MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => General - Top Sites => Topic started by: RaFaLe on March 16, 2009, 00:58
-
Hi all,
I'm new to the stock game.
I've registered and uploaded a few pics to quite a few agencies already.
I've been into this now for just over 2 weeks.
My portfolios are tiny, yet I've made just under 30 DLs in 2 weeks at SS (which I think is pretty good).
Fotolia have made one DL for me (that's probably because they keep rejecting the photos that are top-sellers at SS) ;D
Anyway, this is not a soap-box session.
I was just wondering - I have applied twice now at iStock and they have rejected both my applications.
I used my best (top sellers) photos to apply, both times.
I get the opinion that they don't like me or something because I pressured them into processing my application with a support ticket or two.
There was a whole thing about my ID not being suitable and my names not matching (which was nonsense).
So I uploaded the same file again and then my membership was approved.
Then after uploading photos they rejected it.
Then 3 days later I uploaded again and they rejected those too.
So now I'm wondering - do you guys have any tips for me?
I really would like to get into iStock - I've heard great things about them!
Thanks a ton in advance!
-
Others will have some more details but here's my "stock" answer. 3Ds. ;D
1. Diversity - Have a variety of subjects, presentations and lighting.
2. Downsize - Reduce the photos to the minimum acceptable size to reduce imperfections.
3. Don't panic - almost everyone fails at least once if not twice or three times. It's not unusual.
-
Hey Chris
Imo iStock is a total pain in the butt. Their image quality requirements are very high, their approval and review processes are intense, and their submission process is slow.
Having said that...
Yes it's worth it. I have only 50 images on iStock, and they make the same income as the 1000+ images I have on another agency. Sadly the 15 images a week limit and the very high rejection rate keep me from really taking advantage of it, but if your work is good, it's a must-do :)
-
They have by far the best $/image and also by far the most painful upload process.
Their image requirements are a fair bit different than the other sites. Most of the sites accept and sell very well, images with heavy editing. iStock want their buyers to be able to edit an image the way they want and thus generally accept less edited images. It also seems that on iStock, image sales are either or. Either an image sells really well, or it doesn't sell at all.
So is it worth it, I would say without a doubt yes, but they are a different ball game.
-
My portfolios are tiny, yet I've made just under 30 DLs in 2 weeks at SS (which I think is pretty good).
Congratulations. Just don't allow someone to fool you. There are sites which give high preference to new images combined with customers paying a fixed amount to download lots of images. So customers tend to get all the images they are allowed to if they can use them immediately or not. The true test of your talent will be with the Pay-Per-Download sites.
So now I'm wondering - do you guys have any tips for me?
Yes, definitely. Go to iStock's Critique Request forum, read the "Read This First" entry on the top, figure out how to post samples of your images and get feedback from other contribtuors who made it. iStock is a bit tougher than the other microstock sites but you get as much as help as you need and can handle. And if you are open-minded and willing to learn, you will find out a lot about photography, lighting, post processing etc. that you didn't know. Enjoy the ride.
-
Thanks everyone - that's some really good feedback.
I particularly like the 3Ds - so thanks for that.
Also great to see an Exclusive iStock member - thank you for your feedback too.
It gives me hope :D
I'll certainly downsize my pics.
And I'll definitely try and apply again when I can.
In terms of the responses I got above - I got 4 On-Demand downloads from SS.
I was impressed with myself and got really excited.
I really hope I can get the same kind of DLs from iStock.
Looking forward to it ;)
-
Yes, definitely. Go to iStock's Critique Request forum, read the "Read This First" entry on the top, figure out how to post samples of your images and get feedback from other contribtuors who made it. iStock is a bit tougher than the other microstock sites but you get as much as help as you need and can handle. And if you are open-minded and willing to learn, you will find out a lot about photography, lighting, post processing etc. that you didn't know. Enjoy the ride.
I remember that I could not post on the IS forum before my application was accepted. One can only read the forums. A friend of mine who was a fellow contributor there, posted my images there for me and I got feedback I needed.
Chris, don't' give up, IS is definitely worth it even with all the drawbacks that other people have mentioned. And it might be a good idea not to apply again until you got some good feedback on IS forum on 3 pictures. Good luck!
-
I remember that I could not post on the IS forum before my application was accepted. One can only read the forums. A friend of mine who was a fellow contributor there, posted my images there for me and I got feedback I needed.
Nope. To post you have to take the application test first. But as soon as you are allowed to upload sample images, you can also post in the forums. If anyone has problems, please contact Contributor Support.
-
I was not able to post even after failed applications. Actually, even after my application was approved I wanted to thank the members on the forum for critiques, I was not able to do it until I uploaded the first picture for sale. This was back in November, I am not sure if things have changed since then.
-
I was not able to post even after failed applications. Actually, even after my application was approved I wanted to thank the members on the forum for critiques, I was not able to do it until I uploaded the first picture for sale. This was back in November, I am not sure if things have changed since then.
Yup - same for me.
I can't post either :(
-
I was not able to post even after failed applications. Actually, even after my application was approved I wanted to thank the members on the forum for critiques, I was not able to do it until I uploaded the first picture for sale. This was back in November, I am not sure if things have changed since then.
Yup - same for me.
I can't post either :(
Woops... that's new... we have talked through many new applicants in the past. I'll have to check later...
I'd propose you send a support ticket to Contributor Relations at iStock and get an explanation yourself. Usually people at HQ are pretty helpful if you ask nicely. ;)
-
Woops... that's new... we have talked through many new applicants in the past. I'll have to check later...
I'd propose you send a support ticket to Contributor Relations at iStock and get an explanation yourself. Usually people at HQ are pretty helpful if you ask nicely. ;)
Ok, cool - thanks Michael.
I'll contact support and ask nicely :)
-
You can also just link to your images here for critique.
When you get accepted, read this:
http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/
-
You can also just link to your images here for critique.
When you get accepted, read this:
[url]http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/[/url]
I've put a nice support ticket forward to the guys at iStockPhoto.
Let's see what they come back with.
I couldn't help but read the article link you posted above.
LOL!
It's hilarious - I love the tongue-in-cheek attitude! :D
Some good points though, that I'll most certainly take into consideration!
Thanks again.
-
Woops... that's new... we have talked through many new applicants in the past. I'll have to check later...
I'd propose you send a support ticket to Contributor Relations at iStock and get an explanation yourself. Usually people at HQ are pretty helpful if you ask nicely. ;)
It is not new. Please check the forums for new applications. The only way one can post without having photos online is if they buy credits so they are considered buyers.
-
"Is iStock worth the effort?"
I guess that all depends on how patient you are. If sales were not so good It would be the first on my list to drop.
If you dont plan on going exclusive get used to feeling like your "second class."
-
Yeah I agree. Patience there WILL pay off.
IS is now my number one monthly site, and my number one overall site. Been at this 2 1/2 years now with a portfolio there of nearly 1200 images. It will payoff.
- Chad
-
I managed to get a few accepted, none have sold. You have to keyword everything in their unique scheme, and it's tedious. Some of the rejections made at least some sense, others were just off the wall. Reviews and appeals take weeks. There's more, but why go on. ..
Way too many hoops here for me. If they ever sell one I might submit some more.
They should change their name to PITAphoto.
-
I managed to get a few accepted, none have sold. You have to keyword everything in their unique scheme, and it's tedious. Some of the rejections made at least some sense, others were just off the wall. Reviews and appeals take weeks. There's more, but why go on. ..
Way too many hoops here for me. If they ever sell one I might submit some more.
They should change their name to PITAphoto.
Why don't you link to your portfolio, so we can see what you are not selling?
-
Why don't you link to your portfolio, so we can see what you are not selling?
Here he is on iStock (http://www.istockphoto.com/jimh12345), Dreamstime (http://www.dreamstime.com/jimh12345_info), and Shutterstock (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ujimh12345.html).
Sales would increase with better keywording.
-
sharply_done, thanks for saving me the trouble of deciding for myself whether I actually wanted to do that.
-
sharply_done, thanks for saving me the trouble of deciding for myself whether I actually wanted to do that.
You were kind of asking for it, jim_h.
If you insist on being so opinionated you might consider having a completely novel forum identity if you want to be anonymous.
That being said, you really need to get on top of your keywording if you're at all serious about licensing imagery. Keywords are your primary sales tool, and you are severely handicapping yourself by neglecting them.
-
Yeah I don't know why I fell compelled to post all these crazy opinions. Maybe it has something to do with the word "forum" being defined as "a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of idea." Just me I guess.
-
... a discussion that needs to be backed by something if you are going to be taken seriously. Like, when you are complaining about your portfolio not selling, you are taken more seriously, if we see ... you guessed it ... your portfolio.
-
I'm not selling on IS. And yes, it's my portfolio. Because while I'm having 2000+ photos almost everywhere else, I only have 38 images on IS. I just can't stand that uploading process. I know I should have done yoga and cultivate my patience... :D :D
-
It all depends what you expect "worth the effort". If it is a hobby and you are happy spending lots of time with uploading and keywording just to see once in a while a download then yes. If it is a business then I suspect for most microstockers it is not worth the effort. If you have good stock images and you treat microstock as a business then yes it can be worth the effort.
For me it is more than a hobby, I am currently living from microstock but am also a student. So I need to use my time wisely (not saying that I am doing it all the time). So I started generally to do images I know are worth the time to uploading and preparing. I put kind of a price on my time, which I spent on microstock. I had times, where I uploaded everything which remotely had a chance to get accepted. Quality suffered a lot, my rejection rate was quite high and the return/ hour I spent was laughable. I was one of those who contributed to the heaps of images which I do think jam the searches. Now I submit most time max 30 images a month, but I put much more effort in each image. The result is that yes now for me it is worth the effort. And it can be if you have reasonable talent and submit images which are in demand.
I still think it is a myth that you need masses of images, quantity over quality to succeed in microstock, in fact I think it is the other way around. Of course it is great if you can have both like sjlocke :-)
But to succeed on istock you especially need the quality not the quantity to succeed, that at least is my impression, if you want iStock being worth the time from a business perspective.
-
I'm not selling on IS. And yes, it's my portfolio. Because while I'm having 2000+ photos almost everywhere else, I only have 38 images on IS. I just can't stand that uploading process. I know I should have done yoga and cultivate my patience... :D :D
I haven't uploaded 2000 images anywhere, but still think that if your only reason for not uploading at istock is that, you might want to try :http://www.deepmeta.com/
it's very convenient.
-
Thanks, I know Deepmeta and the few files I have on istock are because I was using Deepmeta :D
But 15 files / week... c'mon...
-
But 15 files / week... c'mon...
I see what you mean it would take you 133.333 weeks to have those 2000 on line with a 100% acceptance ;D
-
(http://www.istockphoto.com/images/upload_thanks.gif)
-
It is not new. Please check the forums for new applications. The only way one can post without having photos online is if they buy credits so they are considered buyers.
Yes, you are right. I talked to an admin last night and he confirmed that passing the application test is not sufficient to get posting rights in the forums. Apparently some of the applicants have bought some credits before, that's why I had the impression they could post even before being accepted.
-
Yeah I don't know why I fell compelled to post all these crazy opinions. Maybe it has something to do with the word "forum" being defined as "a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of idea." Just me I guess.
Feel free to post your opinion. But I think it's only fair to also let your readers know how much they can trust your opinion. With 5 images and less than one month and none sold... yeah, well... readers might tend to believe people with a bit more long-term experiences. Obviously the 4 sales on 44 uploads on Dreamstime prove that you actually know what you are talking about.
As I said, yeah, feel free to post your opinion and share your personal experience. Just keep it in perspective.
-
iStock was my top earner from the beginning. That changed a little over a year ago, as they started to slip and my Shutterstock sales took off. Now it's no contest; SS makes me between two and three times what iStock does. Still, they're 16% of my total and holding on to second place, so I keep uploading.
iStock is the classic joke: the food's awful and the portions are so small. I hate the upload process, but hate the fact that I'm limited to 20 a week. I'm almost 2000 images behind there now, and it's only going to get worse. I'm a long way from my next canister, and that fabled 25 uploads a week...
-
I'm almost 2000 images behind there now, and it's only going to get worse. I'm a long way from my next canister, and that fabled 25 uploads a week...
You could have an upload limit of 250, but that wouldn't help sales. Your portfolio looks to be mostly series of women standing about in swimwear or lingerie. Another 2000 of the same thing isn't going to improve your sales there.
-
I managed to get a few accepted, none have sold. You have to keyword everything in their unique scheme, and it's tedious. Some of the rejections made at least some sense, others were just off the wall. Reviews and appeals take weeks. There's more, but why go on. ..
Way too many hoops here for me. If they ever sell one I might submit some more.
They should change their name to PITAphoto.
Tough call when someone has 5 photos accepted in 1 month and wants sales or else. When you get done shooting things you found around the house you might do better.
-
Well worth the effort in my opinion. I have very close to 300 images online in about one year and over 800 downloads (no people shots). IS has consistently been my #1 agency with sales that equal about 36% of my income among 7 agencies. This year I have been focusing on quality, not quantity. Don't mind the upload process at all and I have a Yahoo widget that makes a cash register sound every time I get a download (sjlocke probably wouldn't use this widget with the sound because it would drive him crazy ;))
-
If you are joining now you already missed this train. IMHO is to much effort with little to gain from. I started uploading there less than year ago and it's almost impossible to get any substantial sales there with my small portfolio. If you extraordinary artist and got 100% of photos accepted you might have enough images to get sales. You may upload 15 images per week and reviews takes weeks. Extremely discouraging.
-
No, not worth it, nothing to see here...move along.
Chaneling Sean ;)
-
13 out of 15 accepted, one rejected for lack of MR, one for something else. So you see... I can't really get to 100% :D
But it's a good rate, I'll be uploading some more these days.
-
Yeah I agree. Patience there WILL pay off.
IS is now my number one monthly site, and my number one overall site. Been at this 2 1/2 years now with a portfolio there of nearly 1200 images. It will payoff.
- Chad
That very motivational - thanks.
I'll consider going exclusive at IS - it may be well worth my while as you say.
My focus for now, however, is getting accepted :)
-
Yes, you are right. I talked to an admin last night and he confirmed that passing the application test is not sufficient to get posting rights in the forums. Apparently some of the applicants have bought some credits before, that's why I had the impression they could post even before being accepted.
Yup, confirmed.
Just a message back from support saying exactly that.
I have another 52 hours before I can apply again.
I'm getting nervous - no clue which images to upload...
Obviously no pets and no flowers.
I don't have too many people shots.
Have a couple of shots of factory workers welding, showing sparks.
Got a few wildlife pics too of Zebra, Giraffe and Lions.
Suggestions (in terms of category at least)?
-
Yes definetley worth it! but hold on a minute. Downsizing? no I wouldnt do that at all! In the entire stockworld, may it be RM, RF, Micro or whatever, the general moto is: the bigger the better.
By downsizing and especially to IS, youre limiting your sales and incomes quite a bit. At IS, the competition is neckbreaking and you should at least be able to produce pictures selling as L, XL even XXL.
Many of us at IS work cameras capable of huge files,
Always supply at best quality and maximum size.
well thats my thoughts anyway.
-
Yes definetley worth it! but hold on a minute. Downsizing? no I wouldnt do that at all! In the entire stockworld, may it be RM, RF, Micro or whatever, the general moto is: the bigger the better.
By downsizing and especially to IS, youre limiting your sales and incomes quite a bit. At IS, the competition is neckbreaking and you should at least be able to produce pictures selling as L, XL even XXL.
Many of us at IS work cameras capable of huge files,
Always supply at best quality and maximum size.
well thats my thoughts anyway.
Yes, you're right Imo.
However, for the initial approval, I was advised to downsize to
Minimum to hide the blemishes or faults to some extent..
That seems logical to me..
Either way, I never downsize my images for sale.
I keep them at 12.2 MP ;)
-
Either way, I never downsize my images for sale.
So what if someone tells you: "Downsize it to 6 MP and we will sell it for you, leave it at 12 MP and we don't accept it at all?"... Things are rarely black and white. I have downsized quite a few images from XXL to L to get them up - obviously that was because the base image wasn't the best to start with but still I made some money from them that I wouldn't have otherwise.
And yes, for initial application something in the range of 6MP is sufficient and can hide some minor focus, noise or artifacting issues.
My proposal to people for the initial application always is to upload three completely different topics to show how broad your capabilities are. Animal, People, Still life, Isolated, whatever, just show different things. You should choose images that you didn't post process much because they were already good coming directly out of the camera.
And as suggested before, upload your images fullsize (watermarked) somewhere like vox.com and put up links in this thread to have people tell you what they think about them.
-
So what if someone tells you: "Downsize it to 6 MP and we will sell it for you, leave it at 12 MP and we don't accept it at all?"... Things are rarely black and white. I have downsized quite a few images from XXL to L to get them up - obviously that was because the base image wasn't the best to start with but still I made some money from them that I wouldn't have otherwise.
And yes, for initial application something in the range of 6MP is sufficient and can hide some minor focus, noise or artifacting issues.
My proposal to people for the initial application always is to upload three completely different topics to show how broad your capabilities are. Animal, People, Still life, Isolated, whatever, just show different things. You should choose images that you didn't post process much because they were already good coming directly out of the camera.
And as suggested before, upload your images fullsize (watermarked) somewhere like vox.com and put up links in this thread to have people tell you what they think about them.
Again, good points.
I never thought of things the way you've described above, and you've given
Thanks for your feedback - I'm learning as I go along, and finding this forum particularly valuable.
-
Yes definetley worth it! but hold on a minute. Downsizing? no I wouldnt do that at all! In the entire stockworld, may it be RM, RF, Micro or whatever, the general moto is: the bigger the better.
By downsizing and especially to IS, youre limiting your sales and incomes quite a bit. At IS, the competition is neckbreaking and you should at least be able to produce pictures selling as L, XL even XXL.
Many of us at IS work cameras capable of huge files,
Always supply at best quality and maximum size.
well thats my thoughts anyway.
When they recommend downsizing, they don't necessarily mean reduce the saleable size - but if you have, say, a 10MP camera and your image is a little noisier than ideal, or a little soft, you can downsize to just above Large with no change in the sale size (on iStock anyway).
It can help it get through inspection, sometimes. I've even had inspectors recommend doing that.
Of course, if you have 12.2MP it would obviously be better to stay at XL size if you can...
-
Did jim_h bail already? Or is he just coming back as a more anonymous more opinionated version of himself.
-
Did jim_h bail already? Or is he just coming back as a more anonymous more opinionated version of himself.
Yes, yesterday just after his indecent exposure by Sharp, a lost face and two lame excuses, he went black. ;D
-
What do you know about that, then.
-
Mmmooooooo!!!
I just got rejected AGAIN at IS :( 3rd time now.
???
>:(
I'm not quite sure how to handle all of this rejection.
This is the only site that has rejected my applications?
I'm going to upload watermarked images on my blog site, and I'm going to ask for crit on those images.
This is absolute nonsense :(
I'm so demotivated!
-
Chris, don't get demotivated. I was also rejected 3 times before I got in. Just shoot more, look at your pictures, choose a few. If you can't post on the IS forum, somone can post them for you or you can post somewhere else as you suggested. I'm sure you will get in if you don't give up.
-
Chris, don't get demotivated. I was also rejected 3 times before I got in. Just shoot more, look at your pictures, choose a few. If you can't post on the IS forum, somone can post them for you or you can post somewhere else as you suggested. I'm sure you will get in if you don't give up.
Thanks, goldenangel,
I recently bought my Sigma f2.8 105mm Macro lens.
I'll play with that and see what I can come up with ;)
Thanks again
-
Chris, don't get demotivated. I was also rejected 3 times before I got in. Just shoot more, look at your pictures, choose a few. If you can't post on the IS forum, somone can post them for you or you can post somewhere else as you suggested. I'm sure you will get in if you don't give up.
Three seems to be the magic number, that is how many times it took me. I dont know if they are still doing it the same but when I applied you submitted three photos and if they didnt like one or two of the three you could just submit one or two more until you ended up with three they liked.
The only other site I had a hard time getting accepted at was stockxpert and im glad I didnt give up.
-
I am also new to MS and am also contributing to 5 of the big 6 so far. As a result, following are my observations so far on iStock:
I was lucky enough to get approved on iStock the first time and they reviewed and approved my 3 photos in less than 24 hours.
But this means nothing, it has also been a major slug for me with iStock getting photos approved since the start and I have had countless problems with model releases and various other technical issues. I have been uploading to iStock for just over a month now and still only have a total of 16 photos online, while I have close to 300 hundred already on Shutterstock. So it is obvious it is much harder to build up a portfolio on iStock and sales so far haven't amounted to much of anything either yet.
Out of the 5 sites I am submitting to, I give iStock the least priority since their upload limits are so low and their approval process so slow and stringent, but I do keep them in the mix as I believe eventually things could improve in terms of sales on iStock after I am able to build a bit of a bigger portfolio there. It will of course take more time to build up a sizeable portfolio on iStock and that is why I don't make them my biggest focus. For those who are just starting out with iStock and not using any of the other sites at the same time, I can understand the frustration of seeing things progress slowly.
What I do now though is I use my top sellers on other sites to submit to iStock since I feel they are tried and proven images. Since I can only upload 12 a week on iStock, I am hoping by being selective in terms of what I upload, and limiting the uploads to good selling pictures, that eventually my approval rate and sales on iStock will start to climb, even though I have a smaller portfolio on iStock than on other sites.
Time will tell I guess...
-
What I do now though is I use my top sellers on other sites to submit to iStock since I feel they are tried and proven images. Since I can only upload 12 a week on iStock, I am hoping by being selective in terms of what I upload, and limiting the uploads to good selling pictures, that eventually my approval rate and sales on iStock will start to climb, even though I have a smaller portfolio on iStock than on other sites.
Which goes back to another discussion that iStock does provide the best service to buyers by weeding out the garbage and repeats other sites will accept, and showcasing the best of exclusives and independents.
-
Chris, don't get demotivated. I was also rejected 3 times before I got in. Just shoot more, look at your pictures, choose a few. If you can't post on the IS forum, somone can post them for you or you can post somewhere else as you suggested. I'm sure you will get in if you don't give up.
Three seems to be the magic number, that is how many times it took me. I dont know if they are still doing it the same but when I applied you submitted three photos and if they didnt like one or two of the three you could just submit one or two more until you ended up with three they liked.
The only other site I had a hard time getting accepted at was stockxpert and im glad I didnt give up.
I believe they don't accept images one by one anymore. They either reject or accept all three. Someone correct me if I''m wrong.
-
I just applied and was accepted to iStock last month, so I can comment on this. For my first submission of 3 photos, 2 were accepted. All I had to do was wait for a duration of 3 days, and then resubmit 1 photo. You get to keep your 2 approved ones there, and just resubmit for the rejection.
In my case I had some purple fringing - and I sort of knew that might happen, should have went with my gut instinct!!!
I just resubmitted something that I knew would have to get approved, and it did. I am totally new to this - but slowly learning everything. I only have 3 photos submitted to iStock, all approved, because I don't want a rejection. I have to get over that, because at this rate, it will take forever to build my portfolio, and that 100% acceptance rate will be worthless!!!
-
i think if you can live through the initial stage of being non-exclusive, IS is a good place to be. i am not with IS as from what i read here it's scary so i haven't looked to being part of them. maybe when i am good enough ;)
-
i think if you can live through the initial stage of being non-exclusive, IS is a good place to be. i am not with IS as from what i read here it's scary so i haven't looked to being part of them. maybe when i am good enough ;)
"when i am good enough"? You are joking , right? You'll never be good enough , if you keep waiting for that day ;D
-
iStock is definitely worth the effort. as long as you are willing to put in the effort (which it seems you are) and as long as you are uploading quality images. instead of wasting application attempts (they are finite FYI, or at least used to be, an iStock admin could verify this)...I would post some images on your website for critique.
when applying to iStock, be sure to provide a variety of samples. don't apply with three of the same type of shoot or subject. they want to see the scope of your ability, not three studio or landscape shots that all resemble one another.
iStock maintains a very tight collection. their standards are very high. but don't let that deter you, instead it should motivate you to get your work into their database.
finally, try not to listen to advice from people who are not accepted on iStock, because chances are their opinions are based on frustration and rumour. many of them will tell you iStock is unfair or unreasonable. these are usually arguments made by photographers whose work hasn't been accepted at iStock yet and they are blaming iStock instead of improving their submissions. anyone who really wants to be on iStock simply needs to look at their work honestly and submit their best, there are thousands of us on iStock. we didn't have a magic key.
good luck.
-
There may not be a magic key, but the IS reviewers have been issued magic glasses, which let them detect "artifacts" which neither I, nor the reviewers at SS, DT, FT, or 123RF can see. And somehow these "artifacts" tend to show up in my best-selling (on other sites) images.
I think it depends on your subject matter. They seem to cater to a different group of buyers than SS's subscription buyers, for example. I also suspect that small portfolios don't have much of a chance on IS. I will continue to submit occasionally just to see if anything ever happens, but for me it's been a waste of time so far.
Your mileage may vary.
-
There may not be a magic key, but the IS reviewers have been issued magic glasses, which let them detect "artifacts" which neither I, nor the reviewers at SS, DT, FT, or 123RF can see.
My view is considerably different from yours, perhaps because my experience is so different. They have been my #1 site since not long after joining them (perhaps 3-4 months). They typically account for 1/3 of my monthly revenues, and despite the too often best match changes, they are about the most steady of performers.
As for artifacts that don't exist, I highly doubt that. iStock reviewers are definitely the best trained of all, so they do spot things that others do not. But I think that means they tend to spot things that buyers wouldn't see, either -- and likely wouldn't care about, even if they did see them.
I've been fairly well-trained by them as well, now. ;D So it's pretty rare that I get an artifacting rejection. But when I do, I can usually see what the objection is (even if I don't think it is a problem). If it's something I can fix, I do. If it's something I can't, or think isn't really a problem, then I forget about it, or Scout it.
I truly wish all site's inspectors were as good as IS's. I would actually start uploading again at DT & FT, and I wouldn't have to have complaints like those I recently posted about SV. There's an example where they believe they found "multiple technical problems" on an image that passed IS's inspection.
-
iStock reviewers are definitely the best trained of all, so they do spot things that others do not.
What is your basis for that statement? I'm sure IS would claim it's true, but I wonder if SS would agree.
-
Reading both of you stockastic and KB we find that obviously no reviewer in any of the Big 6 is more qualified than the other. None the least IS. If so, the rejections would be consistent between the two of you, or any others.
The only consistency is those who gets their images approved with IS will keep repeating like a scratched vinyl or a digital sequencer that IS is beyond worship.
So really, there is no god ! not in microstock, I am sure ;)
(re- edited by me)
Regards,
the dark knight ;D
-
whether or not I questioned my IS exclusivity is irrelevant. questioning exclusivity, if anything, should show you that I am reasonably objective when it comes to the iStock experience. regardless of my exclusivity status, iStock's collection is the cleanest and most professional. they are known internationally for their standards. even when I considered non-exclusivity, I was very critical of the SS database and the volume of unprofessional images that I feel they accept. they seem to take a shotgun approach to microstock, which I dislike. clearly my research has led me to remain exclusive at iStock for many very good reasons.
to the OP. iStock is not picking on you or any one person when they reject you images. they are looking for a certain level of quality. it is in your best interest to get your work on iStock, but if you don't, that's one less competitor for the rest of us. whether or not you choose to go exclusive at some point, well that is a whole other discussion but it has nothing to do with this thread.
if you would like to sitemail me a link to some of your shots, or post some publicly, I'm sure there are many knowledgable people, both non-exclusive and exclusive iStockers, who would be happy to help.
-
Based on my own rejections, I would say that the IStock reviewers have "issues" with closeups of objects. They seem to be mistaking grain, surface irregularities, or just the unavoidable digitization of fine detail, for post-processing artifacts. Since they don't specify the artifacts, they leave us submitters to argue and speculate endlessly.
How they managed to identify my 3 best-selling images - so they could reject them - is another question :) Their training must include some sort of psychic powers.
-
Based on my own rejections, I would say that the IStock reviewers have "issues" with closeups of objects. They seem to be mistaking grain, surface irregularities, or just the unavoidable digitization of fine detail, for post-processing artifacts. Since they don't specify the artifacts, they leave us submitters to argue and speculate endlessly.
How they managed to identify my 3 best-selling images - so they could reject them - is another question :) Their training must include some sort of psychic powers.
Psychic powers, eh? You would think someone like me would understand that, since I am a bat ;D
-
S reviewers have been issued magic glasses, which let them detect "artifacts" which neither I, nor the reviewers at SS, DT, FT, or 123RF can see.
Oh man, that is the funniest thing I have heard in awhile. I think it is great that they sometimes send little thumbnail's of your rejected image so (in theory) you can see why they rejected it, but most of the time I have no idea what they are talking about. They sent me one the other day of a freckle on a model and tried to tell me it was a sensor spot.
On another note (im probably going to get run out of town for saying this) does anyone else find it a little frustrating when someone had a perfectly valid complaint with any given site and an exclusive member from said site feels like they need to jump in and defend the site? Exclusive photographers have just as much right to post on MSG as anyone else but their opinions (in my opinion ;) always seem so skewed.
SS is my top earning site but I dont feel the need to jump in and defend it every time someone has a problem with it.
-
I could believe that IS has the best collection, has been the most selective and has the sharpest reviewers. I would just like to see some objective evidence for those statements. Certainly some microstocks have taken in way too much junk in the past; however it seems like right now, they're all trying to change and have upped their standards considerably.
I'd been burned by IS in the past and recently I tried again. I submitted some images that been recently accepted by SS, DT, FT and 123RF. IS rejected what I considered 2 spotless images for "artifacts". There is only so much time I can spend on this, unless they started to show me some sales, which so far they have not.
Like I said, I think a lot of this is due to subject matter. But I also think they may be obsessing over things which would never matter unless you're printing it 10 feet high.
-
iStock reviewers are definitely the best trained of all, so they do spot things that others do not.
What is your basis for that statement? I'm sure IS would claim it's true, but I wonder if SS would agree.
No scientific or provable basis, I admit. It's based simply on my own observations of submissions and rejections. Over time, I have learned what to look for, and I now feel fairly confident when I submit an image that it should be acceptable technically. And it usually is accepted at IS and most other sites. Sure, some sites have their own peculiarities, and I put up with them. But when FT rejects an image I know to be fine for "technical problems", that's when I know that their reviewers are not as well trained or consistent as IS'.
If it's rejected by IS, rather than dismiss the rejection as crazy (which is always my first instinct :D ), I look carefully to find what the reviewer objected to. I can usually find it, though like you, I don't always agree it's actually a problem. I think you're right that they sometimes pick up the grain of a desk or the pattern of an object that isn't in the DOF as artifacting, when it is not. But in my experience, that happens far less often than the arbitrary and completely wrong rejections that occur on many other sites.
-
The weird thing is all the files approved by scout after reconsideration. I haven´t send in many though, but 8 out of ten has been approved in average so far. What does that say about those reviewers? They´re like all the others probably...
-
The weird thing is all the files approved by scout after reconsideration. I haven´t send in many though, but 8 out of ten has been approved in average so far. What does that say about those reviewers? They´re like all the others probably...
I have had only one approved by scout out of probably 10.
-
The weird thing is all the files approved by scout after reconsideration. I haven´t send in many though, but 8 out of ten has been approved in average so far. What does that say about those reviewers? They´re like all the others probably...
it does not say anything about their reviewers; it's only there to give Scout a job and to make Scout feel good ;D
-
Based on my own rejections, I would say that the IStock reviewers have "issues" with closeups of objects. They seem to be mistaking grain, surface irregularities, or just the unavoidable digitization of fine detail, for post-processing artifacts. Since they don't specify the artifacts, they leave us submitters to argue and speculate endlessly.
FWIW if I am submitting a subject that has a particularly grainy looking texture (or even sparkly like some women's makeup for example) I will include a note to the inspector in the description field. Something along the lines of "sweater texture may resemble artifacts". That seems to have helped.
-
Based on my own rejections, I would say that the IStock reviewers have "issues" with closeups of objects. They seem to be mistaking grain, surface irregularities, or just the unavoidable digitization of fine detail, for post-processing artifacts. Since they don't specify the artifacts, they leave us submitters to argue and speculate endlessly.
FWIW if I am submitting a subject that has a particularly grainy (or even sparkly like some women's makeup for example) I will include a note to the inspector in the description field. Something along the lines of "sweater texture may resemble artifacts". That seems to have helped.
Good tip Lisa, I will have to remember to add "note: freckles on skin may resemble sensor spots" lol
-
It's definitely one of "hardest" agencies for newbies. If you think you will learn faster if somebody hits you with a ruler all the time go for it :-)
-
All kidding aside iStock is definitely worth it if you put the time into it. It can be very frustrating at times, but I can see IS easily overtaking my SS sales soon.
It just kills me to think of the sales I would be getting if I had as many photos at IS as I did at SS or DT.
-
My images aren't perfect. By definition, no digital image is perfect. Where there is digitization, there are artifacts.
My images are very lightly sharpened, Because they're raw files with no in-camera sharpening, I apply USM with very low numbers, while viewing at 100%. There are no halos, no oversharpening. The JPG quality setting is max. There is no noticeable noise in these images - they're all ISO 200. They were good exposures, so I haven't boosted the curve way up at the low end causing banding. There is nothing more I know how to do to improve these images. I've done my best, and all the other microstocks are satisfied.
Honest, everyone, if I knew what they were referring to, and it actually was a correctable problem, I'd fix it.
-
It's definitely one of "hardest" agencies for newbies. If you think you will learn faster if somebody hits you with a ruler all the time go for it :-)
rofl OUCH melastmohican, that sounds like an S&M relationship to me 8)
No, seriously, iStock is the best site in the world you can work for. Best of luck ;)
-
It's definitely one of "hardest" agencies for newbies. If you think you will learn faster if somebody hits you with a ruler all the time go for it :-)
rofl OUCH melastmohican, that sounds like an S&M relationship to me 8)
No, seriously, iStock is the best site in the world you can work for. Best of luck ;)
There is no relationship here :-) I kind of give up on them. I submit couple files once in while but no longer care about result. This way I am much less stressed and managed to place whopping hundred files there :-) No sales anyway so I put all my efforts to SS, DT, StockXpert, 123RF and FT. This ones at least give me payouts :-)
-
as Lisa said, adding a note ot inspectors is helpful, though I suspect in most cases of artifacting and noise etc., the examples we're hypothetically referring to are quality issues and not misundertandings.
the other problem is that most of the advice dispensed in how to get on iStock threads is being given by people that have not yet been accepted on iStock. or who are fairly inactive contributors.
-
With iStock first setup plaster on the butt and wait...
And in youre dreams try to figure it what they will invent how to screw you.....
Apply Plaster allways before uploading even they want you without it....
-
I just applied and was accepted to iStock last month, so I can comment on this. For my first submission of 3 photos, 2 were accepted. All I had to do was wait for a duration of 3 days, and then resubmit 1 photo. You get to keep your 2 approved ones there, and just resubmit for the rejection.
Thanks for sharing this information. It is good to know that they still might approve images one by one. I had a totally different experience, where all my images were either rejected or approved. I'm guessing that, as a first step, they look at images and judge if they are suitable for stock and if they have variety that they need. This is where they can reject all of them. As the second step, they might judge technical quality of the image, and this is where they reject one or two images. But again, this is just me thinking out loud...
-
it has been over two years since I applied. but as far as I know, this is correct. they will review each of the three files individually and accept or reject them individually. they make take one or two and reject one etc.
again, submit a variety when applying. the competition is certainly fiercer than it was, so it is a good idea to read their submission guidelines carefully and review common searches in the database in order to see what is acceptable.
it is easy to get excited and submit your application too quickly. really take the time to choose three images that demonstrate the best of your abilities.
-
they will review each of the three files individually and accept or reject them individually.
iStock customer service told me over the phone at the time of my last rejected application that if one of the photos was submitted with different pictures, it would have had much better chance of getting accepted. They acknowledged that the application process is not explained clearly enough and that they should update their explanation.
The same image got approved later together with the other two.
-
I wouldn't resubmit images that were rejected. I think the point of what they told you, is that if one is approved, and two rejected...then your next submission would include the file that was approved along with two new files.
but yes, there is a chance that a file previously approved will be rejected by the next inspector. two years ago when I applied, I was accepted on my third attempt. and it was worth it.
-
I wouldn't resubmit images that were rejected. I think the point of what they told you, is that if one is approved, and two rejected...then your next submission would include the file that was approved along with two new files.
I think I know what they told me. I listened to them and my next application was approved with the rejected image from my last application.
My point was that not in all cases they judge three images independently but they are also reviewing the quality of the application in general. The reason was for my last rejection was: "Images are very similar in subject matter or style". All three images got accepted later, after my application was approved.
-
Two years ago when I applied, I was accepted on my third attempt. and it was worth it.
Same experience here. Took my three tries to get in. And it was definitely worth it!
FWIW Istock was my first site and it took me quite awhile (and a better monitor) to cut out most of the artifacting rejections. Once I was able to get images accepted consistently at istock it was no problem getting them accepted on other sites.
Only exception was Fotolia, who rejected 90% of what I submitted when I started, but after some back and forth with Chad they were later approved. Think I got hold of Attila on my first try with Fotolia ;)
-
Ok then lisafx, in your experience what exactly are the referring to when they say "artifacting"?
-
hi goldenangel - I didn't mean to imply you didn't understand them. it was more a comment about contributor relations at iStock. once in a while they can give confusing advice. I have had questions that were vaguely answered. so I thought perhaps you had the same experience.
my explanation was for those who have not yet been accepted.
-
hi goldenangel - I didn't mean to imply you didn't understand them. it was more a comment about contributor relations at iStock. once in a while they can give confusing advice. I have had questions that were vaguely answered. so I thought perhaps you had the same experience.
my explanation was for those who have not yet been accepted.
Stacey,
I agree. In my case, they acknowledged that the application process is not explained clear enough in a sense that images are not looked at completely independently from each other. If that was the case, rejection reason of images being too similar would not exist.
For those who have not yet been accepted, this does not mean that I suggest submitting rejected images again. It has worked for me because of the rejection reason I got, but it might not work for others.
-
I got accepted at Istock a little over 2 months ago. It took me two or three tries; I can’t remember, I must be getting old.
About 2 weeks ago my 15 year old daughter got accepted. On her first try she got the "Images are very similar in subject matter or style" rejection. On her second try, 2 of 3 were accepted and on her third try her last image was accepted.
Her first images were accepted and online a few days ago. She had her first sale yesterday so she was pretty happy.
In answer to the OP question, I think it is worth it. IStock is my number 2 earner. I am only two months into this and my portfolio is small (91 images) so who knows what the future holds.
-
Well I had my first sale on IStock today. $0.28. Twenty-eight cents.
All those hoops - the approval process, the 2-week reviews, the obsession over obscure "artifacts", the tedious keywording, categories, the rejections - and in the end I get 28 cents.
So to the original question: is IStock worth it? So far it looks like my time would be much better spent just taking more photos and putting them on SS.
-
Ok then lisafx, in your experience what exactly are the referring to when they say "artifacting"?
Only an inspector there could tell you for sure, but from rejections I have gotten it appears "artifacting" is a catch all rejection that includes noise (both color and luminance), sharpening halos, jagged edges from jpg compression, boxy looking artifacts in gradients, etc.
-
and in the end I get 28 cents.
It's not the end, it's the beginning...
-
Depends how you determine 'worth'. I have had little success on istock since I joined just over two years ago, but I'm certainly a much better photographer (and artist) for it, so it's worth it to me.
-
Some interesting viewpoints here.
I would ultimately like some advice on a few images that I want to post to iStock for approval.
It's now been 4 attempts, and every one has been rejected.
I am going to watermark them and upload them shortly to my web server, links to which I will post in a little while.
Is it ok to post the images in this thread for crit?
-
Sure it is. You might alaso want to post 100% crops from some critical parts of the images, if you would like critique on the technical quality.
-
Hi All :)
Please would you be so kind as to crit the images I've uploaded to my site (URL below).
I would like to submit 3 of the 4 to iStockPhoto for my application, after having been rejected 4 times now :-\
http://www.alleaume.co.za/2009/05/attention-microstockgroup-members.html (http://www.alleaume.co.za/2009/05/attention-microstockgroup-members.html)
Please comment on the relevant images here in this post.
Looking forward to your comments!
Thanks!
-
Chris, I would pick one of the camels and the dragonfly. However, I would also try to find another picture, with people if possible, not to risk being rejected for subjects of images being too similar, which happened to me.
-
Chris, I would pick one of the camels and the dragonfly. However, I would also try to find another picture, with people if possible, not to risk being rejected for subjects of images being too similar, which happened to me.
Thanks, Goldenangel.
I've uploaded 2 more images - tell me what you think?
I quite fancy the grasshopper. You don't think that would be better than the Camels?
Either way, let me know which of the two people pics you think I should use?
Please feel free to click the links on each image. You will see the images at full res.
Thanks a ton!
:)
-
Chris, don't' get me wrong, I think grasshopper is great, I just tend to like the dragonfly more and I'm afraid they would say the subject of images is too similar to submit both of them. I think the baby picture might be a little too shallow depth of field, so parts of baby's head are not sharp enough. The other picture is good, I like the black and white effect. I might be too "afraid" to send it for application because of that though, but that is just me. Let's see what other people say...
-
Chris, don't' get me wrong, I think grasshopper is great, I just tend to like the dragonfly more and I'm afraid they would say the subject of images is too similar to submit both of them. I think the baby picture might be a little too shallow depth of field, so parts of baby's head are not sharp enough. The other picture is good, I like the black and white effect. I might be too "afraid" to send it for application because of that though, but that is just me. Let's see what other people say...
Of course - thanks very much for your input, goldenangel.
I'll wait to see what others come up with and I'll make my decision from there perhaps.
Thanks again :)
-
Hey Chris. My approval rating at IS is pretty bad but I have around 800 photos up there.
I would submit the dragonfly, the camel profile, and that last baby pic. I would stay away from submitting "colorized" or sepia toned images. Also im not sure how valuable insect photos are (I could be wrong).
Try to give them a little range like a landscape, a portrait, and maybe an animal photo.
-
Hey Chris. My approval rating at IS is pretty bad but I have around 800 photos up there.
I would submit the dragonfly, the camel profile, and that last baby pic. I would stay away from submitting "colorized" or sepia toned images. Also im not sure how valuable insect photos are (I could be wrong).
Try to give them a little range like a landscape, a portrait, and maybe an animal photo.
Cool!
Thanks!
Let's see what else comes in.
I have a few hours to wait before I can resubmit...
-
Well, I've just submitted another application after a loooong wait, and 4 previous failures :-\
I'm hoping and praying that this time my application is favoured (please please PLEASE)... :)
I submitted, the Camel Profile, Thin blue dragonfly and the pic of the baby as per suggestons.
Let's wait and see :)
-
Good luck! Let us know how it goes!
-
Declined AGAIN! That's 5 times now.
What am I supposed to do? I SWEAR someone has something against me?
What did I do?
:'( :'( :-\ :-\ :-[
Thank you for taking the time to apply as a contributor with iStockphoto.com.
The iStock administrators have asked that you upload new samples based on the feedback provided below. You're welcome to return in 90 days, upload some new samples and we'll re-process your application.
Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:
At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be your best work. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.
We welcome you to return in the number of days specified and upload 3 fresh samples of your work and we will re-process your application.
-
I've moved this to this thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/5-applications-and-still-no-luck!/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/5-applications-and-still-no-luck!/)