So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on May 15, 2017, 16:01

So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

I know this is a crazy, far-out idea... but have you considered that the wish list has been filtered down to the reviewers, but your submissions actually lacked aesthetic and commercial appeal?

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe. 

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 16, 2017, 09:12

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on May 16, 2017, 01:56

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

Yeah you are right 

DOH!

and No I don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of my work

Come on Sammy!  show us some pics will ya!

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 15, 2017, 22:06

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on May 15, 2017, 16:01

So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

I know this is a crazy, far-out idea... but have you considered that the wish list has been filtered down to the reviewers, but your submissions actually lacked aesthetic and commercial appeal?

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

They want trees! Though I seem to remember when I sent some they said they had enough already.  I should do more random leaves I reckon.

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on May 16, 2017, 01:56

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 15, 2017, 22:06

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on May 15, 2017, 16:01

So anyway decided to follow Adobe's wants list submitted some images and
got them rejected for "aesthetic and commercial appeal" or some such numbnuts reason

There's a whole heap of difference with some one publishing a "wish" list and actually getting that filtered down to the reviewers.

I know this is a crazy, far-out idea... but have you considered that the wish list has been filtered down to the reviewers, but your submissions actually lacked aesthetic and commercial appeal?

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

They want trees! Though I seem to remember when I sent some they said they had enough already.  I should do more random leaves I reckon.

Yeah found lots of trees on the site

Including trees that are staircases or gold coins or rocks

https://en.fotolia.com/search?k=trees&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&search-submit=Search&order=creation

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on May 16, 2017, 14:00

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on May 16, 2017, 12:34

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 16, 2017, 09:12

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on May 16, 2017, 01:56

You know I did even consider that but trust me I know what I'm doing and not a total retard.

Unlike the "artistes" who shoot trees and random leaves and rubbish.

The shots were exactly what they wanted and framed very well of subjects in Europe.

"This post is useless without images"

Yeah you are right 

DOH!

and No I don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of my work

You're absolutely right, you don't need confirmation from other photographers as to the quality of your work. You only need confirmation as to the quality of your work from the stock sites you intend to sell them on... but unfortunately you didn't get that.

Don't get me wrong, your work could be great and Adobe have made a bad call, but your refusal to accept that the issue might actually be the quality of your work, precariously straddles the line between confidence in your work, and arrogance. Just sayin'.

Nah been doing this long enough now to know if I am in the wrong.

And no I'm not arrogant I know the difference between a bad call and stupid reviews FT has always been full of it when it comes down to reviews.

My point is that Fotolia/Adobe issue a call for shots that are quite clearly going to run in to problems with their own acceptance rules.

They should either adjust their rules and accept editorial like other agencies or just state very clearly that their call for images is worthless.

As it is you can supply an image that is quite clearly editorial in nature and sometimes it gets accepted by FT and sometimes it gets rejected.

It's a halfway house as it stands.

I think they need to clarify and not leave contributors guessing.

@Sammy The Cat, send me a link to your portfolio directly along with the image numbers in question that were rejected. I'll be happy to take a look and provide you with some feedback. 

email: [email protected]

Kind regards,

Mat Hayward

Adobe Stock/FOTLIA calls for content. On the other hand they do their best to discourage contributors.

I am very frustrated and I am fed up with Adobe Stock/FOTOLIA rejections of a number of my images for lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal, intellectual property violation, artifacts problem or technical errors. The images they reject for those reasons are accepted and doing well on other agencies.
So if Mat is listening in this forum I want to tell Adobe that:

I am knowledgeable about photography and related processing software. I have successfully been practicing photography for many years, and I am a contributor for several years now. And no I can not accept that another "photographer" reviews and classifies my work as "lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal, intellectual property violation, artifacts problem or technical errors" without giving me a real good reason.

1. My photos contain no noise and/or artifacts of any sort, and they do have a model and Property releases when needed.
2. When my photos are shot all photographic composition and other image quality factors are taken in consideration for each image.
3. I post process all my images using exactly the same procedures and techniques.
4. In regard to intellectual property violation, Adobe Stock/Fotolia has already accepted many images and similar series shot in the same areas, and under the same conditions with those rejected.

I understand rejections may occasionally  happen; however, those reviewing  the image, should specify the exact reason the image was rejected for. Show me where the noise or artifact is, tell me why should I provide a property release for the image in question, tell me why the image lacks aesthetic and commercial appeal

Hope I get an answer....