I'm currently on the fence about leaving exclusivity on dt in search of more money.

i have around 870 images with them and 1140 in my 'stock folder' on my computer which gives a guide to my current acceptance rate.

i recently submitted 156 pictures at shutterstock and had 53 accepted, are all the other agencys out there as hard to get pictures accepted as shutterstock?

In my experience fotolia is accepting about 80% of my dreamstime images. Shutterstock 50%. Depossit 100% and I am still working on more sites. I just quit exclusive from dreamstime 2 weeks ago.

Im adapted to shutterstock, and I know what they will accept. I think they are easy. My postprocessing is adapted to shutterstocks "pop and shine" policy.
Same with Istock, they are consistent, and difficult. Postprosessing must be perfect.
DT and FOT are less predictable, they reject half of the images  shutterstock accepts.

Lately I have uploaded hundreds of my ss pictures to minor agencues, practically without rejections.

In short:
Istock worst
FOT second worst
DT easy enough
SS very easy

I have the feeling that IS would take my pictures straight out of the camera, but they dont like "pop and shine"

ja IS is paranoic.

I had pictures rejected there for flaws, and yes there were small flaws, and I corrected them.
BUT, first after a � year or so, when I saw the potential of the picture.
And in the � year the pictures earned a lot of money at other places. Money that IS did not earn in that period.

Is that smart doing business?
Its like they play poker, instead of trying to get business in the shop.
Im not the only one.

It's JPSDK's list flipped upside down

FT- best (yup)
IS - Very good (though they do reject almost all my composites and some isolations)
DT - Bad for their similar approach, doesn't make sense half the time and I bet their reviewers don't know what to reject/accept anymore either. I'm not talking about different poses of a model btw.
SS - Worst because of inconsistency. One day they accept almost all, other day they reject all, this could happen with the same batch btw.

Actually the best out there is Crestock  

Other then that they are top notch, consistent, feels like my work gets reviewed by true professionals. When you pass IS, you know you've got the quality for (natural) stock photography!

My experience is more similar to this - FT, CanStock, Deposit and 123 recently accept almost everything (80-90% or above), DT is complicated by their similars policy but reasonable about what they reject, iS is tough but have the best reviewers in the business.  They are very picky but the image almost always has the flaw they mention, even if you have to go to 200% to see it (except for one recently where I couldn't find the problem - will check again if I get time).  They are fanatical about CA and artifacting, and will notice a few pixels of fringing at one edge of the image.  Their reviewers mentioning the specific location and nature of the problem and occasionally enclosing a blowup of the bad area has helped my photography immensely so that now I can usually find and eliminate many problems before submission.  They really don't like too much sizzle on the colors so sometimes need a separate version from the other agencies - straight from the camera might work as pointed out previously.  Inconsistency at SS in my experience usually is on focus.  Any image where the focus is not perfect or might be perceived as soft gets special attention and a separate version for SS and BS, which seems to share reviewers or at least reviewing philosophy.  If I get complacent and forget I often get nailed by the Focus Nazi who will give a lot of rejections.  Sometimes there is inconsistency for other reasons but usually it's for focus.  Crestock is one of the worst (along with Veer) IMO so have stopped uploading there until they get some sales to make the hassle worthwhile.