Agency Based Discussion > General - Top Sites

Istockphoto's very generous reviews

(1/4) > >>

dragonblade:
I'm not sure about others' experiences but I find that iStockphoto accepts just about anything with regards to photo submissions. Is this generally the case with most contributors? They don't seem to be very fussy. I admit I only have a very small port on IS with over 160 photos but Ive never had a rejection there due to technical reasons. The only times IS have rejected my photos was due to possible copyright infringement or people being featured that they thought would be recognisable (despite them being blurred during a long exposure in one image.)

Dreamstime are fairly generous too but not quite to the same extent as iStockphoto. DT accepts most of my photos with the occasional rejection. Shutterstock and Fotolia are much more strict - I find that about half my submissions are accepted by those two sites. Though lately, Shutterstock seem to be more generous, allowing a larger acceptance rate.

Are other people finding the same overall?

ShadySue:
iS used to be extremely fussy, really pixel-picky.
Nowadays, it's hard to see anyone getting any photo rejected for other than IP reasons, which has been going on for well over a year.
Whether they have some devious reason behind this change of policy, I have no idea.

Pauws99:

--- Quote from: ShadySue on February 04, 2017, 19:26 ---iS used to be extremely fussy, really pixel-picky.
Nowadays, it's hard to see anyone getting any photo rejected for other than IP reasons, which has been going on for well over a year.
Whether they have some devious reason behind this change of policy, I have no idea.

--- End quote ---
They did announce at some point once you were accepted they would only reject on property/release keyword issues presumably to increase the size of their collection or maybe reduce inspection costs. Whilst yes in the past they were probably too picky they taught me a lot....these days can't help thinking I'm slacking as the the inspection process everywhere seems "loose" or inconsistent or both.

SpaceStockFootage:
I'm amazed at some of the vector images that get accepted on both iStock and Shutterstock. Looks like somebody has taken one of their kids drawings off the refrigerator door, and turned it into a vector.

Sure, some people will be looking for that kind of style, but keywords such as 'kid's drawing' or 'child's painting' are worryingly absent.

ShadySue:

--- Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on February 05, 2017, 05:13 ---I'm amazed at some of the vector images that get accepted on both iStock and Shutterstock.

--- End quote ---
That's interesting.
A while back, but after the photo standards collapsed, I made an illustration, really just to practice Illustrator, which I don't do, of a very old symbol, which is apparently still widely used in China. It needed exact measurements and layout. Then I converted it to a jpeg and uploaded it as a raster illustration (as I'm not a vector illustrator).
Firstly, although I had referenced it clearly in the description and stated it to be over 2000 years old, which is really easily verifiable via an online search, it spent weeks 'pending executive', meaning they were checking its IP.
Then I got a rejection as it was 'too simple'.
Scouted it* and got a reply from Scout saying that illustrations had to be more complex.
Thought that was weird. If you were making a straightforward illo of an ankh, that is simple, and mine was much more fiddly than that, and not already in the collection in a pure/original form (there was one with a glittery overlay).

I've since seen really simple vectors, which even I could do, being accepted, so really weird.

*Scout has recently been retired, and nowadays rejected images have to be discussed on the appropriate iS forum.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page