For me(a newbie of 5 months) the algorythm is easy
Rejection=learning opportunity
Less rejections=I've learnt something
More rejections=I'm not learning/listening to the pro's
And do this again,and again,and again.......
It's as simple as that.
NEVER take a rejection personally,it's just part of the learning curve.
If you don't want to learn,this is the wrong industry to be in.
Sites differ and they know what their buyers want,and they are propably more knowledgable about market trends than we are(me in any case).If you spend enough time reading the forums etc. you'll start getting an idea of which sites want what.
I love landscapes but know that FL doesn't,so I just don't send them any.Give 'em the stuff they want and they will sell it.

Quote from: lienkie on February 26, 2009, 20:16
For me(a newbie of 5 months) the algorythm is easy
Rejection=learning opportunity

This is true for me at iStock, and perhaps a few other agencies. But I submit to 8 agencies, and when they all take an image except Fotolia, which rejects it for "technical reasons", what am I supposed to think? The reviewers at Fotolia are so good that they see something wrong that no other reviewer can find? Or is the more obvious answer the right one?

Maybe when you're no longer a newbie, your algorithm might change:
Rejection=learning opportunity, except Fotolia = coin toss.

Quote from: lienkie on February 26, 2009, 20:16
For me(a newbie of 5 months) the algorythm is easy
Rejection=learning opportunity
Less rejections=I've learnt something
More rejections=I'm not learning/listening to the pro's
And do this again,and again,and again.......
It's as simple as that.
NEVER take a rejection personally,it's just part of the learning curve.
If you don't want to learn,this is the wrong industry to be in.
Sites differ and they know what their buyers want,and they are propably more knowledgable about market trends than we are(me in any case).If you spend enough time reading the forums etc. you'll start getting an idea of which sites want what.
I love landscapes but know that FL doesn't,so I just don't send them any.Give 'em the stuff they want and they will sell it.

With Fotolia, I'm afraid that's not the case. You can rarely learn anything from an FT rejection because even when the reason given is eg 'quality of photograph' , it can mean many things; none of which has to do with the 'quality of the photograph'.
It can mean, "I don't personally like the shot........I don't think it's commercial.....Sorry, but I've hit my quota for allowed submissions for this shift and I'm going home, oops hit the wrong button etc."

One contributor had some great photo's rejected on the basis that  FT already had too many the same(complete lie) and when he complained and mentioned success on other sites with the same shots, they were all allowed. Therefore, rejections on FT should be accorded with the disdain  by which they are given.........serendipitous: lucky for some and unlucky for others. IS is another matter entirely and is most educational.

Not saying they are wrong. This was a marginal effort, shot with the G6 for a lighting test. But here's the rejection "information".

We regret to inform you that photo ######## was not accepted. Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality.

Oh that clears it up.  aesthetic quality. Good that I could get something helpful from that so I don't waste their time with more photos like this.

On the other hand, here's one from a couple weeks ago:

The image contains one or more technical problems:

    * Blurry or out of focus
    * Over/Under exposure
    * Framing problem
    * Over or under saturated colors
    * Problems with contrast
    * Noise or Pixelation
    * Quality of routing
    * Interpolation problem

Or maybe all of the above? 

Or none of the above, because they just pick a button that has no meaning. The one with the vague rejection has None of the above, and could have been rejected for over abundant or something else, but not what that reviewer used. It was a very sharp 4800 dpi flatbed scan of a B&W intaglio printed line drawing. Out of copyright.

Second only to SS in sales this month, no big complaints. Just that they do have some quirky rejections.

Quote from: OM on February 27, 2009, 01:41

Quote from: lienkie on February 26, 2009, 20:16
For me(a newbie of 5 months) the algorythm is easy
Rejection=learning opportunity
Less rejections=I've learnt something
More rejections=I'm not learning/listening to the pro's
And do this again,and again,and again.......
It's as simple as that.
NEVER take a rejection personally,it's just part of the learning curve.
If you don't want to learn,this is the wrong industry to be in.
Sites differ and they know what their buyers want,and they are propably more knowledgable about market trends than we are(me in any case).If you spend enough time reading the forums etc. you'll start getting an idea of which sites want what.
I love landscapes but know that FL doesn't,so I just don't send them any.Give 'em the stuff they want and they will sell it.

With Fotolia, I'm afraid that's not the case. You can rarely learn anything from an FT rejection because even when the reason given is eg 'quality of photograph' , it can mean many things; none of which has to do with the 'quality of the photograph'.
It can mean, "I don't personally like the shot........I don't think it's commercial.....Sorry, but I've hit my quota for allowed submissions for this shift and I'm going home, oops hit the wrong button etc."

One contributor had some great photo's rejected on the basis that  FT already had too many the same(complete lie) and when he complained and mentioned success on other sites with the same shots, they were all allowed. Therefore, rejections on FT should be accorded with the disdain  by which they are given.........serendipitous: lucky for some and unlucky for others. IS is another matter entirely and is most educational.

Even when an image is rejected by FL that was accepted at other sites I still learn-about what FL wants.
I'd be lying if I said I haven't been perplexed by rejections,but not losing any sleep over it.Just get up and move on.I've upped my AR quite considerably since I started by being fussy with what I upload.
And so far I'm having the BEST feb at FL ever(hum...ever being 5 months in my case....LOL)For feb they are # 2 earner,only beaten by SS.

I also upload a little every day instead of one big batch at a time-this way you'll propably get another reviewer that's friendlier,or less tired or,heaven forbid, worse-this is something that forgiss taught me and it seems to work.

i've only ever been hit once by a bad reviewer who refused 5 perfectly good images.  A couple of weeks later I sneaked them into  other batches and all 5 were accepted.

Ha-ha-Ha...so we CAN play them Good for you!

Agree with 'submit slowly' for the best chances.

For what it's worth:

FT = Fotolia.

FL = Florida

  ;DIf you live in the States I suppose.......I'll remember

Actually, I live in Florida, so I do a little double take when I see the FL abbreviation used

Florida would be so nice right now.....spring in this part of Canada is mucky, wet and cold.

Fotolia rejected these photos. I really thought those photos will be good sellers because they are from a touristic place. All photos are rejected because they didn't reach desired aesthetic level.
I'm still waiting for more rejection, cause I still have some files pending. 

Here are the photos:

Hi Whitechild,
it is always dificult to discuss the quality of those pictures, because they are to small.

But, I believe there are so much touristic place pictures, that they kick off the most of them!

regards

Thomas

Quote from: Hottommi on March 19, 2009, 13:41
it is always dificult to discuss the quality of those pictures, because they are to small.

As I understand, they were not rejected for technical flaws but rather not satisfying Fotolia's level of aesthetic quality so the size should not matter here.

Quote from: Whitechild on March 19, 2009, 12:58
Fotolia rejected these photos. I really thought those photos will be good sellers because they are from a touristic place. All photos are rejected because they didn't reach desired aesthetic level.
I'm still waiting for more rejection, cause I still have some files pending. 

Here are the photos:


very good images of Mostar Bridge Whitechild, can't help remember seeing that bridge on the news, back in the 90's when war started, great seeing it like this now. Back then it shocked me to see such a beautiful place in such circumstances. Sorry a bit O.T. I'm aware.

Quote from: Hottommi on March 19, 2009, 13:41
Hi Whitechild,
it is always dificult to discuss the quality of those pictures, because they are to small.

But, I believe there are so much touristic place pictures, that they kick off the most of them!

regards

Thomas

Hi Thomas,
Goldenangel was right. The rejection was only because of aesthetic level. Technically images are OK, but they didn't like the composition

Tempura, thank you for your comment.

I quit uploading to FT almost a year ago because of their idiotic rejection ratio. I thought things may have changed since then so last week I uploaded 14 new images, all accepted and selling elsewhere. 11 were rejected for the same mostly vague reasons so many of us have been complaining about. I'm not accepting that kind of rejection so I guess I'll wait another year and try again. It probably won't matter much because their commissions are so low I rarely even check the site except when close to payout amounts. I'll stay with the proven, and profitable, IS, SS, DT, and StkEXp. 

I agree,

FT is absolutely ridiculous in terms of rejection ratio.
They're certainly the highest for me, and in turn, the least profitable of the big 6 (for me).

I just uploaded a batch of 14 images...  13 was APPROVED - 1 rejected... The stated rejection reason was inaccurate, but apart from that, I have to agree that it actually was the one image that decerved to be rejected, if any...

So both from this batch and from a few previous uploads, I feel that the rejection rate is going down and even the review time is imporving... About half of this batch eas approved within 2hours from upload. The rest about 18 hours after upload....

Have you all stopped uploading or something?  

/flemming

Hmmm...
I'm wondering what's going on here.
I've had images waiting for almost 30 hours now.

Maybe their reviewers have their favourites and I'm clearly not one of them
In fact, it's probably like that at DT too (for me).
The rest seem to favour my uploads (for now anyway)

I always wait some 3-4 days for review, and all my rejections lately are because my images didn't reach their desired aesthetic level. But I don't bother with reuploading because these images sell well on other sites. I rarely decided to resubmit my images to any agency. That's why I like to be independent... some agency always accepts images rejected by other agency, so when I count the biggest 6 agencies, I almost don't have rejected images. If some agency doesn't like my image, it won't have it, and I will always sell it on other agency.

I have only had rejection on backgrounds, (so I don't submit them any more) and a pair of too similar (on files that were remotely similar). Other than that most get accepted.

I don't have any luck with Fotolia. They are always rejecting photos for inacurate reasons or over abundant photo's. I just recently uploaded two photos that were the pretty much the same in nature as one of the photos that sells the most on there and they were rejected. I can't figure them out. Can you delete an account before your FIRST payout, or do you lose that pay if you decide to delete the account? Does any one know. I personally think you should get it since it is your earnings but then they are weird so I really wonder. I'm at and have been at $46.00 for proubably 6 months now and don't look for any increase any time soon. It's the only agency of the big six that doesn't sell and I've even continued to upload to them just like the rest. I think they bury you in the pile if you don't have a good rank, which makes one wonder how they are ever going to get up in rank when they do that. They should be more helpful to those who make their living for them because if it wasn't for us they would be in the bankruptcy pile.