Author Topic: Fotolia Rejections (Read 6458 times)

oscarcwilliams · « **on:** January 21, 2010, 06:30 »

Just returned from Amsterdam from shooting stock images using my Canon 5dII, I submitted 40 plus great images and only (2) were accepted while the others were rejected with the reason "the quality of the images is not what we desire". I'm getting real frustrated now with the changing price structure and all the tons of rejections at fotolia. Why even bother to upload and waste your time when you know what the outcome will be?

Do anyone else have this experience?---and please give feedback.

robggs · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2010, 07:28 »

Quote from: oscarcwilliams on January 21, 2010, 06:30

Just returned from Amsterdam from shooting stock images using my Canon 5dII, I submitted 40 plus great images and only (2) were accepted while the others were rejected with the reason "the quality of the images is not what we desire". I'm getting real frustrated now with the changing price structure and all the tons of rejections at fotolia. Why even bother to upload and waste your time when you know what the outcome will be?

Do anyone else have this experience?---and please give feedback.

Yes. Starting out with them I had about 70 photos refused, but they were taken on a G9 (mostly artifcating). I've moved to a full size Canon SLR (I cant remember the model as its my g/fs but I think its 8mp) and almost all of my uploads are now being accepted.
Are they saying that the quality is too much? Am I right in saying that the 5dII is 21 Mpix? Perhaps they want you to reduce the image size.

RT · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2010, 07:31 »

Quote from: oscarcwilliams on January 21, 2010, 06:30

I submitted 40 plus great images and only (2) were accepted while the others were rejected with the reason "the quality of the images is not what we desire".

Maybe your interpretation of 'great' is not the same as theirs.

louoates · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2010, 11:25 »

A few years ago I stopped uploading to FT due to a large % of haphazard rejects while the same images were accepted nearly 100% by the others. Other experienced folks were seeing the same huge rejection rate at FT. I started to upload there again about 10 months ago and rejects were on a par with the other sites.
My only conclusion is that once in a while you have a site with an incompetent or poorly trained reviewer. You just have to wait them out. Another reason to never go exclusive.

willie · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2010, 11:51 »

the approval of work with FT has been consistently on the up and up.
although initially, for months i had some shaky starts.

if you are getting rejections to your displeasure, i suggest you take a good look at those who are selling well, and see if you can find some insights.
i think it has a lot to do with subject matter . (of course , technical matter still prevails) .

failing that, i remember someone here giving no doubt the best advice when he said, "i don't care which Big 6 sells more for you or anyone. i only care which one approves of my work, and i sell it there".

you can either tailor make yourself to get approved, or you can go where which of the Big 6 appreciate your work and sell them too.

hope that helps.

donding · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2010, 12:04 »

Quote from: oscarcwilliams on January 21, 2010, 06:30

Just returned from Amsterdam from shooting stock images using my Canon 5dII, I submitted 40 plus great images and only (2) were accepted while the others were rejected with the reason "the quality of the images is not what we desire". I'm getting real frustrated now with the changing price structure and all the tons of rejections at fotolia. Why even bother to upload and waste your time when you know what the outcome will be?

Do anyone else have this experience?---and please give feedback.

If they are landscapes...just about all the agencies are getting to where they don't accept them any more unless the are a real "eye catching image". They are all flooded with landscape images and they really don't sell on tradition micro stock agencies. My personal experience with Fotolia is alot of rejections. It is my lowest earner. I have never been able to figure out what their style is, but I just upload the same pics I do on all the other sites and enjoy the shock when they do accept the majority

OM · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2010, 12:15 »

My acceptance rate on FT is pretty good these days and better than 6 months ago.
Rejection reason "quality of image" at FT does not mean what photographers think that it means. It means they don't think the image is "commercial" enough ie they doubt it will sell.

I'm not sure but I think that rejection on the grounds of technical quality actually states that they found the 'technical quality' insufficient for FT.......usually followed with a whole list of things that could be wrong with the image eg blurry, out of focus etc.

willie · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2010, 12:31 »

Quote from: OM on January 21, 2010, 12:15

My acceptance rate on FT is pretty good these days and better than 6 months ago.
Rejection reason "quality of image" at FT does not mean what photographers think that it means. It means they don't think the image is "commercial" enough ie they doubt it will sell.

I'm not sure but I think that rejection on the grounds of technical quality actually states that they found the 'technical quality' insufficient for FT.......usually followed with a whole list of things that could be wrong with the image eg blurry, out of focus etc.

one heart ... well spoken OM

Randy McKown · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2010, 13:40 »

How much you paid for your camera, how many MegaPixels it can capture, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with quality. D3x's .. 5d's .. PhaseOne's .. Hassleblads ... I've rejected tons of images from these models because they had so much sensor noise you could barely tell if the image was in focus to begin with. Out of focus .. bad exposures .. you name it.

Naturally I'm not commenting on the OP's images .. just the misconception in general that a pro camera will guarantee pro results.

donding · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2010, 13:43 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on January 21, 2010, 13:40

How much you paid for your camera, how many MegaPixels it can capture, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with quality. D3x's .. 5d's .. PhaseOne's .. Hassleblads ... I've rejected tons of images from these models because they had so much sensor noise you could barely tell if the image was in focus to begin with. Out of focus .. bad exposures .. you name it.

Naturally I'm not commenting on the OP's images .. just the misconception in general that a pro camera will guarantee pro results.

Camera's only take pictures...it's the photographer that creates the image

willie · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2010, 14:20 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on January 21, 2010, 13:40

How much you paid for your camera, how many MegaPixels it can capture, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with quality. D3x's .. 5d's .. PhaseOne's .. Hassleblads ... I've rejected tons of images from these models because they had so much sensor noise you could barely tell if the image was in focus to begin with. Out of focus .. bad exposures .. you name it.

Naturally I'm not commenting on the OP's images .. just the misconception in general that a pro camera will guarantee pro results.

well, i wouldn't so far as to preach an oversimplication that pro cameras don't matter, and all that what's behind the camera naivete.

many "pros" used pro camera with pro results because they've done their homework on their techniques.
also, pros buy pro cameras and equipment because these pro equipment can withstand the volume they shoot. not just for micro, but outside of stock.

not having a pro camera will require a pro to keep updating his equipment due to wear and tear, or even damage in some environment they are used to shooting in (weather, dust, heat, moisture,etc)...

and there are other factors why "pros" need a pro camera, such as something as simple as the need of a (french word : prise synchro x) which not all pro sumer camera spot.

as for your statement of irrelevance of pixel. i beg to differ. many times "pros" need to shoot for billboards. even if you shot RAW as all "pros" do , if you don't have the PIXELS to begin with, you need to upsize. i like to know how you can expect to upsize without loss of quality?
eg. 17MP vs 7MP . is there a need for 17MP? certainly. if your work requires it.

and if you're shooting for IS,etc.. where less post processing is all but not preferred, yes, having the PIXELS does help.
much like in the old days the great choice of shooting with Kodachrome 25 vs Ektachrome400, or Agfachrome, or Fuij,etc.. or the choice of pro films.

to say pro cameras are irrelevant would much be saying pro films in those days were unnecessary.

it's like driving in the GrandPrix, you need the best car, best wheel, best team, best driver, and best technique.

none of the above are irrelevant, they are all relevant.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2010, 00:44 »

Quote from: PERSEUS on January 21, 2010, 14:20

Quote from: Randy McKown on January 21, 2010, 13:40
How much you paid for your camera, how many MegaPixels it can capture, etc., has absolutely nothing to do with quality. D3x's .. 5d's .. PhaseOne's .. Hassleblads ... I've rejected tons of images from these models because they had so much sensor noise you could barely tell if the image was in focus to begin with. Out of focus .. bad exposures .. you name it.

Naturally I'm not commenting on the OP's images .. just the misconception in general that a pro camera will guarantee pro results.

well, i wouldn't so far as to preach an oversimplication that pro cameras don't matter, and all that what's behind the camera naivete.

many "pros" used pro camera with pro results because they've done their homework on their techniques.
also, pros buy pro cameras and equipment because these pro equipment can withstand the volume they shoot. not just for micro, but outside of stock.

not having a pro camera will require a pro to keep updating his equipment due to wear and tear, or even damage in some environment they are used to shooting in (weather, dust, heat, moisture,etc)...

and there are other factors why "pros" need a pro camera, such as something as simple as the need of a (french word : prise synchro x) which not all pro sumer camera spot.

as for your statement of irrelevance of pixel. i beg to differ. many times "pros" need to shoot for billboards. even if you shot RAW as all "pros" do , if you don't have the PIXELS to begin with, you need to upsize. i like to know how you can expect to upsize without loss of quality?
eg. 17MP vs 7MP . is there a need for 17MP? certainly. if your work requires it.

and if you're shooting for IS,etc.. where less post processing is all but not preferred, yes, having the PIXELS does help.
much like in the old days the great choice of shooting with Kodachrome 25 vs Ektachrome400, or Agfachrome, or Fuij,etc.. or the choice of pro films.

to say pro cameras are irrelevant would much be saying pro films in those days were unnecessary.

it's like driving in the GrandPrix, you need the best car, best wheel, best team, best driver, and best technique.

none of the above are irrelevant, they are all relevant.

That's what I was saying. Just because you buy a pro level camera it doesn't guarantee pro results because the quality is not determined by the camera it's determined by knowing how to operate it. You could give a million dollar camera to somebody who can't figure out how to operate it and they will shoot crap all day long everyday and that camera will never produce a half decent image. Give a $500 camera to a pro and they will slam out top notch shots all day long.

On the subject of megapixels .. for years now I seriously have been thinking their primary purpose is to sell cameras. Take your billboard example. Compare the amount of todays megapixels to the older models that only had 2 megapixels. That is a massive difference. Now go drive down the road and look at a few billboards. Do they honestly look any different than they did last year .. or the year before .. 10 years .. 20 years. I had a billboard shot years ago that was taken with a D1 (2.7MP) and another later on that was shot with a D100 (6.1MP) .. from the road both were tack sharp .. and that's were you see them .. from the road. Last year I was in Springfield and noticed the second billboard was actually still up.

willie · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2010, 10:03 »

Quote from: Randy McKown on January 22, 2010, 00:44

That's what I was saying. Just because you buy a pro level camera it doesn't guarantee pro results because the quality is not determined by the camera it's determined by knowing how to operate it. You could give a million dollar camera to somebody who can't figure out how to operate it and they will shoot crap all day long everyday and that camera will never produce a half decent image. Give a $500 camera to a pro and they will slam out top notch shots all day long.

On the subject of megapixels .. for years now I seriously have been thinking their primary purpose is to sell cameras. Take your billboard example. Compare the amount of todays megapixels to the older models that only had 2 megapixels. That is a massive difference. Now go drive down the road and look at a few billboards. Do they honestly look any different than they did last year .. or the year before .. 10 years .. 20 years. I had a billboard shot years ago that was taken with a D1 (2.7MP) and another later on that was shot with a D100 (6.1MP) .. from the road both were tack sharp .. and that's were you see them .. from the road. Last year I was in Springfield and noticed the second billboard was actually still up.

re para 1:
then we are reading from the same page

still, i don't care if someone without a clue in photography buys the top of the line canon .
they still will come back in here to ask why they have focusing problem, or what is WB?
so whatever, they still have the cart in front of the horse

re para 2:
i get that feeling too. like computers and all things hi tech, built in obsolescence
and options anxiety
which is why you get so many ppl upgrading their still good equipment each year with next years model .
i wish i were their camera salesmen, i wouldn't need to shoot micro stock, just earn the commission selling them new cameras every year

that... pixel overkill... and IS image stablizer.
like this one that my friend who manages a prophoto store related to me this anecdote:
"duh, I have a mother of a zoom and I used my IS to shoot . why is my images still out of focus?" like, duh, I paid a lot of money for this , you know. You would think these frigging zoom lens that cost a fortune works better than my old non IS 300 mm!" ( ya, i laughed so hard when I read this one in his PM)...
roflmao

or this one, " Can you tell me which is the most top pro camera , I want to be able to shoot like a pro. I want to make money doing weddings next year!"

ok, I am being mean, I should stop here and get my pint of stout.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia Rejections (Read 6458 times)

oscarcwilliams

robggs

RT

louoates

willie

donding

OM

willie

Randy McKown

donding

willie

Randy McKown

willie

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors