MicrostockGroup

It appears to me that they take their statement about "highest quality requirements" a bit too seriously. What is your experience ?

802 accepted, 52 rejected.

I joined there last month and only got a small portfolio (86).
About 7% rejection but funny enough all but 2 of the rejects were accepted at IS and SS.

Good acceptance ratio with sometimes very very stupid rejection reasons like "out of focus" with perfectly focused images and over ridiculous reasons i don't remember, I'm going to stop uploading here.

Thanks. This is mostly what I expected. I am sending Crestock an E-mail to delete all my accepted images and terminate my account. There is only so much I am willing to do for $0.25 a (unfrequent) download.

I can't see editing photos that other sites have accepted. Just so you can get the quality that you want on your site and pay contributers very little for their hard work.

LOL... I quit as soon as I joined.  My first 4 weren't good enough to be offered at full size, and my next 4 were rejected.   If I want to feel bad about my skills I just send them to Istock (who incidently SELLS LIKE CRAZY the 52% that they accept).

I do in a weird way like that they will offer a small file if it's sorta okay instead of just rejecting it.

I'm almost sure that when I joined CS the subscription did not exist.  I would hesitate to join a site with this.  Rejection was high, but I could understand this as a selective portfolio to cater buyers with little time to browse hundreds of images.  It was upsetting, but I could live with that.

Then subs sales started to happen and most sales came from subs (at least to me - my average earnings are 42c/dld - but I believe it was a general trend).  I guess the credit prices versus subscription prices favour the latter a lot - buyers pay 21 to 25c an image (if they upload all the images they're entitled). As I said elsewhere, I dislike more the fact that a buyer pays so little for high res and high quality images than a lower photographer commission (as the mere 20% in IS).

Back to the original question, acceptance has been much higher in my past submissions, but I stopped uploading as I don't see a satisfatory future between me and CS.  It's kind of hard for a stubborn person like me to give up, but then I haven't had any sale in January and February.  Ok, my portfolio there is of only 70 images. 

I haven't however reached the point of closing my account there.  I guess the optimist in me always expect a positive change.

Regards,
Adelaide

deleted

I am new to crestock and following all crestock threads with interest... not to bash the site, but i am really curious about their photographer attrition rates... and how soon people drop out after they join...

... as for me... i'm still looking around... but huh, polite people, them, at crestock. Nice, simple: "Not stock material". Polite too...[me, being  sacrastic]...

...some paraphrasing of their rejection reasons might do them some good, by the way, it would actually take them places.  A simple "Sorry, at the time this file is not suitable... for whatever reason for addition to crestock library" would reeaally be much more palatable to photogs than a curt, blatant, impolite-ish remark... really. Being more personal, more polite, more respectful of whatever is being submitted might be appreciated....

Uploading to Crestock is really no work at all. If you use IPTC you really don't have to do anything other than upload and press select all > submit. By far the easiest site to submit to in my opinion. Well worth it, despite the relatively low sales. (Still better than LO, CanStockPhoto, FP, and SV for me)

I haven't had a problem with their reviewing, all seems fair to me so far. Other sites reject a lot more of mine than they do.

I don't have any problems with the reviewers at CS. I have more than 80% accepted compared to 70% at iS. I have on a number of occasions received an e-mail from a reviewer complementing a submission, and I really appreciate that. Sales are very slow, commissions low, but I like the people there, so I will stay.

All to often the argument comes up that volume equal money and the quality of experience has no bearing on revenue.

For example I work for a macro stock photography company that has a current image collection of around 10,000 images. We send our images to around 50 different macro site  distributors around the world and one particular distributor only took 1500 of our images, or 15%.  These images are highly produce, professionally shot, color balanced, and retouched. We couldn’t understand why and even flew out to visit with their editors (I guess we all deal with rejection) .  They also take more of a cut then a majority of our other distributors.

After months of sales data they are killing most of the competition in generated revenue.  Why? Creative know when they go to this site they are going to find exceptional quality and don’t have to wade through tons of images to find the exceptional ones.

This is in no defense of Cresstock as I haven’t dealt with them directly and don’t know their business model, but in general less can sometime mean more money in the end.