MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Terrible review acceptance at FT  (Read 7832 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 21, 2010, 15:01 »
0
I've had 1 image approved out of the last 30 submitted at FT over the past month. What's the deal? IS and SS have accepted them all and are selling well. Is there something I'm missing or is there a specific category they are looking for? Sales have been terrible there as well....jp (123 is beating them!)


« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2010, 20:06 »
0
What's the deal? IS and SS have accepted them all and are selling well. Is there something I'm missing or is there a specific category they are looking for?
Looking at your latest uploads on DT, yes, they don't like that. They don't like landscapes, nature and architecture. Been there, done that. They think they know best what their customers like, but in my case, their customers seem to like the few landscapes and nature I managed to get through. There is also a lot of difference between the reviewers. You should be lucky.

« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2010, 20:20 »
0
Thanks for your help FD....jp

« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2010, 20:23 »
0
Thanks for your help FD....jp
  ;)

« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2010, 04:48 »
0
FT accepts my pictures very well when I send them studio people shots.

FT rejects vast majority of my landscape, cityscape, industrial and architecture shots even they are good quality, vivid colors and accepted by other stocks.

So, FT is very selective on the subject; and technical quality is of the secondary priority for them.

« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2010, 05:14 »
0
we are at the opposite point ,my acceptance is guite well but sales are terrible! LOL

lagereek

« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2010, 06:53 »
0
Thats good!  I like when an Agency just dont take any old thing as long as its technically sound. This way, it will stop irrelevant material clogging up files and in the long run it will benefit both buyers and contributors.

« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2010, 07:40 »
0
Thats good!  I like when an Agency just dont take any old thing as long as its technically sound. This way, it will stop irrelevant material clogging up files and in the long run it will benefit both buyers and contributors.
Would it be correct to assume that the "old irrelevant stuff" that "clogs" the searches are other people's photos, while yours are the relevant ones?  :P

lagereek

« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2010, 08:20 »
0
Thats good!  I like when an Agency just dont take any old thing as long as its technically sound. This way, it will stop irrelevant material clogging up files and in the long run it will benefit both buyers and contributors.
Would it be correct to assume that the "old irrelevant stuff" that "clogs" the searches are other people's photos, while yours are the relevant ones?  :P

What a newbie answer??  yes ofcourse, mine are the only ones that are relevant and ALL others are irrelevant and we simply love spamming and billions of flowers, billions of young businessmen and billions of landscapes, especially the ones that are NOT needed and most important we want them all to be technically terrible and we want the buyers to spend a whole day wading through similar shots, just for the fun of it.

Would it be correct to assume you have a bad acceptance rate at FT?

« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2010, 09:13 »
0
I've had enough of this.
I'm sure FD's acceptance rate at Fotolia is just fine. That's because FD has lots and lots of beautiful people shots and Fotolia loves people shots.
No need to worry about FD.
He knows well what to submit and where.

Take FD's advice, JP.
It's not easy to get a landscape/ nature/ architecture shot accepted at Fotolia.
It seems they're mostly looking for vectors, isolations and people shots.
Not that I agree, but there's not much I can do, except play by their rules.
Good luck :)

« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2010, 09:46 »
0
Thats good!  I like when an Agency just dont take any old thing as long as its technically sound. This way, it will stop irrelevant material clogging up files and in the long run it will benefit both buyers and contributors.
Would it be correct to assume that the "old irrelevant stuff" that "clogs" the searches are other people's photos, while yours are the relevant ones?  :P
What a newbie answer??
Yes sorry, I'm a newbie and what's more, a bad one.
especially the ones that are NOT needed
I thought that the buyers decided "what's needed", but apparently I was wrong. Sorry.
Would it be correct to assume you have a bad acceptance rate at FT?
Yes, it's terrible. Sorry.

« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2010, 10:04 »
0
Take FD's advice, JP.
I sent him the real advice yesterday by a PM. I couldn't tell it in public since I got it from deep inside FT.   ;)
Basically, the comment of Miklav was on-spot.

lagereek

« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2010, 10:44 »
0
Thats good!  I like when an Agency just dont take any old thing as long as its technically sound. This way, it will stop irrelevant material clogging up files and in the long run it will benefit both buyers and contributors.
Would it be correct to assume that the "old irrelevant stuff" that "clogs" the searches are other people's photos, while yours are the relevant ones?  :P
What a newbie answer??
Yes sorry, I'm a newbie and what's more, a bad one.
especially the ones that are NOT needed
I thought that the buyers decided "what's needed", but apparently I was wrong. Sorry.
Would it be correct to assume you have a bad acceptance rate at FT?
Yes, it's terrible. Sorry.

Well FD,  if youre a good lad, I might teach you how to make the transition from film to digital, hows that?  ;D

« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2010, 12:37 »
0
Take FD's advice, JP.
I sent him the real advice yesterday by a PM. I couldn't tell it in public since I got it from deep inside FT.   ;)
Basically, the comment of Miklav was on-spot.

Yes you did and thank you very much for that...it certainly makes sense....jp

« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2010, 18:35 »
0
DT is terrible on accepting landscapes or travel photography.. they love people and isolations!

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2010, 18:56 »
0
My acceptance rate on FT varies quite a bit.  Sometimes it's around 50%; other times it can be as high as 100%.  In my experience, it's very subjective - bordering on whimsical.  Sales are certainly nothing to write home about.

« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2010, 19:08 »
0
I accidentally submitted a small batch that was already rejected. They took them the second time. Go figure.

« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2010, 19:26 »
0
This explains a lot for me. I've enjoyed a good acceptance rate at FT, but just recently I had a 3D rendered landscape image that I was very happy with get rejected. A second 3d landscape was accepted. I guess I should be thankful that one got accepted, considering that FT does not want landscapes. I was thinking of resubmitting with a request to give it a second chance, but based on what I read here, it would probably be a waste of time. Not much you can do, I guess.

« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2010, 19:42 »
0
The weird thing is, that images that do not fit the profile and get through, also tend to get (regular) sales. At least in my experience. Oh, well, it's their prerogative.

« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2010, 21:26 »
0
the acceptance of vector there is better than SS ;D

« Reply #20 on: October 17, 2010, 23:13 »
0
They seem to love food, my acceptance rate there has been 99 % for a long time now.  :D And the one percent they do reject is mostly due to similars (where I find them even worse than dreamstime).

« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2010, 23:19 »
0
They seem to love food, my acceptance rate there has been 99 % for a long time now.  :D And the one percent they do reject is mostly due to similars (where I find them even worse than dreamstime).

I would imagine it's because your pictures of food are really good pictures.  I don't think it matters what the subject is if the photo is exceptional, it's going to get accepted.  If it's just OK or pretty good then you have a marginal shot at best any more.

Mat

« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2010, 23:22 »
0
Thanks, Mat, but looking back, they did accept quite a few not so great shots from the early days.  :D Unfortunately, some of them are still selling quite well, so I don't have the heart to delete them...

« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2010, 23:38 »
0
Thanks, Mat, but looking back, they did accept quite a few not so great shots from the early days.  :D Unfortunately, some of them are still selling quite well, so I don't have the heart to delete them...

Times have changed for sure!  I remember originally there were images with the time stamp in the bottom right hand corner accepted. 

« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2010, 23:46 »
0
Gosh! No, I don't go that far back with Fotolia...  :D
But I do still have the impression that there are many awful food pictures accepted, some from mass contributors that really spoil some of the search results. I wish they were stricter, even if it meant saying farewell to my acceptance rate.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2010, 00:17 by Pheby »

« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2010, 00:50 »
0
Gosh! No, I don't go that far back with Fotolia...  :D
But I do still have the impression that there are many awful food pictures accepted, some from mass contributors that really spoil some of the search results. I wish they were stricter, even if it meant saying farewell to my acceptance rate.

hello Pheby:
how to prepare the lighting for those food?they look great  ;)

« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2010, 01:32 »
0
Thanks! Most important: no flash from the front! Even more important than that is the styling, I think. I'm sure styling is my strongest point. My lighting is even, meaning it has no additional highlights or anything that that would make a shot look more interesting. But I think it suits microstock-style. It takes a lot of time to arrange the props and style the food until it's all just right. Also, I spend a lot of time setting up shooting plans well in advance to get the most out of the ingredients, and then it's shopping and then changing round all the plans because one important ingredient is missing or not quite to my liking. Second best just won't do! Most of the food in my port was actually edible, but sometimes I just don't fancy slices of cold duck or half-done vegetables...
I'm so in love with food photography! I could go on and on and on  :D

« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2010, 03:05 »
0
Thanks! Most important: no flash from the front! Even more important than that is the styling, I think. I'm sure styling is my strongest point. My lighting is even, meaning it has no additional highlights or anything that that would make a shot look more interesting. But I think it suits microstock-style. It takes a lot of time to arrange the props and style the food until it's all just right. Also, I spend a lot of time setting up shooting plans well in advance to get the most out of the ingredients, and then it's shopping and then changing round all the plans because one important ingredient is missing or not quite to my liking. Second best just won't do! Most of the food in my port was actually edible, but sometimes I just don't fancy slices of cold duck or half-done vegetables...
I'm so in love with food photography! I could go on and on and on  :D


so i guess your are the chef,shotting food is just your hobby...i dont have ingredients that much like you  ;D

« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2010, 03:12 »
0
No, I do this full-time now. And I'm not a chef, I had nothing to do with food professionally before. I don't even enjoy cooking.  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
7849 Views
Last post February 28, 2008, 20:14
by wollwerth
Terrible search engine!

Started by lagereek « 1 2  All » Dreamstime.com

38 Replies
9379 Views
Last post February 21, 2010, 08:15
by GeoPappas
Put it to test and terrible!!

Started by lagereek « 1 2  All » 123RF

29 Replies
8643 Views
Last post May 31, 2011, 06:15
by sarah2
67 Replies
10194 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 17:18
by Mantis
10 Replies
4860 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 23:38
by jsmithzz

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results