MicrostockGroup

I can see the image as being regarded as "lack of detail". If the contrast was upped a fraction or the exposure lowered a fraction, it might work better. But to be honest they are clutching at straws as the image in my opinion, is of more than enough quality. It doesn't make sense for me to upload to sites which don't yet have good earnings, if they have a high reject rate. I like StockFresh and they will probably be a big site one day. I think I have something like 17 images there, but I'm hardly motivated to keep uploading to them as they reject so much of what I send them.

Yes I had experience with rejections on Stockfresh. First one was solved by them accepting the images were rejected by mistake (something with a MR). But then, they are really paranoid about copyright infringements. They even rejected a whole series with a kid, studio shots, because they spotted a small barely seen embroidery on boy's t-shirt, somewhere (not readable or some logo). Needless to say that I never noticed it - all the other stock sites have this series. They must have missed it too.

Ad that to the fact that I'm at $18.50 with them since a VERY long time now and it's kinda clear - no more uploading.

In your case I'm afraid, I have to say the rejection was completely fair. I would have rejected that too.

Thanks for yor replies. They don't complain about lighting in any of the rejected images in this latest batch (they did in others, but I don't complain about that, even if they are sellable images).  The lighting in my cookie may not be the best, but it's ok, and I don't see the "lack of detail". 

I was recently accepted and have just started uploading, so I can't say anything about sales or rejections. But then I was under the impression that the site hasn't been opened to the public yet. Is that true? Because if it's true, how can we make a judgment on earnings potential when the public hasn't seen it yet? Or am I missing something here?

Yes it's open and I started to have almost regular sales some time ago (maybe not every day, but several per week). Then everything stopped completely, apart from over-zealous editors. I have 3771 files with them, thanks to the very good uploading system.

I have to say.... sorry Madelaide... I can see a lot of dust on the stethoscope at 100%.

Ah they're scratches.  Some of them look like little hairs.  Each to his own, and obviously iStock accepted it, so it must have been OK with them, but I would have cloned out every imperfection (just because I really hate getting rejections - so I tend to be ultra-cautious to the point of neurosis).

I don't think I wil upload to them again...
After a waiting period for 5 month (or longer) approvement of the initial images I was sending an e-mail to support and guess what after just a few hours after sending the complaining e-mail for the long waiting period all my images were rejected for several reasons.
I have enough selling stocksites I don't need another one who is pickier than all the rest.  

I really liked Stockxpert with a very high approvement rate and sales.

@kaycee
I'm sorry about the rejection of your application. I'm sure sometimes people think we are evil or crazy but the truth is that it's often difficult to decide based on five high res sample images whether the applicant will be a good addition to the site. We have limited resources (hence the long queue) so this selection process is crucial, and we can only work with the info we get.

@tdoes
We're trying to find the middle ground and I believe some of your photos are indeed acceptable for the same reasons you explained. I don't think we are pickier than Istock. We might be pickier than Istock 3-4 years ago but I'm sure they are also pickier than they used to be since the industry is evolving so quickly. It is true though that we pay more attention to details than some of our competitors and that can be annoying, but we must also build customer trust.

I just assume that even though it's SF and not StockXpert, they review almost identically.  That means hard property rejections, very few isolated on white and all the same rejects we used to get from StockXpert.  As long as I can get caught up there ever, I'll know what not to sub at least.  Anything StockXpert would have chucked out, SF will too.