Author Topic: Istockphoto's very generous reviews (Read 8902 times)

dragonblade · « **on:** February 04, 2017, 18:50 »

I'm not sure about others' experiences but I find that iStockphoto accepts just about anything with regards to photo submissions. Is this generally the case with most contributors? They don't seem to be very fussy. I admit I only have a very small port on IS with over 160 photos but Ive never had a rejection there due to technical reasons. The only times IS have rejected my photos was due to possible copyright infringement or people being featured that they thought would be recognisable (despite them being blurred during a long exposure in one image.)

Dreamstime are fairly generous too but not quite to the same extent as iStockphoto. DT accepts most of my photos with the occasional rejection. Shutterstock and Fotolia are much more strict - I find that about half my submissions are accepted by those two sites. Though lately, Shutterstock seem to be more generous, allowing a larger acceptance rate.

Are other people finding the same overall?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** February 04, 2017, 19:26 »

iS used to be extremely fussy, really pixel-picky.
Nowadays, it's hard to see anyone getting any photo rejected for other than IP reasons, which has been going on for well over a year.
Whether they have some devious reason behind this change of policy, I have no idea.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2017, 04:56 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 04, 2017, 19:26

iS used to be extremely fussy, really pixel-picky.
Nowadays, it's hard to see anyone getting any photo rejected for other than IP reasons, which has been going on for well over a year.
Whether they have some devious reason behind this change of policy, I have no idea.

They did announce at some point once you were accepted they would only reject on property/release keyword issues presumably to increase the size of their collection or maybe reduce inspection costs. Whilst yes in the past they were probably too picky they taught me a lot....these days can't help thinking I'm slacking as the the inspection process everywhere seems "loose" or inconsistent or both.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2017, 05:13 »

I'm amazed at some of the vector images that get accepted on both iStock and Shutterstock. Looks like somebody has taken one of their kids drawings off the refrigerator door, and turned it into a vector.

Sure, some people will be looking for that kind of style, but keywords such as 'kid's drawing' or 'child's painting' are worryingly absent.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2017, 06:14 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on February 05, 2017, 05:13

I'm amazed at some of the vector images that get accepted on both iStock and Shutterstock.

That's interesting.
A while back, but after the photo standards collapsed, I made an illustration, really just to practice Illustrator, which I don't do, of a very old symbol, which is apparently still widely used in China. It needed exact measurements and layout. Then I converted it to a jpeg and uploaded it as a raster illustration (as I'm not a vector illustrator).
Firstly, although I had referenced it clearly in the description and stated it to be over 2000 years old, which is really easily verifiable via an online search, it spent weeks 'pending executive', meaning they were checking its IP.
Then I got a rejection as it was 'too simple'.
Scouted it* and got a reply from Scout saying that illustrations had to be more complex.
Thought that was weird. If you were making a straightforward illo of an ankh, that is simple, and mine was much more fiddly than that, and not already in the collection in a pure/original form (there was one with a glittery overlay).

I've since seen really simple vectors, which even I could do, being accepted, so really weird.

*Scout has recently been retired, and nowadays rejected images have to be discussed on the appropriate iS forum.

derek · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2017, 06:56 »

Yes they used to be really fussy and in early years the Rolls Royce of microstock. Pitty what happened. Today I think they have to be happy with what they can get. I don't know anybody who still uploads to Istock. Getty took over and that was a sure way of browsing around skidrow.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2017, 07:05 »

I agree. They need to take what they can get nowadays. The only decent content they are getting is from some exclusives that are to invested to get out easily. Sooner or later it wont make sense for anyone to still sell there.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2017, 08:47 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 05, 2017, 07:05

I agree. They need to take what they can get nowadays. The only decent content they are getting is from some exclusives that are to invested to get out easily. Sooner or later it wont make sense for anyone to still sell there.

Think a lot of us optimists are hanging on to see if the latest changes are really as bad as some people think. It may become the preserve of a few exclusive stalwarts who to be fair still do well.

JimP · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2017, 11:08 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on February 05, 2017, 08:47

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on February 05, 2017, 07:05
I agree. They need to take what they can get nowadays. The only decent content they are getting is from some exclusives that are to invested to get out easily. Sooner or later it wont make sense for anyone to still sell there.
Think a lot of us optimists are hanging on to see if the latest changes are really as bad as some people think. It may become the preserve of a few exclusive stalwarts who to be fair still do well.

Looks like I should become a vector artist and upload to istock. I'm only a photographer.

dpimborough · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2017, 11:45 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 04, 2017, 19:26

iS used to be extremely fussy, really pixel-picky.
Nowadays, it's hard to see anyone getting any photo rejected for other than IP reasons, which has been going on for well over a year.
Whether they have some devious reason behind this change of policy, I have no idea.

The devious reason was to get a LOT of none exclusive contributors uploading like crazy then a year later lock them into 15% royalties and block them from deleting their own content.

The second part of their plan was to then encourage the same contributors to become exclusive and deny images to any other stock sites.

And if the none exclusives put up with it Getty still wins selling images and creaming off 85% of the revenue.

Chichikov · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2017, 11:57 »

Now they accept anything that is not double and, when it is needed, has the correct release.
Then they sale anything for $0.02

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2017, 01:10 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 05, 2017, 11:45

And if the none exclusives put up with it Getty still wins selling images and creaming off 85% of the revenue.

That seems to be the plan, but it ignores the possibility that filling the site with rubbish and driving away established contributors could be losing it buyers.

gnirtS · « **Reply #12 on:** March 04, 2017, 20:02 »

iStock reviewers accept any technically correct image BUT they seem to want every single-cell amoeba to sign a model release not matter how small or unrecognisable in the image. Ditto for tiny houses way in the distance.

They also want model releases specifically dates to match the EXIF photo taken time (a nightmare if you use the same person and release over a period of time).

dpimborough · « **Reply #13 on:** March 10, 2017, 17:19 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 06, 2017, 01:10

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on February 05, 2017, 11:45
And if the none exclusives put up with it Getty still wins selling images and creaming off 85% of the revenue.

That seems to be the plan, but it ignores the possibility that filling the site with rubbish and driving away established contributors could be losing it buyers.

C'mon now this is iStock we are talking about

Do you think they look that far in to the future?

JaenStock · « **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2017, 06:06 »

Istock does not care about storing horrible photos, time ago they bought enough hard disks They remain selecive, but only with what images do they pick for the signature. + collection reflected in Getty. The game of this agency and serious/pro exclusves is that collection. The rest of collection really dont care the curation.

djmorgan · « **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2017, 08:47 »

I add my voice to this in the early days it was something to say you were approved at iStockPhoto, but lately and in particular with one image that was a mistake in my upload but got approved when even I rejected it.

So yes the quality requirements are very much down, I wonder if this is not part of Getty's plan to destroy them all together!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2017, 09:30 »

Quote from: djmorgan on March 12, 2017, 08:47

I add my voice to this in the early days it was something to say you were approved at iStockPhoto, but lately and in particular with one image that was a mistake in my upload but got approved when even I rejected it.

So yes the quality requirements are very much down, I wonder if this is not part of Getty's plan to destroy them all together!

The only reject now on Copyright etc issues.....yep used to be toughest reviewers but also fair.

JimP · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2017, 12:03 »

Quote from: djmorgan on March 12, 2017, 08:47

I add my voice to this in the early days it was something to say you were approved at iStockPhoto, but lately and in particular with one image that was a mistake in my upload but got approved when even I rejected it.

So yes the quality requirements are very much down, I wonder if this is not part of Getty's plan to destroy them all together!

And now they made it so we can't remove mistakes. 2 cents for us, they will take anything.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istockphoto's very generous reviews (Read 8902 times)

dragonblade

ShadySue

Pauws99

SpaceStockFootage

ShadySue

derek

Justanotherphotographer

Pauws99

JimP

dpimborough

Chichikov

BaldricksTrousers

gnirtS

dpimborough

JaenStock

djmorgan

Pauws99

JimP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors