MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS didnt wanted it - Flame at Istock  (Read 6243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vonkara

« on: September 16, 2009, 14:24 »
0
This picture haven't been approved at Shutterstock and 123RF I think. I knew it was a quite good shot, so I uploaded this one a second time at SS. Not approved again. I resubmitted again a couple of months later. Same result.

It has now 99 downloads on Istock, probably a new flame of mine during the next days  :P SS and 123Rf



http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=6135324


lisafx

« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2009, 14:46 »
0
Congrats on the successful image! 

There is definitely a bit of inconsistency across the sites as to what they accept.   Great to see your instincts validated on that one.   

« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2009, 15:42 »
0
To tell you the truth, if I was Shutterstock I would have been tempted to reject it on the grounds of poor composition. ... but as you say, what do I know - It is now a flame on iStock which is more than I can say for most of my images.


« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2009, 17:03 »
0
Congrats Vonkara! Of course now there will be copycats submitting generic hotel signs on IS
« Last Edit: September 16, 2009, 17:06 by eppic »

« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2009, 17:08 »
0
Way to go and yes it shows that the general formulas that most reviewers work to are not always accurate. It's nice when you get a chance to prove them wrong.

KB

« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2009, 22:38 »
0
Congratulations!  :)

I can't help but agree. I submitted 10 images to SS about a week ago, all of which had been approved on IS, and they were all approved at SS. I just submitted another batch of 10, again all approved on IS, and 5 were rejected (2 for lighting, 3 for focus -- yeah, one of them had shallow DOF, I knew better, but ...).

Inconsistent, and clearly, as your case obviously shows, costly to SS. (Well, maybe not, given SS's model, though who knows how many PPDs it may get there?)

« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2009, 02:08 »
0
Congrats, the shallow DOF rejections with SS are strange and are losing them and us money but some of my highest earning images with SS were rejected by istock.

« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2009, 02:18 »
0
And just maybe it got the 100+ downloads quicker on IS because it could not be found on SS  ;D

« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2009, 02:59 »
0
Do you have a property release for that shot? To me it looks like the Hotel could be easily identified by those who know it.

Don't find it surprising that SS has rejected it. t seems much more puzzling that IS is accepting this kind of imagery.

Would look for a good liability insurance if there is more stuff like that in your micro portfolio.


vonkara

« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2009, 07:49 »
0
I removed all the hotel names and even french charachteres, then no. Thanks people for congrats!

« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2009, 23:17 »
0
annoying isn't it .. I had one image that had over 1000 downloads on SS and I don't remember how many on the other sites .. yet one site kept saying it was not stock material LMAO .. they finally took it but it was silly. Every once in a while you come across one of those what's

« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2010, 11:52 »
0
upload again :)

« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2010, 16:06 »
0
Just another typical rejection we've got to live with. SS has been very picky lately with lots of rejections based on odd criteria. A full screen texture image rejected for poor composition...??? Lots of rejections "maybe incorrect white balance...no, perfect white balance. Just the reviewer wasn't used to bright desert light. "Focus not where expected"...when focus was exactly where it should be. Our lot in micro life.

Last month I submitted an image to IS that was rejected by them over a year ago. Can't remember why but it was a good seller elsewhere. This time they accepted it and it's selling 6-7 per month right away. For me that's a good seller. If I was better organized I would have resubmitted lots of others too.

« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2010, 16:12 »
0
Make 100 versions and they may all be flames at Istock.   Oversaturate and fake the background and even SS may consider them;)  The laws of microstock is a mystery...

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2010, 17:13 »
0
this shows that LCV is the worst reason for rejection

if there are no technical issues, why not letting the buyers decide? in the end, if a picture won't sell it will rapidly sink into oblivion at SS anyway

Microbius

« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2010, 05:02 »
0
congrats, looks like a very useful shot to me. Not sure why SS would have rejected it!

« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2010, 21:12 »
0
I have used Twitter to bully SS into taking stuff they previously rejected..

"Looks like another item rejected by @ShutterStock has sold again... I guess they don't like money. {link to item}"

After awhile I get a private email asking me to resubmit it.


CCK

« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2010, 00:04 »
0
I have had on a number of occasions had situations like this. I decided to just let it go. A bestseller at SS was rejected at DT for not what we are looking for, so I send a mail to DT asking them to reconsider because the item does so well at another agency. After that they accepted the image, and 3 years later still not a single sale! Last week I send my SS bestsellers to Zoonar, hundreds of downloads each, all rejected by Zoonar for out of focus. I just let it go, and will always wonder if it would have sold at Zoonar. For me its just part of the Microstock game.

« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2010, 19:52 »
0
Congrats on the successful image! 

There is definitely a bit of inconsistency across the sites as to what they accept.

What happens with photos is apparently the mirror opposite of what happens with vectors. If IS rejects a vector, that is a sure sign that the vector is going to sell great everywhere else. When it comes to illustrations, IS doesn't care about the money, but rather is under the impression that it is running some kind of art-gallery-slash-fraternal-sisterhood, where what is 'art' is determined by a set of rules, Rule #1 being 'be an exclusive', and the rest of the rules are a secret.

« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2010, 20:06 »
0
The great value of the "hotel" image is that I could easily clone out the word hotel and put in "brothel" or "restaurant" or even "Micro Stock Retirement Home."

« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2010, 21:42 »
0
I think there is more exponentially "flame" sales on SS than images that is rejectcted at iStock with all stupid noncoinsestent combinations of rejections...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
8273 Views
Last post October 11, 2006, 09:04
by mattb
14 Replies
6644 Views
Last post September 27, 2007, 14:28
by PenelopeB
29 Replies
10269 Views
Last post May 26, 2014, 20:16
by yuliang11
5 Replies
4086 Views
Last post August 04, 2018, 06:12
by Pauws99
4 Replies
6788 Views
Last post March 05, 2020, 00:36
by Niakris

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors