MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock approve photos fast and large amount  (Read 1044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 02, 2017, 03:06 »
0
I just leave IS two years ago and come back recently. Which quite shock me is the approval of photo is quick... actually quicker than i think, or expected. Anytime, i submit those photos for reviewing, average 1 mins they approve my photos and the acceptance current i got is 93%! around 100 photos.

That's impossible compare to two year before and even make me think a robot is approving my photos.

So, what's going on here? is this a good thing or a quite bad thing.
Previously i treat IS as the highest quality and most difficulty one, even than SS and fotolia, but now it quite like small agency and accept anything...


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2017, 03:33 »
+4
It's a bad thing. A lot of their accepted images over the past couple of years are shockingly bad. So are a lot of the earnings nowadays, but the low-payers don't get to see only the poor files.
That was an incredible achievement getting 7 files rejected, unless for needing releases.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 07:05 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2017, 06:02 »
+2
A lot of contributors stopped uploading so they now have take what they can get. There have been a few signs of desperation  lately. The lax reviews being one of them.

« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2017, 06:39 »
+2
They now accept anything other than for property rights issues and poor captions on editorial.

« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2017, 07:46 »
+3
They now accept anything other than for property rights issues and poor captions on editorial.

Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Alamy, 123RF do the same.

The only site from which I get rejections (most of the time inconsistent) is Adobe/Fotolia.

It is far the time when there were tons of rejection for "noise", "white balance", etc.

« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2017, 18:44 »
0
They now accept anything other than for property rights issues and poor captions on editorial.

Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Alamy, 123RF do the same.

The only site from which I get rejections (most of the time inconsistent) is Adobe/Fotolia.

It is far the time when there were tons of rejection for "noise", "white balance", etc.
actually when i send another 5 of 6 pics to ss for the so called test they rejected each of them with the noise issue when i knew there was zero noise also dreamstime rejects some images from time to time .so no they dont accept anything ecxept istock

« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2017, 03:35 »
0
It's a bad thing. A lot of their accepted images over the past couple of years are shockingly bad. So are a lot of the earnings nowadays, but the low-payers don't get to see only the poor files.
That was an incredible achievement getting 7 files rejected, unless for needing releases.

i agree and i also treat this as a very bad thing.
i don't know if there is big difference between ss and is on the aspect of incoming, but so far i think the incoming from is (not exclusive) is far behind even with some middle tier or low tier agency. Even they get a lots of photos on their website, how they could not control the quality of those photos? i means, as long as they reach the number they want, what next? delete pro-folio and kick out some photographer?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
3712 Views
Last post March 17, 2010, 02:53
by hofhoek
7 Replies
2978 Views
Last post April 04, 2011, 10:22
by tab62
11 Replies
1707 Views
Last post October 24, 2012, 12:42
by Poncke
4 Replies
1597 Views
Last post April 14, 2013, 06:44
by 08stock08
29 Replies
3205 Views
Last post July 24, 2013, 06:47
by Dan

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors