I don't usually vent, but I feel that I have to on this one.  I have quite a few photos that I'm fairly sure will do well because they do well everywhere, but I think I'm getting shafted because I have the stupidest rejection reasons. 

For example, I cloned out every logo and every trademark in a hockey photo and I get the rejection reason that this photo has copyrighted or trademarked material, meanwhile the standard set on my previous photos showed that this was okay.

Then there's the pixel discoloration rejection.  Photos accepted at SS are being rejected at IS for that?  I look and I see nothing.  Its really annoying because I'll have some photos accepted that are less exciting but the narrow-minded reviewer cannot look past these phantom 'pixels'  to see the better picture.

I'm just going to continue to upload them with minor tweaks until they get accepted, because its a bit ridiculous.  If only I didn't have 260+ photos still waiting to upload.

Hope everyone is having a good month for earnings

Thanks for reading.

Yes, it pisses me off at times as well.

My illustrations are almost always rejected for not being stock worthy, yet, they are my best sellers on other sites, so I submit a scout report. 4/5 times they have been accepted and are by far my top sellers on IS. Not much I can do about it. ;\

Yes, uploading to IS can be very frustrating.
We all have this experience in common to one degree or another.

It happens all over the place... I had 33 photos accepted to IS and then SS reject 25 of them... go figure!

My rejection problems are only with IS - mostly for "over filtered" and "artifacts". It's very typical for me to have an image accepted everywhere - even Crestock - only to have IS reject it.

I think iStock must have hired Adrian Monk as Head Inspector 
In fact, having OCD is probably a job requirement.

I had a deal with them today.  I had some tractor photos that were rejected.  I made sure the logos were all cloned out.  It seems that John Deere's green/yellow color scheme has been registered as a trademark.  Live and learn.  It's not just logos, it can be colors too.

G~

Let's face it, assessing an image is a hugely subjective affair.

Rejection's part of the game on this field. Don't let it raise your blood pressure.

Who was it who said "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?

Same here but although they are being a bit too picky they are usually right and a little adjustment gets it accepted.
.

Quote from: sharply_done on November 16, 2007, 03:21
My rejection problems are only with IS - mostly for "over filtered" and "artifacts". It's very typical for me to have an image accepted everywhere - even Crestock - only to have IS reject it.

Quote from: Bateleur on November 16, 2007, 08:33

Who was it who said "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?

President Harry Truman.

Quote from: Bateleur on November 16, 2007, 08:33
Let's face it, assessing an image is a hugely subjective affair.

Why don't these companies develop/use software to check the technical qualities of images? It can't be that difficult to remove the seemingly arbitrary nature of rejections due to noise, artifacts, haloing, CA, etc.

I can accept a reviewer's ruling that my image isn't commercially viable on their site, but it drives me crazy when something is rejected for technical reasons when it is within accepted site and industry standards.

I get some artifacting rejections that are a bit absurd, the inspector mistook texture as artifacting.  I email Scout, but it takes so long! 

A few occasions, however, I agree with them, especially when it's an image that was originally a bit undexposed, but even then it's a kind of exagerate search for perfection.

Regards,
Adelaide

This is a typical reject from IS for me: "over filtered".
Sure it's a bit saturated, and there's added whitespace, but is it really under IS standards?

Quote from: ichiro17 on November 16, 2007, 01:14
Photos accepted at SS are being rejected at IS for that?  I look and I see nothing.  Its really annoying because I'll have some photos accepted that are less exciting but the narrow-minded reviewer cannot look past these phantom 'pixels'  to see the better picture.

I'm just going to continue to upload them with minor tweaks until they get accepted, because its a bit ridiculous.

Yes, and because you don't see it, then it must not be there.

Quote from: sharply_done on November 17, 2007, 02:02
This is a typical reject from IS for me: "over filtered".
Sure it's a bit saturated, and there's added whitespace, but is it really under IS standards?

It's ridiculous for them to reject a perfect stock picture like that!  It has probably a hundred or more potential uses.  Istock is by far my #1 seller, but sometimes their rejections totally mystify me (and sometimes I can understand them).   Well, reviewers are only human (I think), and their eyes and minds must go buggy after looking at thousands of submissions back to back for hours.  What a job!  Not for me, thanks!

Hey, Sharply_done, those leafs in your picture look familiar !

Did we shoot the same tree ?    
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4613950

Yes, we have very similar pictures.
So why is it that your yellow one was accepted, and my red one wasn't. A bias towards red, perhaps?

Red is a popular color, but I sometimes find it tend to bleed a bit - maybe that's what they see in your image?  Although it may well just be the natural texture of the leaves that they're seeing as "artifacting".

Regards,
Adelaide

There definitely aren't any artifacts present, but you're probably right about the red. I desaturated it a bit, then resubmitted. It was accepted everywhere else, and it even got a DL on Crestock today.

Wehn I am in a good mood, rejections are even funny.

I got two images rejected for artifacting with "No resubmit".  Funny though they're details of a larger image accepted a while ago.  Nevermind.

I got another (another subject) rejected for artifacting and lighting, but I can resubmit this one.

Regards,
Adelaide

I am sometimes amused, too, but not when the rejection is unreasonable and comes from a high earning site. I make my living doing this, and not having an image available for sale has deeper implications than it does for those who use microstock as supplemental income.

Quote from: sharply_done on November 17, 2007, 17:27
So why is it that your yellow one was accepted, and my red one wasn't. A bias towards red, perhaps?

I don't know why was your picture rejected. Maybe inspector was having bad day.
I hope your picture sells good on other sites.

Guys, maybe you can help me with this reply from Scout on an image rejected for artifacting.

QuoteAs you've requested I've taken another look at image number 4616508 which was rejected due to artifacting. There is a bit of artifacting the satin but most of it is in the flowers particularly in the outline of the shapes.

The sample attached in this reply is below.  I don't see artifacting, one may say there is a lack of sharpness.  What do you think?

http://www.geocities.com/adelaide.geo/iStock_000004616508.jpg

Regards,
Adelaide

There are a few areas that have a tiny bit of artifacting. I can see some along the edges of the flower - most noticeable where there is a thin purple line. I can also see some at the center of the flower, on the left and right sides on the yellowish white part. On the bright side, it should only take a few minutes to clone these out ... good luck!

Yes, I can see lots of artifacts as sharply has noted.  Most noticeable (to me) in the shadow area above the flower on the right hand side, but there are lots all over the image.

Is this a 100% crop?  I ask because the 'blockiness' makes it look like a 200%.