I had the same a couple of weeks ago. I thought just an overpicky reviewer that needed some day of. I haven't uploaded isolations since then, but I will try this week. I'm curious what will happen.

gr Claudia

I don' t remember where that was, but in another thread, somebody says that the inspectors were not that picky when you don't use the keyword "isolation" for your image. So only if you actually call it to be isolated it has to be perfect.

I had the some problems with isolated objects at shutterstock, seems to be the same there. On istock I can't tell - just recently startet to isolate images and those are still waiting in my long long queue to upload.

I didn't see that thread but I did try not keywording the images as isolations or putting them in that category, just calling them white background. No difference, they still got rejected for poor isolation. Thats when I started pulling out my hair and contacted Scout. The point here is that the isolations are as perfect as possible with Jpeg compression, now if they would accept the files as tif there would be no problem, at least not until they compressed them to jpeg themselves.

One thing I've been doing is to shoot on a light-colored background - yellow for example... If the designer wants to isolate, they can, otherwise yellow is a nice color ... I've never had a yellow background rejected for poor isolation; I have however had white or grey backgrounds rejected for this.

Just trying to be helpful, modellocate, but there is a difference between what gets accepted at iStock and what actually sells.  If you look at TomBoy's portfolio, she's achieved over 3,000 downloads with a tight, clean portfolio with nice crisp white backgrounds.  Your own portfolio has not yet achieved 10% of those downloads.  So by all means submit stuff with coloured backgrounds, but the evidence is that 'white sells'.

I had a quick look at your portfolio.  You're clearly very creative.  I like your 'moody' girls and nudes.  But once again there is a difference between what is pleasing to your eye and what buyers actually want to buy.  Moody nudes in withdrawn light simply don't sell.  They might be great artistic photographs, but they don't sell as stock images.

Girls and nudes do sell of course.  But it's the bright, clean, happy, carefree, lifestyle stuff that sells, not the moody stuff.  You're up against stiff competition from some wonderful photographers.  Perhaps the best of them is dolgachov, whose crisp, striking images I admire very much.  Apparently across multiple agencies he sells 10,000 copies a month.  You can see his stuff here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=&oldtext=&textDisambiguation=&majorterms=%7B%22csv%22%3A+%22%22%2C+%22conjunction%22%3A+%22AND%22%7D&fileTypeSizePrice=%5B%7B%27type%27%3A%27Image%27%2C%27size%27%3A%27All%27%2C%27priceOption%27%3A%271%27%7D%2C%7B%27type%27%3A%27Illustration+%5BVector%5D%27%2C%27size%27%3A%27Vector+Image%27%2C%27priceOption%27%3A%27All%27%7D%2C%7B%27type%27%3A%27Flash%27%2C%27size%27%3A%27Flash+Document%27%2C%27priceOption%27%3A%27None%27%7D%2C%7B%27type%27%3A%27Video%27%2C%27size%27%3A%27None+4_3%27%2C%27priceOption%27%3A%271%27%7D%2C%7B%27type%27%3A%27Video%27%2C%27size%27%3A%27None+16_9%27%2C%27priceOption%27%3A%271%27%7D%5D&showPeople=false&printAvailable=false&exclusiveArtists=false&extendedLicense=false&illustrationLimit=Exactly&flashLimit=Exactly&showDeactivatedFiles=&membername=dolgachov&userID=&lightboxID=&downloaderID=&approverID=&clearanceBin=&color=&copySpace=%7B%22Tolerance%22%3A+1%2C+%22Matrix%22%3A+%7B%7D%7D&orientation=Vertical%2CHorizontal%2CSquare&minWidth=0&minHeight=0&showTitle=true&showContributor=true&showFileNumber=false&showDownload=true&enableLoupe=true&order=Best+Match&perPage=20&within=4