Foodgawker has been quite snooty lately... I have much better luck with Tastespotting.

Maybe the way their program re-centered your picture made the composition look off? Or maybe it's *too* basic (which is ridiculous really)? Those are the only things I could think of. :-\ Hope you have better luck in the future!

Yes foodgawker is being picky at the moment I send the same photo to both foodgawker and tastespotting and never get the same result one says OK and the other NO. I know how you feel.

I love the FG and TS!
When you finally do get a picture posted it almost feels like you have been accepted into an exclusive sorority/fraternity. It is silly, But it feels good anyway.

I'm another one who has the same stories to tell about FG and TS! But then I'm no great photographer so.....
It does feel good to have one's photographs accepted and appreciated by them, and yes it does drive a lot of traffic to one's blog, so don't give up submitting pictures because of rejections.

But I want to say one thing.
If your photograph was rejected by any of them, but you were happy with your picture then that's the bottomline. Beauty, appreciation, etc are subjective. What looks good to you needn't get you the same reaction from someone else and vice versa.

So if you liked your picture, its a winner!

I may be wrong, but I believe this is a technical/file issue and not a photography issue. I find when I submit square versions of my original photos I often get this rejection, but I have never received this rejection reason after submitting my square versions of my photos after they've been converted for the web (via flicker, etc.).

I am not sure what causes the issue or necessarily how to prevent it. I emailed FG once asking them to clarify this and never received a response.

I'm having a lot of trouble with this.
Maybe someone can help me?
My pics look very sharp and clear when they are full size, but when I reduce the amount of pixels they get blurry.
I'm reducing the size on my computer and then uploading that copy to TS and FG.
I tried to upload the full size images, but they were too big.
What am I doing wrong?

I am of the opinion that you should always submit your own pre-cropped 250x250 photo. That takes the "they" did that to my photo out of the equation.

Also I suggest using unsharp mask after downsizing/cropping of your photo/thumbnail. (That is a photoshop filter) Don't get crazy with it but it does help the sharpness lost when downsizing.

All that being said, FG has been quirky as of late. I had a photo denied because of not being in the blog I linked to. Well it was in the blog, they just didn't take the time to look past the first few photos.

After many submissions I have come to the tough conclusion that my personal aesthetic is nowhere near what FG's editors are looking for.

Does the artist change for critical acceptance or do the critics change after the artist dies?

Yeah, well you guys are more successful than me at this! lol I've had 1, just 1, picture accepted, and it was by foodgawker. Worst of all, I thought it was a pretty crappy picture, I was totally expecting rejection from both sites. Tastespotting, I've yet to crack, one day...

In the mean time... there's a couple sites that publish your pictures regardless, check them out...

www.savorysights.com
www.tastestopping.wordpress.com (this site actually is based on the rejections we all get)

and there's also a new photo site... www.refrigeratorsoup.com

When I started submitting pics to TS & FG, I didn't have a very high approval rate, in fact, it was rather tough on the ego.

But... I do think that I've found a way to get rid of one type of rejection note: "unsharp when resized" (or whatever the wording is)

I used to submit the resized pics that go straight onto my site, which work out to be 500x333, then decided to try something different.

Now I take the original file, resize to 1000x667 then save as an uncompressed .jpg. This keeps high image quality without it being too large to submit. Since doing that, I don't have anymore "unsharp when resized" type rejections anymore.

Hope this helps a little!

I've had quite a few accepted by Tastespotting now, but Foodgawker still rejects me.
I upload my pics to Flickr - pick the size I want - download that size to my computer - and then upload the pic to Tastespotting.
Bet there is an easier way! But that's how I do it.
Good luck!

After reading this thread, I decided to send a photo in and it was accepted! I just use a point and shoot and have no photoshop-type programs, so I am thinking their selection process is totally random. I'm still chuffed, though!

I've only recently begun to submit photos to both FoodGawker and TasteSpotting. I have found the opposite of what others have reported here, TasteSpotting has rejected more of my photos than FoodGawker.

The majority of my "rejects" have dealt with composition, and after having another look, in most cases I was able to understand why. There are some "rules" dealing with composition, but the interpretation of these can be subjective; which is why sometimes one site will publish what another has rejected.

Most of my images are shot in 3x5 format, and by cropping them to fit the square format these sites use, my composition does suffer at times. I have recently begun to think in terms of the two formats when I take my photos and I now do my own cropping in Photoshop, and save the two resulting images; one for my blog and one for submitting to these sites.

I've been having the rejection problem a lot with foodgawker too. I still haven't got any picture to be posted. I especially hate it that they go a lot for the "dull / unsharp" reason, and I must say I most of the time don't see why. they've used low ligthing/underexposed also, then I shot the same thing in natural light, I got too harsh ligthing/overexposed. wtf ?
"ligthing issues" is a generic term they love as well.... like... be explanative or something please so I dont just lose my time there.

also, they rejected the same image (tweaked inbetween of course) 2 times, then on the thrid try, they went for "composition" what the hell, coudlnt have they told me this sooner ? now I have the impression of wasting my time real bad.

yet, I'd love to be able to benefit from the traffic generated by those two sites, and have the pleasure of seeing my creation published. this is frustrating me to no end, grrrr.

ps: because I knew it was difficult to get into foodgawker / tastespotting, I actually did read a lot about how to submitt the pictures, how to improve them and so on, before I tried. I still miserably failed, but I thought some of you guys might be interrested into that post: http://mansurovs.com/how-to-submit-photos-to-foodgawker-and-tastespottin...

Kirsa, I feel your frustration, but just keep trying. Some of your photos look a little dark. I have the most success with shooting in natural light. My dining room table is by a window and if it's too bright, I drape a sheer white piece of fabric over the window to cut the glare. I also use photo editing software and play with the different settings. Foodgawker has rejected several of mine lately that Tastespotting has accepted. Good luck! Denise

what appears on the blog havent been tweaked. So yeah some of them can look a bit on the dark side (no pun intended ) I decided I wanted to try submitting to foodgwker after those were taken, and I was trying to get the preview accepted to apply the same changes to the original picture, instead of wasting my time.

I only use a point & click camera too. I've never had a photo rejected due to resizing issues, but I have had rejections for just about every other reason. I may be mistaken, but I think you have to almost build up a reputation at FG. I had several declined photos when I first started my blog but, as I began adding/submitting more, I had more accepted. That isn't to say I don't get rejections anymore, just not as many.

Someone asked that it means when they say a composition is too tight? I think that means that the shot is too close to the subject. I may be wrong, but I seem to get that a lot on pictures that are very close-up.

Anyway, Go Point and Click cameras!

I'm relatively new to blogging. I only began submitting photos to both Foodgawker and Tastespotting at the beginning of this year.

My photography is slowly beginning to evolve. I have purchased a tripod and adjustable lights, and today I put a lot more time and thought into those photos than I did when I started. However, nothing has changed. Tastespotting still rejects more of my submissions than Foodgawker.

My last 6 or 7 submissions to Tastespotting have all been rejected because of composition. Looking at those rejections carefully, I can understand where some of those (submissions) might have compositional issues, however I strongly disagree with a couple of those rejections as well. (Odder still, is a few of those rejections are actually better compositionally than some of my previous photos that Tastespotting has accepted.) Foodgawking on the other hand has accepted about 4 or 5 out of that same batch of photos.

All I can say is most of the time I'm at a loss to what criteria these sites use. I have spent hours looking at what has been accepted by both Foodgawker and Tastespotting and sometimes I come across glaring compositional issues as well as lighting, white balance and focus issues.

Ultimately this is a very subjective process; what one individual thinks is wonderful, another might consider awful. All I can do is to keep working on my images and to keep submitting them.

When a photo is rejected, I feel like I'm on the qualification round of American Idol. Going in I'm sure that my photo looks perfect, it's not until I read the reasons for rejection that I realize how much I need to work on.
The comments are meant to be helpful. But, If I had the money, I would hire someone to take the pictures for me. It's a terrible feeling when you can't share something delicious with the rest of the world.

Its funny I came across this thread, I was just thinking about this
Im new to F G, but not blogging

Ive submitted about a dozen photos and only 5 have been accepted.
They give the reason of "harsh lighting/overexposed" and "lighting/shadow/exposure issues" mostly.

As a professional photog, I know my stuff.
My exposure is dead on (thank you very much lol)
But, who knows what they are looking for. Art and photography are subjective.

Of course, I may just totally suck at photography.
Just don't tell my clients hahhahahhahaa
don't feel too badly, guys.

Now watch the F G ppl see this post and I will be blackballed =)
Im such a rebel.

I'm so frusterated with Food Gawker. Months and months ago my very first submission was accepted, so I just assumed all of my submissions would. Stupid me! Mynext 5 submissions were rejected due to " low ligthing/underexposed." I agree that maybe 1 or 2 of the pictures had low lighting, but the others were really good. I got really discouraged and stopped visiting the site - totally forgot about it actually. It wasn't until this week that I started trying to submit pictures again. I submitted 2 more to FG and both were declined. I'm not sure how I can make my pictures better when I don't have very good lighting in my ground floor apartment. The summer was perfect for lighting, but now Fall and Winter are going to murder my pictures!

The FAQs state "You can submit your photos to Food Gawker – The Daring Kitchen. Food Gawker features a section especially for Daring Kitchen members and they will NOT turn any photo down as they do with the remainder of their site. Daring Bakers can find their photos here: http://foodgawker.com/post/category/daring-bakers/ and the Daring Cooks can find their photos here: http://foodgawker.com/post/category/daring-cooks/"

Yet, I've clearly labeled two good pictures as "Daring Bakers" entries and been declined even though another completely unrelated post of mine was accepted. I guess they WILL turn down daring kitchen photos...

I thhink I get the worst rejection FG can offer. Every time they reject a photo of mine it's dull/unsharp. That's almost personal..lol

That said, they've been on a rejection roll with my photos. Not sure when the last time they actually accepted a photo was. My recent cassoulet platings were just called dull/unsharp - so I'm kind of in a venting mode at this moment.

I know my photographic limitations - I have no natural light..no tripod, and have to reply on a Lowel Ego Light, a steady hand, and luck. However, either they hired new people to make these decisions, or they need to be a little more consistent considering they've accepted a lot worse from me in the past.

Please also consider submitting your photo here: http://www.dailynibble.com