MicrostockGroup

I take it that you aren't exclusive?

 

Lucky you, I usually get over filtered, which sometimes is very amusing, when I go to great lengths to do virtually nothing to the shot except for some minor sharpening of the RAW then reduce the opacity to 15%.  I almost think that using a polarizer in the bright Florida sky makes them think its over filtered.   ARGH!

I've been getting the "We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved." rejection which seems to lead to an automatic No Resubmit.

I'm getting the impression that's the choice used when they don't like the file.

perhaps using a polarizing FILTER is what gets you the overfiltered. It seems somewhat random to me, as do the rejections for incomplete MR. I have had them rejected for not having my signature, for not having my address, for not having the subject's birthday... (and the same MR taken before and after that). since I have plenty of images to send them my paltry 15 a week, I never bother resubmitting, but just send the next 15. It almost seems that the ones SS rejects for poor light are accepted at IS and vice versa. I have never had any pics with the bright popping colors accepted at IS, but I have heard if you can manage to get one in, they sell like mad. Since I stopped trying to send them my best sellers, but just send them everything once it gets to the top of the queue, I am surprised by how many images that aren't accepted elsewhere or are poor sellers are accepted. oh well. I suppose they know what they want, although it doesn't seem that way.

I have come to the conclusion that artifact = anything that is associated with a digital picture - digital noise, jpeg artifacts, banding, jagged histograms, tired inspectors, sensor dust... I have no idea what distorted pixels are though.

--=Tom

I used to a lot of those over-filtered rejection, with photos not filtered at all. At this stage I have a standard noise reduction setting I put each and every photo though in Photoshop. I haven't had a single rejection for over filtering since I started filtering the photos!

I was surprised today when this illustration was rejected at iStockphoto for not being a stock image:




Oh well. Everyone else took it, so it doesn't matter.

I just had this one rejected at IS with the reason:
"We could not find a clear center focal point for this file."
Now, If I can just work out how to focus an illustration, I can resubmit it!

market needs, or maybe just that being #1 and #2, they check out each other
and reject the contributors popular images 

just guessing. as it is a fact (based on the many forum input) that SS favourites are almost certain rejects by IS, and v.v.

i think also, it all depends on who you know at the site.
i've had some rejection when my color correction is a wee bit off, still white , but a bit warm, or cool, and the reviewer rejected my image.
yet , i see the featured images they have on their home page, a shot that is so obvious shot with home lights, all over yellow.
how do you approve of that? when you disapprove of a studio shot that was cc
for a cooler tone?   a cool white, or a warm white is acceptable even in commercial photography. you see it in highly paid studio shots.
on the other hand, a shot taken in fluorescent (at the airport, for instance)
, or with home tungsten lamp (in your kitchen) is considered amateurish.

so, really, once again, it's not how good your image is. it's how well you know the reviewer. 

I am at the point where I do not care about rejections. I upload all my stuff to most of my sites and they take whatever suit them.

Oh boy, I use CPL all the time :-)

During my last trip I got discussion with a friend who claims that using graduated ND filter is waste of time if you can have the same effect in PS in seconds. I guess how inspectors think, everything is photoshopped :-)