to submit. I will stop uploading one day, promise, unless... wait, I got my first EL ever! :D
It's also my best earner everywhere and it's probably the image i dislike the most among the ones I've ever uploaded. Oh irony.

« Reply #133 on: August 24, 2008, 14:53 »
0

Just got an "overabundant" photo rejection for a shot of a rainbow off the Na Pali coast of Hawaii that has been accepted by 100% of all other sites ......

A quick search shows they have no other photos of this location in their database with a rainbow of any kind.

I now sense that they really don't want a lot of new photos of any kind, and I think they are making a huge mistake.

And, like so many others here, I'm just about done even trying to upload at the site these days - their rejections are bordering on the absurd.

« Reply #134 on: August 24, 2008, 15:25 »
0
Why they would restrict fresh content like they do is beyond me?  I would dump the old crap (that they were more than happy to accept last year) and add the new and improved version that is likely a higher resolution as well. 

I wonder if there is some "business" going on behind the scenes, like a sale or merger with a macro? 

« Reply #135 on: August 24, 2008, 15:40 »
0
Fotolia seems to have a mindset....sent them this image...

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/animals/birds/6895925-seagull-and-chip.php?id=6895925

Rejected for overabundant photo catagory...so I sent them a message...that "If I search for seagull and chip I don't get any images, how can it be an overabundant photo??"

Reply..."We don't need this image"

Oh well, your funeral...haven't had a rejection from any other site.

Cheers

Mollypix


« Reply #136 on: August 24, 2008, 16:34 »
0
Fotolia seems to have a mindset....sent them this image...

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/animals/birds/6895925-seagull-and-chip.php?id=6895925

Rejected for overabundant photo catagory...so I sent them a message...that "If I search for seagull and chip I don't get any images, how can it be an overabundant photo??"

Reply..."We don't need this image"

Oh well, your funeral...haven't had a rejection from any other site.

Cheers

Mollypix




bad composition due to croping / framing.  I would reject it as well. Simply bad  composition.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2008, 16:36 by Peter »

« Reply #137 on: August 24, 2008, 16:44 »
0
So what DO they want? For me personally they take almost all of the seasonal graphics that I upload, most bug photos, especially isolated bugs and isolations in general, anything to do with herbal medicine, and close-ups of food. Anyone else want to share?

DanP68

« Reply #138 on: August 25, 2008, 02:30 »
0
They want non over-abundant photos with appealing aesthetics from certain types of images.  Isn't it clear?

 :D

« Reply #139 on: August 25, 2008, 02:38 »
0
I don't see how a shot like that could have been composed differently, it wasn't exactly a cooperative model. :)

Fotolia seems to have a mindset....sent them this image...

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/animals/birds/6895925-seagull-and-chip.php?id=6895925

Rejected for overabundant photo catagory...so I sent them a message...that "If I search for seagull and chip I don't get any images, how can it be an overabundant photo??"

Reply..."We don't need this image"

Oh well, your funeral...haven't had a rejection from any other site.

Cheers

Mollypix




bad composition due to croping / framing.  I would reject it as well. Simply bad  composition.

« Reply #140 on: August 25, 2008, 04:07 »
0
Hey Pete,

Why don't you go out and show me how its done.....

Be carefull you might get a finger pecked....oooohhh ouch.

Some do...some dont...some just sit and criticize

Cheers

Mollypix

DanP68

« Reply #141 on: August 25, 2008, 04:15 »
0
bad composition due to croping / framing.  I would reject it as well. Simply bad  composition.

The gull is completely in the picture.  How is this a bad crop?

« Reply #142 on: August 25, 2008, 04:44 »
0
a hand is badly croped. only tips of fingers are visible. if there were no hand and food, only a bird it would be OK, but this way is just failed attempt of making a concept of feeding the bird.

DanP68

« Reply #143 on: August 25, 2008, 04:54 »
0
The subject is the bird, and to some degree the chip.  Both of which are in the picture, completely.

Why do you think the entire hand should be in the picture?  What does that have to do with anything?  Why not the entire arm then?  How about the entire person, with a wide angle applied?  How about zooming back more for the entire beach?

This is what I cannot stand about some of the bizarre rejections from cropping.  You at least have to be aware of what the subject matter is, and it isn't the arm or the hand.

« Reply #144 on: August 25, 2008, 06:41 »
0
The subject is the bird, and to some degree the chip.  Both of which are in the picture, completely.

Why do you think the entire hand should be in the picture?  What does that have to do with anything?  Why not the entire arm then?  How about the entire person, with a wide angle applied?  How about zooming back more for the entire beach?

This is what I cannot stand about some of the bizarre rejections from cropping.  You at least have to be aware of what the subject matter is, and it isn't the arm or the hand.

how about entire planet Earth shoot from the Moon?

I said only my opinion. If I were revirewer, I would reject it too. My opinion only. It looks like it is photoshoped, and hand and food added after, from another image...

subject on that image is "feeding the bird", not "the bird". and image does not represent it well enough. (my opinion again).

« Last Edit: August 25, 2008, 06:43 by Peter »

« Reply #145 on: August 25, 2008, 06:47 »
0
I like the shot - nice freeze of the moment! Added to my "Birds in flight" lightbox.

« Reply #146 on: August 25, 2008, 06:52 »
0
I would have to agree with Peter.

wether or not the 'model' was cooperative or how hard the image was to take has little to do with if the image makes good stock or not.

I think the image is cropped much to tight on the bottom of the photo.  The foot is almost cut off, and there is almost no part of the hand showing, which as Peter also pointed out, is the subject of the photo - feeding the seagull.  I feel at least from the wrist down should be included.

KB

« Reply #147 on: August 25, 2008, 15:11 »
0
Even Bobby Deal has to put up with stupid Fotolia rejections:
http://www.fotolia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=13612

« Reply #148 on: August 25, 2008, 15:19 »
0
I think they meant "simmilar already accepted".

« Reply #149 on: August 25, 2008, 15:31 »
0
Funniest thing is when I got series of let's say 4 photos and all of then got rejected because they are to similar ;-) I think one should be accepted to make their statement true ;-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
8960 Views
Last post September 28, 2008, 09:42
by grp_photo
7 Replies
3639 Views
Last post March 26, 2011, 10:25
by tab62
60 Replies
10611 Views
Last post February 03, 2014, 21:14
by ArenaCreative
1 Replies
975 Views
Last post January 20, 2017, 08:31
by sgoodwin4813
2 Replies
452 Views
Last post June 09, 2019, 13:03
by Tenebroso

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results