Author Topic: I Give Up - iStock (Read 12577 times)

JGAdams · « **on:** November 28, 2010, 20:14 »

I have given up on iStock. I was approved with them some time ago and was thrilled. I've since been approved by alamy and Dreamstime. I know the alamy story of only caring about the technical quality. Dreamstime seems happy with some of mine, we'll see how it goes.

My score with iStock is 2 approved, 7 rejected. I got a bit confused when I had to resubmit the images I had submitted to be accepted to iStock, and they only approved 2 of those. I know, there's no whining about stock, and I'm really not complaining about iStock. I just don't understand.

All of that being said, I'm still waiting out the 30 day waiting period on Sutterstock, about 3 weeks to go.

Where do I go from here, I'm going to run some of these images by you (the forum) so I can get some expert opinions and get the skinny on what I really can submit (and sell).

Cheers from a whiny,

Jim Adams
www.jgadams.com

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** November 28, 2010, 20:49 »

Quote from: JGAdams on November 28, 2010, 20:14

My score with iStock is 2 approved, 7 rejected. I got a bit confused when I had to resubmit the images I had submitted to be accepted to iStock, and they only approved 2 of those. I know, there's no whining about stock, and I'm really not complaining about iStock. I just don't understand.

See #1 and then #9 here: http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/youve-been-accepted/

molka · « **Reply #2 on:** November 29, 2010, 05:22 »

Why would any of you spend days messing around on a forum with pics, getting all the useless contraditing and self-contradicting opinions? all you need to do is go to istock, shutter, whatever, type some basic keywords and see what comes as up most popular / downloaded.... on about 10 mins, you can get the picture, and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, or just be hobby microstocker

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2010, 06:57 »

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22

<snip> and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, <snip>

You missed the essential qualifier after the above, which is, "which most of the current market, which is based in North America, seems to prefer", though it is implied in what you wrote.

leaf · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:04 »

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22

Why would any of you spend days messing around on a forum with pics, getting all the useless contraditing and self-contradicting opinions? all you need to do is go to istock, shutter, whatever, type some basic keywords and see what comes as up most popular / downloaded.... on about 10 mins, you can get the picture, and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, or just be hobby microstocker

because it's very hard to be your own critic and there are some very talented people on this forum who are willing to give their opinion... opinions that is well worth listening to.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #5 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:35 »

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22

and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness

Tasteless cornyness are my best sellers.

molka · « **Reply #6 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2010, 06:57

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22
<snip> and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, <snip>
You missed the essential qualifier after the above, which is, "which most of the current market, which is based in North America, seems to prefer", though it is implied in what you wrote.

good call! there is a certain very restrictive style that partially originates from there, that micro shots have to conform to even more than general stock. ppl have to be dressed int mid-level-priced generic mall fashion clothes, interiors have to be light coloured with sparse simplistic (cheapo) furniture, as if it was an extension of the 'modern' corporate office... etc

molka · « **Reply #7 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:50 »

Quote from: leaf on November 29, 2010, 07:04

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22
Why would any of you spend days messing around on a forum with pics, getting all the useless contraditing and self-contradicting opinions? all you need to do is go to istock, shutter, whatever, type some basic keywords and see what comes as up most popular / downloaded.... on about 10 mins, you can get the picture, and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, or just be hobby microstocker

because it's very hard to be your own critic and there are some very talented people on this forum who are willing to give their opinion... opinions that is well worth listening to.

I understand, I wasn't talking against the forum, it's just that in my experience this method doesn't really work, only gets ppl confused... and often people walk by the most obvious and easy way the measure things up, like someone looking for their glasses while wearing them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** November 29, 2010, 07:54 »

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 07:43

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2010, 06:57
Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22
<snip> and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, <snip>
You missed the essential qualifier after the above, which is, "which most of the current market, which is based in North America, seems to prefer", though it is implied in what you wrote.

good call! there is a certain very restrictive style that partially originates from there, that micro shots have to conform to even more than general stock. ppl have to be dressed int mid-level-priced generic mall fashion clothes, interiors have to be light coloured with sparse simplistic (cheapo) furniture, as if it was an extension of the 'modern' corporate office... etc

A lot of the problem re clothes and furniture is that the RF model requires that everything be totally generic. Allegedly.

lagereek · « **Reply #9 on:** November 29, 2010, 10:27 »

Rejects?

? so what! goes with the territory. Try again and again and again, we have all done that.

JGAdams · « **Reply #10 on:** November 29, 2010, 11:27 »

Thank you everyone for your insight. I didn't expect this kind of response. Hidden deep within are some excellent ideas for any serious microstocker. I will be taking it to heart.

Jim Adams
www.jgadams.com

molka · « **Reply #11 on:** November 29, 2010, 14:42 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 29, 2010, 07:35

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22
and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness

Tasteless cornyness are my best sellers.

I know, that and jerry spriengfield is what people want... and some cola light to thin down while watching tv.

molka · « **Reply #12 on:** November 29, 2010, 14:52 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2010, 07:54

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 07:43
Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2010, 06:57
Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22
<snip> and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, <snip>
You missed the essential qualifier after the above, which is, "which most of the current market, which is based in North America, seems to prefer", though it is implied in what you wrote.

good call! there is a certain very restrictive style that partially originates from there, that micro shots have to conform to even more than general stock. ppl have to be dressed int mid-level-priced generic mall fashion clothes, interiors have to be light coloured with sparse simplistic (cheapo) furniture, as if it was an extension of the 'modern' corporate office... etc
A lot of the problem re clothes and furniture is that the RF model requires that everything be totally generic. Allegedly.

that's just a small part of it imho. spew generic crap on people and they will sucumb to it. In a utopia they would have enough individuality/personality to reject / alter it, in the real world they don't. My place f.e. has a lot of of quite beautiful antique furniture, and there hardly is space on the wall not interrupted by some konda painting or drawing. That's all really nice, and doesn't interfere with any copyright, but still the whole place is disqualified from micro shooting - style issue.

djpadavona · « **Reply #13 on:** November 29, 2010, 16:55 »

If you are giving up after a total of 7 rejections, then nobody here can help you. I seriously doubt you will accomplish anything difficult in life with that lack of fortitude. But we appreciate the lack of competition, so thank you.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2010, 01:26 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on November 29, 2010, 07:35

Quote from: molka on November 29, 2010, 05:22
and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness

Tasteless cornyness are my best sellers.

CrapStock for me. But that's the hobby shooter category.

If SS and IS took me, I suspect anyone who opens their eyes and tries, will get in.

crazychristina · « **Reply #15 on:** November 30, 2010, 03:32 »

I can't see why any new independent would even bother with istock. Given the bias against independents in search and the low royalties they'll be getting is it really even worth trying?

lagereek · « **Reply #16 on:** November 30, 2010, 04:31 »

Quote from: crazychristina on November 30, 2010, 03:32

I can't see why any new independent would even bother with istock. Given the bias against independents in search and the low royalties they'll be getting is it really even worth trying?

I wonder? what would IS promote the most, an Independant portfolio with commercial sellers or a run-of-the-mill Exclusive with just the same old stuff. I was sitting for half an hour the other day, just watching what came through of accepted exclusive images and its the usual story, generic average stuff, with maybe 1/50 that would ever see the light of day.

Another proof of that reviewers are still giving priority to technically correct imagery rather then creative commercial stuff. A few Agencies have by now realized that its the commercial nieched stuff that finally is going to give bread and butter, among them are FT and SS, isnt far behind. In two years time, that will be their savour.

On another note: the OP with his rejects, well what does he expect? wellcome to the Micro/Macro world. Did he think he was going to get everything accepted?

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #17 on:** November 30, 2010, 04:42 »

only thing i can tell you is never to give up. if some person had succes in anything -this is likely (and it is) that another (you for instance) person is able to do the same. all the people in the world are much more similar than different. and most of our borders, and limitations are product of our own brains, and are not real.
try to learn, and try to win every situation in life. and try not to lose your nerves if something looks like it's not a "win situation" for you. just take different angle of view.
-you got your images rejected? "-cool. it's nice, these people spend their time to make a point that i am not still capable to produce good stock images". etc etc... -so, take a good look on the rejection reasons, these people (inspectors) are most of the time right. i can even say "almost all-all-always right". if images are "can resubmit" and if you believe in this image (and if it is can resubmit-this means that reviewers also saw some commercial potential for the specific image), -take time, and re-edit image, and have it online.
cheers
sasha.

rubyroo · « **Reply #18 on:** November 30, 2010, 05:06 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on November 30, 2010, 04:42

all the people in the world are much more similar than different. and most of our borders, and limitations are product of our own brains, and are not real.

Well said Dr Bouz! <applause>

BTW, I love your 'Mad Violinist' shot.

eggshell · « **Reply #19 on:** November 30, 2010, 05:26 »

My only advice would be to avoid overrationalizing the rejections . Get a break and forget about it for a while .

Following general advice I tried to play safe with my first 2 applications - submitting 1 portrait , 1 object and 1 landscape . The result - 6/6 rejected . I took it pretty personal to say the least , decided not to bother and concentrate on the other agencies . Couple of months ago I found myself browsing some iStock collection and was really pleased with the overall quality so I decided to reapply just for fun . Expecting another easy rejection I submitted 3 abstract/concept shots and they were all accepted

. Right now I'm still struggling with their keyword system but my approval ratio is +85% . Pretty sporadic sales there so far

cathyslife · « **Reply #20 on:** November 30, 2010, 08:08 »

Quote from: crazychristina on November 30, 2010, 03:32

I can't see why any new independent would even bother with istock. Given the bias against independents in search and the low royalties they'll be getting is it really even worth trying?

I am perplexed as well. Maybe they aspire to become exclusives at IS as soon as they can?

lisafx · « **Reply #21 on:** November 30, 2010, 09:32 »

Quote from: Dr Bouz on November 30, 2010, 04:42

only thing i can tell you is never to give up. if some person had succes in anything -this is likely (and it is) that another (you for instance) person is able to do the same. all the people in the world are much more similar than different. and most of our borders, and limitations are product of our own brains, and are not real.

So true Sascha! This is exactly what I have always told my daughter growing up. "If someone else can do it, you can do it". The question to ask yourself is: do you like doing it? And if so, then how badly do you want it and how hard are you willing to try?

Not to be patronizing to the OP. It can be difficult and frustrating getting started in micro. But I really do believe that the ones who succeed are the ones who want it the most............

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #22 on:** November 30, 2010, 13:01 »

^exactly

Quote from: rubyroo on November 30, 2010, 05:06

Well said Dr Bouz! <applause>

BTW, I love your 'Mad Violinist' shot.

thanks man. well-that's me

djpadavona · « **Reply #23 on:** November 30, 2010, 13:06 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2010, 04:31

I wonder? what would IS promote the most, an Independant portfolio with commercial sellers or a run-of-the-mill Exclusive with just the same old stuff. I was sitting for half an hour the other day, just watching what came through of accepted exclusive images and its the usual story, generic average stuff, with maybe 1/50 that would ever see the light of day.

My DL's have increased since I left exclusivity. The change was instantaneous. The minute the crown disappeared, DLs increased. I've checked, and there is no change at all in my best match positions (at least nothing tangible). Which confirms for me what I long believed as an exclusive...that the best match gave zero incentive to exclusives except for Vetta.

The instantaneous increase in DL's suggests to me the possibility that buyers are becoming increasingly price conscious at iStockphoto, and prefer to buy at non-exclusive prices when given the choice.

heywoody · « **Reply #24 on:** November 30, 2010, 13:49 »

Sorta curious why buyers use IS at all. Everybody is moaning about the lousy cut the contributer gets but (in my very limited experience) the return per download is higher than elsewhere - ergo the site must be much more expensive for the buyer. Exclusives aside, most of the images must be available elsewhere at much lower cost. Doesn't sound like a good time to piss the exclusives off???

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I Give Up - iStock (Read 12577 times)

JGAdams

Sean Locke Photography

molka

ShadySue

leaf

PaulieWalnuts

molka

molka

ShadySue

lagereek

JGAdams

molka

molka

djpadavona

RacePhoto

crazychristina

lagereek

Dr Bouz

rubyroo

eggshell

cathyslife

lisafx

Dr Bouz

djpadavona

heywoody

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors