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  SS and 123Rf



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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I think there is more exponentially "flame" sales on SS than images that is rejectcted at iStock with all stupid noncoinsestent combinations of rejections...