MicrostockGroup

To say anything sensible, you should present your rejects full size (watermarked).

One out of the 10 was okay, the others were not approved with more or less strange reasons but none of them was "no commercial", for example:

Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition. For those images:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12001874
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12076785
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12289347 - I would have loved to shoot the whole Alps, unfortunately however I forgot to bring my helicopter :-)
http://www.fotolia.com/id/21041282

Or Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect. for that one:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12174129 - that one was approved with ALL major stock sites...

Whilst those photos are definitely not the world best stock photos, they successfully passed eagle eyed inspectors nevertheless hence the rejection of my application came as a kind of surprise to me. That's why I am interested if anybody successfully passed their application process in the last weeks or if the are a bit "strict" at the moment as rumour says for iStock as well?

Thanks, Best, Frank

those are the 2 current favorite rejection buttons at ss 

keep trying - you'll make it eventually [took me 3 times]

s

Thanks for all your motivating feedback, seems as if I just need to try harder and apply again with improved photography. Will keep you posted.

They're all trying to raise their standards, but that's not as simple (or cheap) as it sounds, and they're trying to do it in a rush. So the numbers of goofy, inconsistent rejections are shooting up.  Somehow we need to get to a point where rejections are consistent and the reasons are made clear to the contributor.  Style and content are up to the individual agency, but standards for things like noise, "artifacts", white balance, focus and isolation could and should, I think, be roughly same everywhere. That's a long ways off I think.

I agree with you that the photos you submitted are not the best stock examples, but I have seen WAY worse get accepted. Maybe try for really good stock images for your initial submissions and save those to submit after you have been approved.

Lighting on the ski lift photo...yeah, could be brighter.

They say no commercial value, and yet I envisioned a use for each and every one of your images right off the bat.

I agree with stockastic, too. There is nothing wrong with sites trying to improve their standards, but new submitters are now going to have to be on their game to get approved.

Thanks again everyone for their feedback. In the meantime I got accepted (only 2 weeks ago) and already had a considerable amount of sales - hence it was worth trying!

That is good news and especially the sales part! Congrats.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, this is what counts:

You need 7 out of ten approved.

Read the comments... Those of the images WITH comments - are actually "rejected" - IF there's more than 3 images rejected for a solid reason, the rest with no comments, might be sort of approved, but since the number of Real REJECTIONS IS MORE THAN 3,  the whole batch is rejected.

Hope you understand the writing as English is not my first language...    But anyway, this is how I understand it :-)

fljac your english is fine, understood and thanks for your help. Good luck Blufish and others!

That only goes to show you the difference in inspectors...kinda sad...all the more reason to resubmit rejects that you know are good at a later date.