MicrostockGroup

I know how frustrating this can be, and I'm by no means fan of their policy.

However, it's DT's prerogative to set their threshold of what to accept and what not, to their liking. In this case - from my point of view as occasional buyer -  I'd buy only one anyway, even if I have use for both (or more) similars. The fix in photoshop to change "help" to "jobs" is pretty easy.

The images are cool, have a good concept, and commercial value, IMHO. Deleting a portfolio based on this seems like a rather harsh reaction.

The solution: Don't upload them in one batch if you want to get them all accepted, but mix them with other images.

The way DT works with their level based, tiered, system, you might sell more in quantity, but end up making less money, because the sales will be more spread over images with the same theme (help, jobs, targets, lean, or what else you'd put in the bulls eye), thus it'll take longer for an image to reach a next tier.

(ETA: punctuation)

Nonsense, I was DT exclusive.  If I submitted an image of a wild animal from the front they would not accept the same animal is photographed from the rear, to similar.  I have images with an animal jumping after food and another with the animal static; they would only accept one.  The policy is bad; for exclusives and non-exclusives.

If there is an exclusive advantage for uploads, I'm sure not feeling the love this month

I like the second one better... and they are basically identical images, with a word that anyone can change. The second one has sharper focus on the red bulls-eye. (but they didn't say anything about that)

What I think is funny, is when I used to send things and the reviews would be something about cropping, point of focus, some little thing that could easily be fixed by someone half competent, then it was the need for ready to use images.

When someone sends in two good images with different meaning, ready to use, the response is, it can be easily edited. (hey didn't I just do that to you?)

I think the answer is just what others have said and some have done for years. Send in one, wait a month and send in the next. Stagger the similars in upload batches. PITA but more will get accepted.

I don't see why you think that this is a stupid rejection reason. The article you quote says -

"White space...empty space that makes the file (look) big, but in reality only makes the designers pay more for nothing. If you isolate your shots, then you should crop tightly around it, making the image as big as actual information in the image and not more. It seriously is not fun to pay for XXL size, if the usable image in it is only worth Medium credits."

Makes sense to me, but I'm not seeing the image you are referring to that was rejected, how about displaying it here?

the explanation is stupid because it's impossible to shoot on a white background (or any other) and not to leave space - of course we are talking about normal shooting when the object is placed normaly - what they are talking about is something else - for extreme cases when the object is very very small....

Ok. Maybe I gave bad samples. I agree.
What about this two.

Accepted

Refused

Are these two pictures similar? Well I can't find any other photo within my port
 tagged with pollution apart from monitors.
Still, the second one was refused.That is what I was talking about.
The point is:
In most of the cases when iStock reject there must be reason Dreamstime reject without reason.
Anyway thank you all for your replies and your opinions.

That's what I was trying to say. There's no winning.

Some people want to buy a ready photo, like the example, with the apple and the copy space. Also it presents the subject in a way that would appeal to a buyer, more than a tiny apple with no white space to the right.

Then the agency wants it both ways, and will refuse for cropped too close or "too many like this" even though the presentation makes the apple photo more attractive?

Doesn't it also depend on whether the white is pure white or off-white?

My own logic is, if it's off-white, the copy space may be necessary if the image is to be used intact.  If it's pure white, there's no need whatsoever to leave copy space, because the end-user can create as much pure white as they like - but they can't simulate the subtle gradations of off-white space so easily, and will be dependent on the space you've left for them.

I may be completely wrong here, but this has always seemed logical to me.  I used my own acceptances and rejections to figure this out, and my own experience seems to validate the theory.

<sitting back to see my theory blown out of the water now...>

One thing you might do is to send in only one image with the bulls eye solid red, then in your description put in text that explains how a designer might use this image.  Add some keywords relative to the image use (assuming you can sneak "jobs", "work" etc by the inspectors.  Make sure you use "copy space" in your keywords as well and also in your description since DT search uses image descriptions in addition to keywords.

Well lead pollution photo was already accepted by iIstock as you can see.
Do you think that iStock will approve photo with artifacts. They are very strict. No way.
That's not the reason.

Nikon D700 is 12 mp