Good material, LONGGG string of rejections. Seems like the inspectors are just looking for reasons to reject, but disregarding the overall strengths of the material. This particular site requires MUCH time in submission, and the "reject" button is oh-so easy to push at any whim...

A long time ago dreamstime did not allow me to delete my images due to the six month policy they had. Little did I know that this seemingly restrictive issue would act as a great blessing in the future, as a whole world of opportunities and freedom remained open. I remained non-exclusive, and the future was wide-open. Thank you dreamstime.

Shutterstock allowed me to submit my images, letting the customer decide what was useful and not. Thank you shutterstock.

And the other sites as well, giving the contributor their dignity, and the customer their choices.

I gave the site another chance, but sadly its just like the Runway programs they air on TV. A lot of ambitious and insecure people battling for recognition from narrow-minded and creatively biased judges.

I gave it another try, but the sweet liberating independence of non-exclusivity has rewarded me with the confidence that a model CAN have visible polygons and still be considered good. And of course watching a Fibonacci  arranged sunflower seeds get rejected for the "non-relevant" keywords "mathematics" is always a blend of amusing as well as frustrating.

Its ok, my portfolio will eventually die on this site. But its hardly a loss, because my time and rewards are more than compensatory everywhere else.

Goodbye Unnamed Stock Photo site.

Yes, models have polygons, not necessarily visible @ 100% but still not photographs. I know exactly where you're coming from and 100% agree.  Except, it is possible to get some product on their shelves and what does get there doesn't have the same competition due to their restrictive approach and tends to do much better than elsewhere.

Course, I'm only guessing about the unnamed stock photo site 

Reasonable VS unreasonable. Its as subjective as the majority of rejections taking place there. But I do quit.... No further debate coming from my side. I guess the well-known companies who purchase off of my site see something beyond the technicalities that rejections are based on. And I rarely get complaints except for the inability to keep up with everyone.

Over and out. - Leo

What is polygons? Lensflares? Diaphragm? What is all that about?

I have begun to apply an "Annoy factor" to the agencies.

How much they annoy me:

1..  Is the upload process annoying?
      Bulk uploading, keywords, MRs and categories?
2..  Are rejections justified and consistant?
3..  Is the percentage of commission acceptable?
4..  Are sales good?
5..  Is communication with the contributors good?
6..  Is the site easy to navigate and does it run smoothly?
      Does bugs cost sales?
7..  Are the licenses acceptable?
8..  Is the payout process smooth?
9..  Do they keep their promises?
10. Do I feel appreaciated, and Am I treated differently from eg. exclusives?

I have always considered that site to be very arrogant and hostile to contributors. I can be forgiving as long as they earn money. But when they begin to rise prices and lower commision, the annoy factor grows steeply. It makes me sick when I do the reverse calculation from 16% to their share, and they continue to remain arrogant and not appreaciate my contribution.
That is very annoying, I feel abused, and not even a friendly word, only greed and arrogancy.

In short: arrogancy is inappropriate in times of decline.

Also their pictures are to expensive. This is microstock, and the prices should be low, and sales volumes high.