Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 07:08

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print

Topic: For the life of me...  

(Read 5331 times)
Suljo


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2008, 19:43 »

iCATTLE dont allow us to see youre rejected file  Grin

Well, sooner or later I will figure this out. I always do. I am not questioning Istock standards: it is just that I can't put my finger exactly on what the problem is.
I have no exagerrated sense of how good my pics are: each and every one of them could use some improvement, and today I would not even try to submit some images I was happy with 6 months ago.
Well, live and learn...

http://www.istockphoto.com/resubmit_rejected_file.php?RejectedFileID=6416725


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
fotoKmyst


« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2008, 20:04 »


So If you want to complain to someone just try and thats it. (In my language Fart in the Pot)-for better sound.
Another way in my language iStock means CATTLE with little teeth.

If I am not they exclusive this means that I am not CATTLE.
If you are not CATTLE you have not place in they barn.
Grin
thank you Suljo, you made my weekend for sure. i like FART IN THE POT
better than iStock.
in whatever language, i thank you  Cool

Logged


leszek



« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2008, 20:05 »

Maybe this will work:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9430288-green-stalk-and-earth-earth-image-courtesy-of-nasa-blue-marble-mission-apollo.html

It is no big deal, just wanted to vent my spleen a bit.


Ignore | Logged


yingyang0

iStock Gauge
« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2008, 20:22 »


I thought iStock had decided to stop allowing people to use NASA images as stock.


Ignore | Logged


sjlocke

iStock Gauge
« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2008, 23:28 »

The plant image is very nice on its own.  I don't see a need to drop the earth in there, and I don't get a clear message from the modified image.  That is istock thinking as well, probably.


Ignore | Logged


leszek



« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2008, 00:20 »

Well, it has 140+ downloads and counting...


Ignore | Logged


sjlocke

iStock Gauge
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2008, 08:44 »

Well, it has 140+ downloads and counting...

Downloads on SS don't mean much as far as something that is acceptable on istock. Don't get defensive, I'm just pointing out how things are.


Ignore | Logged


rjmiz


Dreamstime Gauge
« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2008, 11:12 »

This is unfortunate, but true.
Shutterstock is the wholesale retailer of many images.
Many designers use Shutterstock like a fast food restaurant, while iStock is more like a restaurant where a tie and jacket is required. 

They both serve food though.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason


Ignore | Logged


nruboc

Dreamstime Gauge
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2008, 12:26 »



I like it, and I as a designer I see 100x more uses for this than the image they selected as image of the year (the one with all the heads in the cabbage field)


Ignore | Logged


leszek



« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2008, 19:24 »

Sean, I do pay attention to what you say - you record on Istock certainly gives you the right to voice opinions which should be treated with consideration. I like your pics very much - nice pastel colors, excellent lighting, clearly separated subjects, happy/pretty people etc. etc.

But...what does all this have to do with the price of potatoes ?  I would be the first to admit that I lack a lot when it comes to producing pics (in all the departments I mentioned above: lighting, composition, other technical aspects), although I learn a lot and fast every day.

I just think that sometimes (not always, mind it) the rejections justified as overfiltered/artifacts/non-stock are just a bit of a BS. Of course Istock has the right to accept/reject whatever they like and I would be the first to defend this right.
In the process of doing that, however,  they reject sellable images - which kind of leaves me puzzled, considering that this is a commercial site.

I agree that selling on SS does not mean much as far as Istock is concerned - although out of the 140 downloads I mentioned only only about 60% come from SS. Doesn't matter, really, as I said earlier - I just need to figure out what it is that Istock considers acceptable. Certainly it is not just any good picture - more likely it needs to be a good picture of certain kind.  NO problem with that.

Having said that - the "artifacting/overfiltered" issue is, I suspect, a canned answer which really means "we do not like it" - which would be much more informative. Again - not a big deal, this is just a certain kind of a puzzle to be solved, which will happen in due time, and having a little (OK, not so little) studio in my next-to-be-yet-build-house will certainly help a lot  Wink


Ignore | Logged


leszek



« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2008, 19:52 »

One more thing (Mr sjlocke) - if you do not mind answering (and at the risk of me being politically incorrect  Smiley ).
I like the quality of background in your images. I do realize that a large aperture has its part, and (particularly in studio setup) the light contributes a lot etc. etc.

I have rather decent 35mm glass (bought long before I even heard about microstock) - and her it comes:
I know it is 90% the photographer - but what glass do you use ? I am in constant search for lenses which produces really nice bokeh (I shoot Canon). 

This is not a question of the type "the meal you cooked was really nice, could you show me the pots you used" which some people may find either silly or offensive or both. Hopefully you won't.


Ignore | Logged


Phil



« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2008, 20:08 »

What really frustrates me lately , is rejections for  "We have reasons to believe the image was created with components or brushes that are not originally yours"  or something like that.

I contacted scout few times and clearly stated that I never used a single brush that was not created by me and from my photos , that I can prove them that by sending them the brushes set or photos and scans of my textures or something , and they have been approved then.  But they keep rejecting stuff for that reason , and I cant be constantly complain.



put in your description "all artwork is original" or "xxx element created from own resources" etc. (you can change the description and take this comment out if you like after it is approved) - of course Istock really, really dont like raster art anyways (pity coz their customers do)

Phil


« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 20:13 by clearviewstock »

Ignore | Logged


Lizard



« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2008, 14:14 »

What really frustrates me lately , is rejections for  "We have reasons to believe the image was created with components or brushes that are not originally yours"  or something like that.

I contacted scout few times and clearly stated that I never used a single brush that was not created by me and from my photos , that I can prove them that by sending them the brushes set or photos and scans of my textures or something , and they have been approved then.  But they keep rejecting stuff for that reason , and I cant be constantly complain.



put in your description "all artwork is original" or "xxx element created from own resources" etc. (you can change the description and take this comment out if you like after it is approved) - of course Istock really, really dont like raster art anyways (pity coz their customers do)

Phil





Thanks , I think I will do that from now on.


Susan , thank you for your advice too, but I think it would be too time wasting , taking screen caps of brushes and textures etc , and uploading them as MR , cause often I don't even know all the exact brushes or textures  did I use for some backgrounds . I have 10 000+ textures in my arsenal , same goes for my brushes , and on some images I use few large textures and maybe even 50 smaller brushes , brushed textures etc , so it would be a problem to track all those every time I produce an image.   


Ignore | Logged


DanP68


« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2008, 22:40 »

I read the boards frequently and there are a lot of exclusives who complain about the rejection rate too.  I honestly don't believe it has to do with whether you are exclusive or independent.

I've never bought the "artifacts" rejection, and the "too rough or feathered" edges for shots over white is particularly maddening.  For the record, the vast majority of the images I submitted to Scout were eventually accepted.  This factoid alone suggests the reviewers probably reject too many images.

But it is what it is.  I still like iStock, and enjoy working with them.

The bigger concern I have, which I do not believe to be paranoid at all, is that newer submissions from non-exclusives seem to go straight into a black hole.  Almost every download I get from iStock is from images which are several months old.  My newer submissions are buried deep in search. 

I'm not the only person to notice this alarming trend.  It has been brought up by Douglas Freer and (Sean) Forgiss too.

Logged


Karimala



« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2008, 10:42 »

This thread prompted me to do an experiment.  I wanted to see if IS would accept a photo from a non-exclusive that is clearly manipulated from the original.  And guess what...much to my surprise, they did!


http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=6816634


Ignore | Logged


Roadrunner



« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2008, 14:53 »

Is ist possible the reviewers are flipping a coin or just using a random selection type thing in order to keep their rejection rate up.  I have had an image accepted after doing extensive post processing work, and all the others that had any work at all were rejected.  Any mor I just upload and wait to see if they accepted anything.  Most of my uploading to iS is after I am finished uploading to the three main sites I deal with.

At one time I was trying to work with about eight sites which got out of hand.  Now I just concentrating on sites that make it easy to upload and that are still accepting images. Grin


Ignore | Logged


PaulieWalnuts


iStock Gauge
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2008, 21:35 »

The bigger concern I have, which I do not believe to be paranoid at all, is that newer submissions from non-exclusives seem to go straight into a black hole.  Almost every download I get from iStock is from images which are several months old.  My newer submissions are buried deep in search. 
I'm not surprised by this and I think it's driven more by buyer workflow than Istock. Designers download comps, create draft designs, and get approval from clients. Then they buy the images. This could take days or months depending on a lot of factors.


Ignore | Logged


Microstock InsiderEnvateo Photo Tools
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Do you have a life away from microstock « 1 2 3 4 »
Off Topic
nicemonkey 82 10975 Last post August 04, 2010, 13:53
by WarrenPrice
AlwaysHD any signs of life?
General - Stock Video
click_click 4 1681 Last post September 30, 2011, 02:07
by tbmpvideo
Did NASA discovered extraterrestrial life?
Off Topic
Dreamframer 16 1435 Last post December 02, 2010, 17:10
by LSD72
Life Photo Contest
iStockPhoto.com
jsmithzz 4 545 Last post May 18, 2011, 11:31
by Sadstock
Day in the Life - Jon Oringer - WSJ slideshow « 1 2 »
Shutterstock.com
helix7 40 2248 Last post February 15, 2012, 18:45
by Tabimura

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc