Okay so here's the deal... I have an issue.
I may be shooting myself in the foot with this, but I. Have. An. Issue.
...with Foodgawker (and similar sites). No wait. It's with Foodgawker. I've had none of the following problems with similar sites. This is a Foodgawker rant.
For those of you who don't know what Foodgawker is, essentially it's a food porn website where people can upload images they've taken of shit they've made and have posted to a website, creating a space - albeit a very limited space - on which you can promote your blog.
Seems like a good idea right? Sure. In theory. But the way this site determines whether or not your photos get accepted irks me. Hence: I have an issue.
For Foodgawker your photos have to be very specific. The lighting has to be just right, the positioning of the food has to be manipulated just so, the depth of field has to be outstanding, and so on and so on and so on. And even then, depending on who receives your photo on the other end, it may or may not be approved based on a very subjective view of what counts as a decent photograph. I've submitted multiple pictures that are absolutely no different than other images I've seen on that site and been turned down. What the fuck?
I even read in an interview with the founder of Foodgawker that if at first you don't succeed, submit again. So I did. And the reason I was turned down a second time? ....because I had already submitted that photo previously. Again I ask: What. The. Fuck?
Mrrrraaarrrrrhhhh!! Anger and frustration! That's right! Anger and frustration!
I even read in an interview with the founder of Foodgawker that if at first you don't succeed, submit again. So I did. And the reason I was turned down a second time? ....because I had already submitted that photo previously. Again I ask: What. The. Fuck?
Mrrrraaarrrrrhhhh!! Anger and frustration! That's right! Anger and frustration!
Now, there are classic techniques of photography that make photos appealing to the eye. Totally. I get that. Sure.
But, food is meant to be experienced! I want to see the textures, and the colors, and the cracks and personality and love. I don't want my pictures to look like everyone else's. Their food and their experiences aren't my food and my experiences. I don't want to craft my craft according to very limited, industry specific standards that sell my vision short.
Conformity is boring. Sameness is boring. Repetition is boring.
Perfection is Boring.
Do you hear me Foodgawker?? Perfection is boring! I think your resource could be very useful but why not establish some hard guidelines regarding submissions for your site? Or if you have guidelines, be a little more upfront with them? Or not be such snobs about the "quality" of the pictures you accept. Because it is snobbery.
I have submitted 37 photos... And 4 have been accepted. See?
Four. Out of 37. I know I'm taking good pictures. Just because they don't fit into someone's snobby narrow definition of what food photography should look like doesn't mean they shouldn't be seen.
....I guess that's why I have this blog. I'm making my own space. Heck! Let's extend this conversation to life - make your own space! If you don't agree with something, or it doesn't work for you, or something else feels right - without sounding like a Nike ad (because we all know how evil Nike is and if you don't, you should google that shit) - just do it. Look and live and love freely! Be magical! And whimsical! And different! And irresponsible! And make mistakes! Don't fit yourself into a narrow definition of what is right or beautiful or sexy or proper or whatever the current cultural norm is. Just don't! Instead, do your own version!
Wow, that rant got away from me a little bit, didn't it?
....Even after all this, I'll probably still submit my photographs to their site. Let's face it - when they do get accepted, it's great traffic for my blog. But I'm not changing my photography for them. If I happen to fall into the right photograph, score. But otherwise, I'm gettin' my freaka' on. Ow! Ow!
End rant.
I have submitted 37 photos... And 4 have been accepted. See?
Four. Out of 37. I know I'm taking good pictures. Just because they don't fit into someone's snobby narrow definition of what food photography should look like doesn't mean they shouldn't be seen.
....I guess that's why I have this blog. I'm making my own space. Heck! Let's extend this conversation to life - make your own space! If you don't agree with something, or it doesn't work for you, or something else feels right - without sounding like a Nike ad (because we all know how evil Nike is and if you don't, you should google that shit) - just do it. Look and live and love freely! Be magical! And whimsical! And different! And irresponsible! And make mistakes! Don't fit yourself into a narrow definition of what is right or beautiful or sexy or proper or whatever the current cultural norm is. Just don't! Instead, do your own version!
Wow, that rant got away from me a little bit, didn't it?
....Even after all this, I'll probably still submit my photographs to their site. Let's face it - when they do get accepted, it's great traffic for my blog. But I'm not changing my photography for them. If I happen to fall into the right photograph, score. But otherwise, I'm gettin' my freaka' on. Ow! Ow!
End rant.
What do you think about Foodgawker? How do you feel about regulation of the arts? Do you think we need a standard to be upheld? Or does that limit possibilities?
Or... How do you defy the "norm"? Yeah! How do you make your own space? How do you negotiate the "norm" and your truth? Could I be any more cheesy?

This post is linked up with The Gallery of Favorites via the 21st Century Housewife.






Give us all your picture and someone will get it acceted Im sure. What a pain and waste of time, and really who cares about the depth of field, we just want the yummy food! Good Luck
ReplyDeletehaha thanks Shauna - that's why you're so great :)
DeleteHow funny! At least you've gotten 4 accepted. I'm at a big fat zero!! Congrats on your 4! :)
ReplyDeleteBeth @ www.definitelyleopard.com
it's ridiculousness.
DeleteAww man, don't get me started on this..I have a worse time with Tastespotting but have only had 1 chosen by FG. I think it's BS too, I always wonder whoever is looking at them about the position of their screen or if they had a shitty day. The thing is I still submit because it is good traffic, I wish I could just call them up and tell them to shove their site...but I wont, I'll do what your doing and keep submitting my good pics hoping that the person seeing them is in a happy mood that day. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks, my rant is now over!
which is ridiculous! i've seen your photos and they're beautiful. let's send their authorizers good thoughts so they'll be in those good moods when our pictures come their way. grumpy buggers.
DeleteCan't speak for Foodgawker, but I have similar issues with Craft Gossip. I've submitted several times. Nothing. Oh, except the time they posted something of mine that they couldn't remember how they got wind of it. Go figure.
ReplyDeletethat seems like it might be a breach of copyright?
DeleteArts and creativity are not something to be regulated. I sincerely believe that whatever YOU are used to is your 'norm' and we all have different ones. We should celebrate our differences, not all want to be alike and cookie cutter. How freaking boring. All you have to do is look at all the strip malls and chains to see how blah that is. Variety is the spice of life.
ReplyDeletetrue that sister. down with strip malls, chains, and cookie cutter! :) i like you.
DeleteLOL! I agree. I've only submitted 4 photos with my new blog and ONE has been accepted. So I guess I'm at 25%. Maybe I'll stop while I'm ahead. ;-)
ReplyDeleteit'd do you good. haha... but again, that damn traffic they bring to your site! :)
DeleteI've had so many photos rejected from Tastespotting that I developed an inferiority complex from it.
ReplyDeletethey come back with one word: Composition.
oh, thanks! that helps... :-)
Sometimes I submit a photo because a friend blogger (knowing of my inferiority complex) writes me an email and specifically tells me to submit it, because it is beautiful...
and, I get rejected yet again
I've got maybe 4 photos in Tastespotting, got nice traffic from them, but submitted probably 20 more that got slammed. I rarely submit them now, but often wonder why some photos get published that don't look any better than mine
i felt like that at first too and then my partner said something very clever... he's a film writer and makes them from time to time. he's submitted who knows how many to film festivals and hasn't gotten in. it really is about A. luck; B. timing; C. getting the right person to see it at the right moment... i think this tastespotting, foodgawker, etc.. business is just the same. it's gatekeeping.
DeleteI have that problem with tastespotting. They reject everything that everyone else accepts and their reasons always seem like stretch.
ReplyDeleteYou can't win them all I guess. :-P
so weird. you can if you're charlie sheen! i just heard about his "winning" thing. how out of the loop am i??
DeleteLike I said on Facebook, I'm over FoodGawker, TasteSpotting, and the like. I get way more traffic from Pinterest than I ever got from them, and it can be way more organic than if I somehow manage to fit into FG or TS's versions of perfection. In fact, one of my oldest posts recently got pinned and pinned and pinned and pinned again. Something that was denied by them both.
ReplyDeleteWe tout our posts on Facebook, on Twitter, and before Pinterest, we submitted them to FG & TS. Somehow, that submission and editorial process made us feel okay about putting our stuff out there. Well, now, create your own Pinterest Board, with everything you've written/posted for Gastronomical Sovereignty. People who follow you on Pinterest will want to see your creations, and we're doing them a service by providing one board they can follow and see everything, including what's new (kind of like subscribing to our RSS feed).
FoodGawker's latest updates mean that if someone pins your photo from there, they get the Pinterest traffic first. I don't like that. And I don't see it as necessary anymore. I think FG and TS, and sites like it, are on their way out. This newest update is a last ditch effort to try and gain back their following.
agreed. i think that pinterest, our blogs, etc... are spaces that we create, control and moderate ourselves. that's where our stuff belongs :) very well said.
Delete@Amber and @Kristy Lynn -- I couldn't agree with you more. Snobbery and FG and TS's version of perfection gets old very quickly. I can only imagine how much good food they're missing out on. Ones that are real but may not conform to their FG and TS's version of "perfection" -- a shallow depth of field with a blurry background.
DeleteEvery dog will have its day. It's only a matter of time before something newer, cooler and a more inclusive food app/website happens. Looks like Pinterest is already doing a great job. And you're right about the traffic too. We get a lot from them and it's also more interactive than FG and TS.
Remember Myspace and Friendster?? who? what? -- yeah!... Exactly. Thanks for the great post Kristy Lynn!
Well said. Their standards are completely arbitrary and it's a downer to be rejected over and over. I've had photos accepted (not very many) but I think that both FG and TS are complete wastes of time and emotion.
ReplyDeletehigh five cathy!
DeleteI totally agree. I had the same experience with Tastespotting. I mean, I understand that the photo has to be nice and appealing, but it seems like you have to have some photography award to get your recipe posted. Anyway, I tried a couple of times and since those days my photography has progressed a lot, but I don't upload my photos anymore, I just go and give a look at the nice photos, get hungry, bake and enjoy. That's the best part =)
ReplyDeleteyour photos are looking beautiful btw!
DeleteI don't even bother to submit (my pictures are improving, but they're not great--sometimes you can even see my dirty stove top in the background). I also find that some highly stylized food photos just look silly. "Our own space" should definitely be to Foodgawker what Catalog Living is to the Pottery Barn catalog... ;)
ReplyDeleteit's your dirty stove top that we love :)
DeleteHear hear! I've stopped trying, too many rejections from both, and always the same one word "composition." Sorry, but I am not going change what I am doing to please them anymore.
ReplyDeletewhat does composition even mean? it can mean anything!
DeleteI agree 100% with you. I take food picture, not with prop and what ever lighting avialable. I was turned down by so called tastespotting, foodgwaker etc. My hubby says food needs to look like food not as painting. You need to see and feel the texture. Earlier, I thought I am one of bad photographer who doesn't know how to click, then I realize that this is me, what I take is perfect for me. Food needs to be look like food with taste and texture not as any art. Now I don't care any of these sites. I like pin interest and my blog.
ReplyDeleteagreed. texture is key.
DeleteKristy, I agree with you whole heartedly. I sent in a few images early on...got one or two approved out of quite a few...then I stopped and asked myself what the hell I was doing? I do not know anyone who has every really benefited from Food Gawker in any financial way...maybe it gives us all a thrill to see our images in print on the web...and then I realized that was a bit shallow in an artistic way...it seems to me the Food Gawker folks make money selling ads on the backs of all the folks who are manic about getting images accepted....that is just not my thing. My food styling business, website and food blog are what I really want to do...not spend lots of time buying into Food Gawker's theory of what a good photograph of food should or should not be.
ReplyDeleteFor all we know the folks choosing images might have all sorts of food phobias, food ignorance, no background in food or food photography not to mention anything to do with light, shadow, etc...it is all a crapshoot and if I want to play craps...I will fly to Vegas!
want a partner? we can take the casinos for all they got! or at least have a few drinks on the slot machines.. ;)
DeleteOkay. A bit off topic, but a website called Tastespotting only reminds me of the heroin movie Trainspotting in which one notable character dies in a pool of his own vomit.
ReplyDeleteThey couldn't, honestly, find a better name than that? Dorks.
Also, I'll admit I've never heard of these sites and now I don't feel like visiting either FoodGawker (MUCH better name) or tastespotting because of their lack of photo acceptance rubric.
You foodies rock! I'll visit your websites directly instead!!
Trainspotting was awesome. kind of like you.
DeleteAHHH A kindred spirit!!! Every time I look at that name I think of "Trainspotting" too. And there, I thought it was just me. As for FG, I just keep submitting (got one accepted just recently) and figure it keeps someone in a job. LOL But seriously, it *is* subjective and some of the photos I see on there defy reason--and sometimes you don't even know what the food is that's being showcased. Like many others here, I think food should look like FOOD not high art. FYI I take most shots of stages of prep for my blog with my dopey LG phone, but the last and final plated version is one I take with a proper camera and try to "style." I notice they like very bright (OVEREXPOSED) pics and I always add some color saturation, which to me, makes it look quite un-natural, but hey, I go with the flow.
Deletei like how you approach it. one for them, lots more for how we think it should be :)
DeleteHi Kristy,
ReplyDeleteI personally think that your pics look delish :-). Can I stop over for a bite next time I go to the island? ;-)
obviously!
DeleteThat's funny. I've never tried submitting - of course now I have to immediately : )
ReplyDeleteyou let me know how that goes now...
Deleteoh man, dont get me started! i think tastespotting is slightly easier to get on than foodgawker, and I cant tell you how many times i have tried to get in the gallery. Im about the same score as you, 4 accepted out of 37. i agree, perfection is boring! ive seen pictures in lots of foodie mags that dont even come close to their standards. thanks for visiting my blog by the way. just love the name of yours!!
ReplyDeletewe should start a 4:37 club...
Deleteokay, here's the thing (things?)
ReplyDeletei really really really enjoyed reading this post. i think you made some good points and i can't even imagine how frustrating it must be. when i first started making stationery and trying to submit it to sites i felt hopeless. i would see other images of stationery with this perfect lighting and amazing conception and depth of field and i felt so very jealous! but i also liked how my photos more clearly showed what it was, or what was included in a set for example. because sometimes perfect photos only tell you a percentage of the story you know?
that being said, as a person who is obsessed with aesthetics - i do get where they are coming from. if i go to a website or a blog and i don't like how it looks? 1. i don't trust it or what it's trying to teach me/share with me/sell me. and 2. i usually leave. i'm really big on how websites look because the design and photos are what you have to present yourself to the world. i like sites that look good, and i want to be IN/ON sites that look good (not sexually ;). so i get that - they have standards.
there is a similar issue on etsy - being that the treasuries on the front page are always very perfect looking and often white and they don't represent all of the etsy sellers. but to be honest it has never bothered me because as i mentioned, i like when things look good.
the problem i think that is inherent with sites like foodgawker and etsy, and probably why it irks people so much is because they are not representing themselves...not really. they are representing you, and food, and people who blog about food! and same with etsy. so there's really no need for them to get hung up on the presentation necessarily. especially if they are not a revenue based website - which i wouldn't know about.
and that's my input!
holy things batman!
DeleteFirst, i knew you'd like this post and i was just waiting to hear from you.
Second, good points. i do think aesthetics are vital to branding and promoting a website, blog, etc... i think the issue along with the one that you raised about not representing a person, the food, etc... is that it's so tightly regulated by an elite group of people who may or may not have any training in food, photography, food photography, etc... and that's wrong.
I actually thought about you when I wrote this regarding the art world. Imagine if only really specific genres and colors and shapes of art were accepted by a handful of people to be seen..... i know this is the internet and so it's different because they ARE making money through their sponsors (ie companies) but it's kind of the same, no?
XO!
i saw this post on SRC's facebook page...and i didn't comment there because there were a billion already. but 1) i completely agree with you, and 2) i think your photos are beautiful! there's too much snootiness on those sites anyway. :)
ReplyDeletethank you Sarah :) death to all food porn sites! or at least a flu! wait, that sounds like i'm engineering a virus for them. i'm not.
DeleteDelicious rant lady. I have never submitted anything to Foodgawker but I have experienced similar snobbery on other sites. I find it particularly frustrating when the same blogs continually get featured on a given site. I make delicious food too! And I take decent photos dammit! I feel like the food blog world has become a bit clique-y. But all we can do is keep doin' our thang!
ReplyDeleteYOU'RE delicious ;) you DO take decent photos. your photos are pretty darn fantastic, actually.
Deletei'm glad you bring up the cliquey thing. It's something that shouldn't exist but does. Why can't we all work together to bring people amazing food experiences?? We can start our our food clique for all the non-cliquers.
I have had good luck with foodgawker (my picture is even in your screen print :) ), but tastespotting rejects 95% of what I submit to them. Always the same reason "composition". At first I tried to take pictures with that in mind, but they still were not accepted. I have given up on trying to please them. I still submit to their site, but it is a rare occasion they are accepted. Can't turn down the opportunity for the traffic though :)
ReplyDeletelucky bitch. ;)
Deletesomeone made an interesting comment yesterday on facebook about the traffic they generate: what if the traffic is a one time click? you might get 700 hits or more from one picture but in the end.... if they don't come back, is it worth the effort of posting? Or would it be a more valuable use of time to get involved in community building efforts (i.e. Secret Recipe Club, etc...) that gets people coming back time and again?
Just wanted to heart this post. I haven't mustered up the courage to submit to Food Gawker or similar sites, but have been delighted by relatives posting a few recipes in Pinterest. So, yeah, I'd recommend that;)
ReplyDeleteaw i heart you :)
DeleteJust submitted some pictures from my new blog to foodgawker. As i was browsing about it, got your post. Let me see how my luck works..
ReplyDeleteDivya's Culinary Journey
i'm crossing my fingers for you. let me know how it goes!
Deletehere, here!
ReplyDeleteI gave up
i think i'm gonna do the same thing.
DeleteGreat post, I tried several times to get one of my photos on there. I'll admit a lot of my photos need a lot of work, let's face it my photography needs work. I've just started. There was one specific post where my picture was awesome. I was so proud of myself I tried submitting and re editing to "their" so called liking and every time I got turned down for the same reason. I then gave up saying it's not worth it to me! I love my blog and wish I had more followers but at the same time it's a lot of work and a lot of time, and I don't have all that time for it now..maybe one day in the future :)
ReplyDeletebut everyone's photos need work. that's the brilliance of pinterest i think. we can learn from each other. Foodgawker just wants you to conform to a specific style of photography. what fun is there in that?
DeleteOh I am SO with you- I feel like they accept the most random of my pictures, and the ones I LOVE that show the texture and make me want to drool always get the comment "too close" or "composition too tight". I WANTED it that way or I would not have TAKEN it that way and SUBMITTED it. Argh. But yeah, I'll totally keep submitting, who am I kidding :)
ReplyDeletetrue that sister. i like up close photos - and if you look at foodgawker's most viewed and most favorited EVER - other people do too...
DeleteI have not heard of Foodgawker but it sounds very restrictive. Who made them the experts anyway? I totally agree, perfection is definitely over rated - and not just when it comes to photographs. It's what makes us different that is interesting!
ReplyDeletei know, right? we should be our own experts!
DeleteI totally agree with you. Ever since Tartlett's book "Plate to Pixel" came out, its like everything has to be held to her standard of photography. Which, she does take beautiful photos, but not everyone has to take photos EXACTLY like her! It is really frustrating to try and carve out your own niche in your blog when certain places (and people) want you to follow the crowd. What is this, high school?!
ReplyDeleteyes. and i adore her blog. i love her photography. but i'm with you - we need to adopt our own love and styles of photography (if that's our thing)... just because the cool kids are doing one thing doesn't mean we have to follow suit.
DeleteHi Kristy,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely share your feelings on recipe photo sharing. I think there is no need for prescreening - the viewers can decide which pictures they like and which they don't. As a food blogger I find it very frustrating when one person has the power to decide which of my recipes will get to a wide audience.
So I started building a "democratic" platform, where recipes will not be rejected, everything will be published. But to reward good quality and to make the viewers happier, the more popular images will be given higher priority in the gallery. And now today finally this website is live.
It's called RecipeNewZ (with Z) http://recipenewz.com
When I read this post I was in the final stages of testing RecipeNewZ. I was soooo tempted to tell you about it, but I felt like I should wait until launch. So now it's live :-), and I hope you can join, check it out and spread the word :-).
Wow! I can't wait to check it out - way to go my friend! i'll swing by.
DeleteThis made me literally laugh out loud. I totally can relate! haha. I finally got a few things accepted on foodgawker but they always deny me for the dumbest reasons. Tastespotting is the one I have a bigger issue with!! I swear they don't even LOOK at my pictures!
ReplyDeletei actually thought i was doing rather well on tastespotting - turns out i have the same issues there as many of you do. but i guess that's why we have our blogs right? get our own stuff out there on our own terms!
DeleteOMG I agree with you 100%! I've had quite a few photos accepted by Foodgawker (and feel amazingly elated and just plain awesome when they're accepted) and many many more rejected which completely crushes me every time! Especially when it's their stupid "composition too tight" reason. I LIKE seeing the food close up and can tell for sure that it looks like something I'd want to eat!
ReplyDeleteI won't stop submitting because it brings a (relatively) huge amount of traffic to my tiny site, but it's a frustrating roller coaster ride. I will say this though, my photography and composition has improved a lot since I've geared it towards being accepted on Foodgawker, but sometimes the photos just don't turn out, or I take shitty photos and can't bring myself to care because I'm starving and I want to eat what I just made before it gets cold!
Reading this I think I've found a lot of awesome blogs that I'm going to check out. Keep up the good work ladies, your photos are all fabulous!
- i wonder if the traffic is worth it though? most people don't come back after that one click. Nor do they comment. just curious - is volume of traffic or quality of traffic more important?
Deletei am so glad to find this thread. Just started TS and FoodGawker and became despondent, I don't pretend to be the best photographer but i thought my chicken with forty cloves of garlic was a slam dunk... I think that composition too tight must mean the image is either cropped to close or two close up in the overall frame but they said this about my chicken and is def not a closeup. I don't get it. your photos are great by the way!
ReplyDeletethank you Samantha - that's lovely of you to say. i really think when it comes to TS or FG, you just have to catch the right person on the right day in the right moment. it's frustrating.
DeleteIn seeing all of the posts that talk about TS and FG being so picky and me having never submitted to them I thought I would forge a different path and start DiPPPED.com and it allows easy sign up and ALL pictures are posted and are ranked on the likes. Let me know what you think of it and if you could tell a friend. Its new so any issues don't hold back and let me know. I don't think pictures and people trying to get exposure should be limited. Thanks!
ReplyDeletePaul
Thanks for the link Paul!
Delete@Abby it is a roller coaster ride indeed and I am jumping off lol. Food photography isn't the easiest, but many of our photos aren't that bad either. I just think the editors have their favorites--foodgawker in particular. It is maddening when a photo that isn't even bad is rejected :/
ReplyDelete@Kristy The traffic is worth it to me as bloggers who have ads get paid every time someone visits their site! But you are right, will they be repeat visitors? Probably not lol. Healthy Aperture is a great site to submit to though, and also my site http://www.wholeyum.com. I started my blog not even knowing about foodgawker, etc... but now that I see how picky they are, I am creating a feature where people can post photos that link back to their websites. Should be done next week. The only requirement is that the dish is healthy hence the name :) Check it out!
Thank you for this post Kristy!
ohh.. I see now. Maybe that's why they don't accept my amateur, iphone-5 photos on their site. sigh. :( Sadd
ReplyDeletefinally someone spoke the truth! Food gawker and all the other sites are so "exclusive" . I tried many times to post my pictures in there and it's so much work .. not user-friendly. And they make tons of money with ads from bloggers who go there working hard trying to promote their blogs. I found an alternative to those guys ... its a cool Toronto start-up called culinote. I posted some stuff there and they showed in their main page for a long time.I got some traffic from them.
ReplyDeleteWhat is fascinating is the amount of foodgawker-like versions are out there? And all with the same concept? It must be a fortune maker Sigh :(