MicrostockGroup

I'm new.

A month ago I was accepted by IStockphoto - no problem, first attempt.  I submitted a few photos and they rejected about 80%, many for "artifacts" that I can't see, some for other goofy reasons.  They even rejected photos that got me approved in the first place (yes, I know they can do that, but then what does nitial approval really mean?).  Keywording takes forever, reviews took up to 9 days.  I appealed on 2 of the photos, politely asking for clarification, and never got any response.  The images that were accepted got a couple of views, then went dead.

Meanwhile I'm off and running with Shutterstock,  no problems. They accept my images, I get a few sales.

Ok, I've walked away from IStockphoto. But would someone please enlighten me - what is the deal with these guys anyway? Do they just like to mess with people's heads, do they not want any more non-exclusives, or are they just seriously disorganized?

I keep reading that IStockphoto is the place to be, but it seems like a complete waste of effort to me.

IS takes six months to start selling your images.
That was what I have been told and that is my experience.
I get a bit more than 60% approval there.
They are my best agency, this month. SS is also very good.

The biggest problem for me is that I didn't understand the rejections, and got no reply to the appeals.   Some of the "artifact" rejections were images that are as good as I can produce - ISO 200, minimal noise reduction and sharpening, highest JPG quality.  They look perfect to me at 100% and are making sales on other sites.   

Apparently they have acceptance criteria which they're unable or unwilling to explain, and are happy to let photographers spend their own time trying to deduce what they are    Seeing absolutely no views on my images as weeks go by tells me that even what I got approved is not what their buyers want. 

typical snotty exclusive remark.  exclusives get preferential treatment and EVERYONE here knows it.  Artifacts are a way for the reviewers to control content by non-exclusives, even though I've never heard of an exclusive have that problem with reviews.  On the other hand, non-exclusives get the shaft and I've seen very poor exclusive shots accepted and very good, stock-worthy shots of my own rejected because they were in an arena and taken at ISO 800 (hard to take action shots with a slow shutter speed).  Yet the ones that have been accepted sell really well. 

If you aren't exclusive, you have to deal with it and keep uploading.  If you are, well, you don't see any of that bull.  Its most likely not the photographer, but the way the system is designed in this case

Not really.  However, nice try at inciting yet another exclusive/independent flame way.

I find that most people who post about their terrible rejection rate end up posting proof of why their rate is where it should be.  I'm not saying that's the case here, and I certainly don't find it necessary to convince the OP of submitting anywhere, but crying "unjustified rejection" ends up that way 95% of the time.

You know, I used to feel this way about istock too and posted similar comments in the forums many times.  But the last several months have been a true revelation to me.  

I've been submitting there for over 4 years and have always maintained above a 90% approval rating.  I'm diamond there, so presumably I know what I am doing and what they accept, right?  

But the last couple of months I have had 50% or more of almost every batch I submit rejected, although these same images are accepted overwhelmingly at other sites.  And the rejections are things like "isolation too feathered or rough", or "artifacts".  Sorry, but I can't believe that after four years I suddenly have forgotten how to do isolation or what artifacts look like.  

Between the shrinking upload limits and wholesale rejections it is becoming pretty clear they are not interested in non-exclusive content.  

I am still a snotty exclusive for a few weeks....but then I won't be. so clearly I believe what I am telling you. no inspector on iStock is out to screw anyone. that assertion is paranoid and ridiculous (not to the OP, I know you didn't say this).

I can't offer any insights from a on-exclusive perspective. but my exclusive acceptance rate fluctuates between 70 and 80%, which means a whole lot of stuff is still rejected. do you know what being rejected on iStock has done for me? it has made me a whole lot better as a photoographer.

to the OP. it is your journey and your career. read around, and decide whatever works best for you. but you should post your images. your reluctance to post them is fairly typical I'm afraid. and it usually means someone doesn't want to accept critiqueing. if this is the case, chances are you are not improving your work the way you should be anyways.

free critiqueing, when constructive, is the best thing you have available to you. take advantage of it and try to listen to those of us who are genuinely trying to help you.

there have been tons of rejections on iStock for exclusives and non-exclusives alike lately. perhaps they have adopted stricter guidelines. not a bad thing ultimately. and again the initial inspection is tougher than a regular inspection.

I am a non-exclusive and in the last few months I have been getting over 80% approval. I get 100% in all the others (except Crestock), however I don't mind about Istock rejection rate as it is the only micro-agency left where I can still be allowed to learn something. It just push me harder to do better and I see nothing wrong with that.  On the other side of the spectrum, Crestock will refuse 90-100% of your images but I don't thing anyone will learn anything with their type of rejections.

In addition Istock is my number 1 earner at the moment. I don't buy this exclusive preferential treatment as many exclusive earnings have been dropping in the last few months while mine has been increasing.

Denis

Could there be another reason for your sudden rejections? Has something changed in your workflow? A new computer perhaps or a different monitor?

Could it be something so simple as your black and/or white points are not set correctly and that you are therefore not seeing the artifacts or other problems.

pixart, I see your point and I think noise reduction might be what they didn't like in some of my photos. This to my mind is not exactly an "artifact" like those produced by compression and sharpening.  Now, exactly who is printing these stock photos as wall-size murals? That's another question    but IStockphoto is free to reject whatever they want. It's their game.

My real beefs with IStockphoto are:

1.  The photos that get you initial acceptance may not actually meet the submission criteria. Absolutely ridiculous.
2.  No response to appeals.  Can't be bothered?
3.  Mis-use of the term "artifact" as a catch-all rejection reason.

I think I'll try IStockphoto again, in the future. Right now it just doesn't make sense for me.  I would rather spend the time taking more photos for sites that want them, rather hammering on Istockphoto for future sales that might never happen.

I guess you don't mean that it is virtually impossible for everybody?

Denis

Thank you for sharing this, I like to hear other perpective beside the "stockish" photographs. Now I do understand your side.  I hope you continue to do well with the other sites. Denis

The above basically applies to me, except I don't use Lightroom. I prefer nature, animals, plants, etc. I have done isolations, but not using any special equipment. I have a 75% acceptance rate (and when I went exclusive it went down a little), so if I had actually put some effort in and uploaded a lot I could have easily built a large portfolio.