I think it will be Goodbye to IStock...

[litifeta]

In 18 months all they have accepted is 3 images from me. I have practically given up on them.

I think you have to put that in context , how many did you submit in that much time?

3?   

180

[tan510jomast]

180

are you serious?  180  litifeta?
i must say you have persistence for sure!
i used to give each site, 3 rejects in a row, i'm gone for a month.
if it's 180, i would be gone for 60 months 

[litifeta]

Like I said. I give up on them.

And now they have this annoying keyword wiki where people who cannot speak English complain about your keywords. Just had "trolley" removed from an image of an isolated shopping cart.

[lilcrazyfuzzy]

IS is indeed one of the oddest site

[tan510jomast]

Like I said. I give up on them.

And now they have this annoying keyword wiki where people who cannot speak English complain about your keywords. Just had "trolley" removed from an image of an isolated shopping cart.

   yes, i see your point.  and ironic considering that many contributors are european . we don't all speak "americanized english"(no offense meant, as i speak both).

i had a number of unknown response in the disambugiuation or whatnot.
coming from a british background, i still used some words that get me a question mark from IS keyword.

i think what they should do is what Photoshelter has. let new words be added with the definition .  perharps, IS being old, will soon catch up

[maunger]

I have to jump in here and say what's always said....but here it is yet again.  From a designers perspective, we'd rather have a completely unfiltered image to work with.  They blow up better and retain more original data which makes it possible to filter it to our needs. 

A good stock image is one that can fit the widest array of uses and situations.  An image that you've sharpened or saturated may look great on your screen but cause huge expensive headaches when blown up for a large print job for example.

I seriously doubt it has anything to do with them being like "spoiled children" and more to do with providing sound images to clients.  But heck, what do I know?

I have to jump in here - I've read this a billion times, yet time and time again it is shown that this is maybe only 1/2 of the market - look at any of the top selling images on IS and on SS and you'll see they've been manipulated to some degree. Yes, some designers need unfiltered images... but face it, there's a huge market for COMPLETED images that can be used as is. Not everyone has the talent / skills / or time to make the image the way they want. I don't disagree there's a market for unfiltered images, but there's also a market for ones that are finished.

[Dreamframer]

"Overfiltered" is also my most often rejection on IS. I am thinking about submitting less saturated, and non noise filtered images to IS, and more saturated and noise filtered images to other stock sites. It's pretty easy actually. I just have to "turn off' visibility of some layers in Photoshop, and save another version of image. What I don't like at IS is long reviewing time, and possibility to submit only 15 images in 7 days.

[abimages]

My most recent rejection was for 'Overfiltered' too. Despite others from the same series being approved,this one was rejected twice now!
I wont resubmit (I get the message ), but it was shot RAW etc.etc. Maybe they dont like the saturation from my Nikon manual focus prime lens

[louoates]

One thing you might check is the default settings on your camera. I found that the saturation default on my new Canon Mark III was set to a plus something. I turned it to 0. Then I usually add back a bit saturation if needed in Raw.

But even I get the occasional "over filtered BS" even if the image has no added filtering at all. Maybe it's a catchall rejection for reviewers who just don't like the image.

[Pixart]

Rasmussen wrote about inspecting at IS this week.  Doesn't reveal much, but here's what he has to say:

http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/07/22/life-as-an-image-inspector/

[anjo J]

Maybe it's a catchall rejection for reviewers who just don't like the image.

Maybe, or since most other sites (especially SS) prefer saturated colors,
it's a blanket method to eliminate most images coming from SS.
Understandly, being number 2 is an awful place, to look under No. 1
and looking out for No. 3

whitechild solution is probably easiest -  turn off some layers for your IS submissions.

[yingyang0]

Maybe it's a catchall rejection for reviewers who just don't like the image.

Maybe, or since most other sites (especially SS) prefer saturated colors,
it's a blanket method to eliminate most images coming from SS.
Understandly, being number 2 is an awful place, to look under No. 1
and looking out for No. 3

whitechild solution is probably easiest -  turn off some layers for your IS submissions.

Sure, except SS is number 2, and IS is number one. (Just maybe not for you)

[Vonkara]

Rasmussen wrote about inspecting at IS this week.  Doesn't reveal much, but here's what he has to say:

http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/07/22/life-as-an-image-inspector/

Great thanks for the link!

[Pixart]

You're welcome!  I just re-read it and clicked through to this page.  This links to editing tips from the same Istock reviewer;  should be helpful to many:

http://rasmusrasmussen.com/2008/07/15/post-processing-for-stock-photos/