MicrostockGroup

Hello all,

Well it's the end of my second week submitting to micros and I must say the whole experience is positive as a whole. The one area that is certainly frustrating is rejection for technical reasons. One place reviews a file as fine and someone else finds a fault. Nothing consistent. If I was a newbie to stock I'd be looking for fault in my procedure but I submit the same way to the trad. agencies and I can't remember last time I got I rejection for technical reasons. How many of you feel that your files are evaluated honestly?

Yes, I can certainly see that the editing  is different. Although I'm not yet convinced that it is better. One thing is for sure. Given the images that come their way everyday, they certainly can reject on the slightest irregularity.

I think they're trying to build their libraries...

I think some of them are ridiculous in their inconsistencies... but its all subjective, no reviewer is going to see an image the same way another one does.

In that vein i just try to submit only the highest quality i can technically speaking... but my camera is a 6 MP Nikon D70 and they are more and more rejecting me for "artifacting" (i just think they want more megapixels and for that i cannot blame them).

Overfiltered?  Seems only iS uses that ; in fact, 90% of rejections I get there are for "Overfiltered".  No other site rejected any of those images for that reason.  Most of those images were accepted by other sites and are selling quite well.  My best selling image by far on all the sites I'm on was rejected for "A few artifacts" by iS.

I just figure sometimes the reviwer doesn't like something and that gives them a good cop out.  Then I keep on truckin!

"This is where "letting it go" and keep on shooting comes into play."

I have one thing to say in reply to you cclapper  "BRAVO!"

You answered your own question. 

Not only between sites, but depending on which reviewer you get at a site. There are endless stories of photos being rejected at site "X" and submitted a month later and getting accepted.

Photos rejected as "not stock" that are best sellers elsewhere.

Atilla the Reviewer must like me, because I've never had an unfair rejection. Since acceptance or rejection is subjective, don't expect anything to be consistent.

I have had photos that I look back at now, which are up on sites, that I would have rejected! (or should have been rejected) No one complains much about mistakes and bad photos that get accepted?

Deal with it, get over it, move on.  Nothing is personal and nothing to get upset about.

well...

ounce upon a time there where some image library books that they where distributed by image banks,

i suppose many of you have this books also do i,
so if you look at the images they were selling you will find them VERY good
although if this images were submitted to IS for example
 i'm sure that they are going to have
20% acceptance,
most of them for "over filtered" they might be right about the technical side of a rejection SOMETIMES,
but one thing is for sure they have no imagination
most of the images in microstock looks fake and
all microstock sites follow the leader and his aesthetic about images.

I'm not photographer
just shutting and submit images to microstock sites to get some extra money,
my basic job for over 20 years is graphic art designer,
so i think they should judge images also from the artistic side,
and not only "photoshop expert" or "photographer expert"
because the designer is creating a concept
and gives the order for a certain image production
to  photographer or photoshoper and not the opposite.