It's funny how compassionate we are when we are defrauded by a lady, isn't it?
But having work in sales , I have learn not to be so compassionate, as many professional shoplifters are "female"; "grandmothers", etc. Even had one professional scammer who emailed me for tuition claiming to be a "lady" from Geneva, only to call me sounding like a nigerian male from Toronto.

Lately we have found crooks from police constable growing weed in their basement, to grandmothers running some shady operations. That's why they are so successful, they know the best way to pull the wool over our eyes.

Like Freedom, on the other thread,  all my dls are older images, most only subs with few cents . Not sure if this has anything to do with the summer slowdown, although Achilles said no slowdown at all . I never really bothered to ask. More constructive by saving my breath and upload elsewhere to Veer, Fotolia, Bigstock, even Canstock,  123RF

Maybe DT caught the StockXpert virus. arghhh !

take it as a blessing in disguise. only old images are being viewed and sold. 

Sad but true . You rock PV!

Quote from: Perseus on July 08, 2009, 10:39

Good 2 know you reached payout. I'm almost there too, but * , even the subs have dried up for me.
One question for you, astro:
     Why are you not cashing out? If something screwy happens (which I hope not, as I like StockXpert to revamp), you could wait forever to get paid. No?

I'm not cashing out, because I could get another $40 in sales between now and when StockXpert sales dry completely up.  If I had cashed out, I would be in the dreaded position of waiting and waiting for the final $10 in sales that never comes.

It would be different is StockXpert was a ma and pa outfit, deeply in debt and being forced out of business by creditors.  But I don't think Getty would deny its contributors payment once payment level is reached.

Very smart. I must remember that, as I am almost close to payout . Like you, I will gather as much as I can while the harvesting lasts. Thanks for the hint. Congratualtions again!

Quote from: whatalife on July 07, 2009, 17:55

The best selling image threads will most likely have the opposite effect. Early on I participated in these kinds of threads. The second time that my image was blatantly copied, I learned my lesson.

There are people watching those threads, but they are not buyers.

You said it!  Same experience here and lesson learned the hard way...

That's something to ponder.

I don't feel I have a port worth copying, unlike many of you here with a large port and lots of good sellers. There was a time when I was quite active in the blog and felt this way. Then I tried to convince myself it's unfounded.

Still, I am now inclined to think that it does diminish your earning potential to be too popular.
I think someone like Sean (sjlocke) had once mentioned that too.

I guess you dind't read my comments.  I'm not complaining about getting rejected, nor have I had 100% rejected...(that was a different poster).  I'm saying that they do NOT provide a reason WHY it's rejected.  I belong to four other sites, all of which have rejected photos I've taken, but they provide a reason why, so I can possibly correct it and resubmit it, and/or improve my photography.

Correct, I was speaking in general terms as well, rather than answer to each comments individually. I contribute to those other sites you mentioned too, and yes, although I agree that some sites, incl more recently Veer Marketplace, give you an almost direct explanation to assist in re-submit.
While others are not so specific.

My point is, after a while you more or less know deep down your image MIGHT be rejected because of a certain thing. I find that nowadays after conscientiously trying to understand how each site display certain preference, dislike, ... to my images. Sometimes, you just submit the image anyway, to see if your inkling is correct. Most times Fotolia will in fact reject me on that image.

In other words, there are certain likely chances that you do get rejections, and there are other instances you know they will be approved. It comes with paying more attention to the rejections.

If I did not answer your question, it's because I wasn't. I was more or less trying to answer Bob's question, since this is his topic

I just had a large bunch of photos rejected as well.  I certainly can live with the rejection, if they would at least tell me what the problem is.  Instead, the response is, ""Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality".

A while back, their response was also absurd, listing everything that could be wrong:

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

Why can't they do what most other sites do and list the specific problem(s) with the photos? 

This has already been overstated.
Rejection reasons, even as vague or canned as such you mentioned , are not really that mysterious, if you only practise a little more objectivity and lay aside your deflated ego of getting 100% rejection, or whatever.
To keep reeling over how vague the rejection reasons are is trendy and cool, but it really does nothing constructive to improve your photography , if you are that serious about working with Fotolia.

Bob Keenan has shown he was asking for inputs and he took what was provided here objectively. You can do the same too, if you want to succeed in getting more approvals. If not, as many experienced and straight shooting commentors said, then go find another site that is easy to get approval. If all you want is lots of approvals there is a whole list on the right of this forum to choose from.

Personally, I find Fotolia very picky and strict. Istock too, and all for a good reason. They want to be able to sell what they approve.  Once I convinced myself of this , I more or less get the inkling why my images would subsequently be rejected. After studying what the editors are looking for, it's really not difficult to get a fair amount approved regularly. You have to make an effort to edit your work critically and objectively.

 It won't be found simply to repeat this rant.

Once, when I was young, I donate few of my images for free. It was very stupid think. Don't trust sites moderators that's good for you.

that's  cute, rene! :D

I would disagree about reaching payout faster. Rate of payout is determined by a few factors like portfolio size, quality of the work, agency customer base, ect. I see regular payout each month at many of my big sites, and the little ones are getting very close to monthly payout as well, so its really a non issue for serious non-exclusive submitters. As for having your stuff at only one place, well, like I said in my other post, I have data suggesting you won't always win at the same agencies every time.

Interesting. CHeers cardmaverick. I wonder if anyone has a different opinion. It's good to know, tho!

The sensor is smaller and "Crops" the image. If there's an advantage to the crop sensor, it's that you are getting the image from the center of the lens and won't get aberrations or soft edges as much as a full frame image.

What changes is the field of view, which appears as if it was a longer lens. You do not get more lens from a crop camera than a full frame, you get the identical image! It's just that you lost 60% of the edges.

If that doesn't explain it, imagine: you take a picture of a basketball on your crop camera and the ball is 1cm wide on the sensor. You take a picture with the same lens, same distance, same everything, on a full frame camera and the ball is still 1 cm on the sensor.

Crop cameras do not bring you closer to anything, it's a visual perception because the field of view is narrow.

Good point racephoto. I never thought of it that way, but you are right.
Also re aberration and edge vignette , barrel, pincushion... comparing a full sensor to a crop sensor, this no doubt emphasizes the need for more superior lens for a full sensor camera, isn't it?

A timely appropriate question hawk-eye!
Let's see.
Um, if I had invested my time with IStock and have done well there , and I qualify to contribute to Vetta? It's a wholehearted YES.
If , otoh, I am independent, which I am. I would keep my options open with Veer Marketplace, and see which of the two takes off.
Vetta is obviously more rewarding, so I would wish it succeeds, even though I am not exclusive.
That being said, I keep an eye to see which of the Big 6 will bring out their own version of premium stock to stop the rest of us from joining Getty. Not that I am such a big hurry to join IS. But as Sean pointed out aptly, those who hung around faithfully with IS should by now deserve to reap the rewards of Vetta.

Objective opinion. Hey, and welcome to MSG... 

Maybe those ex-IS execs are really double agents, trying to get contributors disgusted enough that we all decide to become IS exclusives?

rofl, KB you made  my day. Actually, I wouldn't mind if you're right. A back door pass to IStock Exclusive.
Seriously, hell will freeze over before that happens ROFL.

What Pixelbytes said is correct. If you have too much of a set, it's best not to upload all of it at once. Maybe 2 or 3 at the most.
Quickly looking at your rejected images, I felt they were too much of the same type of images. This is exactly what Pixelbytes is referring.
As for the reason, my guess (and it's a BIG guess) is that you rely heavily on a color tint and all very abstract. Maybe you might try cc them to more neutrality, and give it more variations in color tonality. Give it more dynamics, with highlight and shadow, to give the glass more luminence. Just a thought.