Author Topic: Lack of aesthetic or commercial appeal (Read 4662 times)

Hildegarde · « **on:** November 29, 2016, 14:35 »

I have reached a point where I am starting to see rejections for lack of commercial appeal of aesthetic appeal or whatever as a plus... because those rejections are almost a guarantee that the photo will sell with a different agency. Seriously.

Already sold one today before it was rejected elsewhere today for that reason. Seems happen quite frequently.

gyllens · « **Reply #1 on:** November 29, 2016, 14:49 »

Might not apply to you but frankly if agencies had worked on this assumption of composition commercial appeal and so on. Well the Internet wouldnt be clogged up with billions of files lacking just about everything and then we could all earn!

Chichikov · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2016, 14:49 »

Quote from: Hildegarde on November 29, 2016, 14:35

I have reached a point where I am starting to see rejections for lack of commercial appeal of aesthetic appeal or whatever as a plus... because those rejections are almost a guarantee that the photo will sell with a different agency. Seriously.

Already sold one today before it was rejected elsewhere today for that reason. Seems happen quite frequently.

Don't worry and pass to something else…

Hildegarde · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2016, 16:24 »

I have a background in art-- much of stock lacks aesthetic appeal. But not all. Quite a lot of it is more artistic than people believe

Perhaps reviewers know what sells with the companies where they work. For sure, different things sell with each agency because they have clientele. But sometimes I do not think many have a good grasp of aesthetics or composition (other than outdated overused rules).

I have moved on -- I have plenty to do and not obsessing too much about approval/rejection since made a lot of technical changes and now most images are accepted.

I just find it intriguing that this particular rejection usually means sales for me at least.

AlessandraRC · « **Reply #4 on:** November 30, 2016, 11:45 »

Yes they are pretty much saying that the image is ugly but those often sell because most stock photographers avoid ugliness.

mojaric · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2016, 16:14 »

Resubmit...resubmitting weirdly works with all agencies lately

cascoly · « **Reply #6 on:** December 01, 2016, 15:41 »

Quote from: mojaric on November 30, 2016, 16:14

Resubmit...resubmitting weirdly works with all agencies lately

true but it also takes a lot of time - keeping track of images uploaded to each site, then subtracting those accepted and technically challenged to create a group to re-upl

for me, it's only worth doing this for SS; the other sites just aren't worth it

Pauws99 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2016, 02:30 »

Quote from: cascoly on December 01, 2016, 15:41

Quote from: mojaric on November 30, 2016, 16:14
Resubmit...resubmitting weirdly works with all agencies lately

true but it also takes a lot of time - keeping track of images uploaded to each site, then subtracting those accepted and technically challenged to create a group to re-upl

for me, it's only worth doing this for SS; the other sites just aren't worth it

Agree...particularly because my old stuff that was slung out is now considered acceptable......I might try and work out where I am with fotolia but it gets confusing and don't want to risk a ban for resubmitting.....

Dumc · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2016, 05:49 »

Quote from: mojaric on November 30, 2016, 16:14

Resubmit...resubmitting weirdly works with all agencies lately

I've done that at the beginning, but it's just to much work, to track at every agency what was and what was not accepted. I only resubmit to SS, other sites are just not worth it. I've done it at Fotolia a few times, but don't do it anymore cause I don't want to get banned.