Author Topic: 5 Applications and still no luck! (Read 16864 times)

RaFaLe · « **on:** May 11, 2009, 07:06 »

Hi all,

I've recently tried for the fifth time to apply at iStock.
Put my pics up for crit and got some feedback.
Submitted those too and declined.

I'm wondering if I need to be the world's greatest photographer to even pass an application to iStock?

I feel somehow I must have offended someone or something. I'm just not sure what to do now.
Should I try write to them? Maybe just give it up as a bad idea?

null · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:09 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on May 11, 2009, 07:06

I'm just not sure what to do now.

If you put it on this forum, you could at least make an effort to put a link to those pictures. What do you expect? Hugs or shouts like "woohoo Istock"?

crazychristina · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:15 »

I've recently started shooting stock again after a year's break. My acceptance rate on istock seems a lot better this time round, and I put that down mostly to having recently bought an excellent lens (Pentax 31mm f1.8 LTD for those interested). I don't know what sort of equipment you have, but it might be worthwhile to hire some top equipment for a weekend, shoot as wide a range of stuff as possible, and try that. It really does make a difference. Also, I don't know if you do this, but your monitor must be properly calibrated with a hardware calibrator. I can't believe istock accepted any of the stuff I submitted before I bought my Spyder.

Milinz · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:25 »

Dude, You're not only one... Me too have problems with their illustrator application - I got 6 rejects up to day despite they've approved me as video and photo contributor in my first application!

The point is that I don't produce much of videos or photos for microstock... Mostly I do them for known clients payed in advance and rest is sold from starting $30 and way up per download... No models on microsctock is my policy... At least I will not upload my best Model Released images as micro.

On the other hand, I have about 700 illustrations currently on-line on all other significant micro sites... But, iStock somehow don't like that I can compete with 10 their exclusives at a time with my upload ratio of minimum 50 new artworks monthly ;-)

So, what a life... I applied to veer marketplace and if they accept most of my works, I will drop iStock for good. I need more than iStock have restricted on uploads number as well as they are too slow in review process... Thus, they are the slowest and most complicated for uploads.
Veer is something way higher class agency than iStock as I am informed and they are quite more interested in contributors.

RaFaLe · « **Reply #4 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:43 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on May 11, 2009, 07:09

If you put it on this forum, you could at least make an effort to put a link to those pictures. What do you expect? Hugs or shouts like "woohoo Istock"?

I had my pictures up previously and got crit on them (on a different thread).
I had posted a few of my selected ones for application and was advised which would do best or which were the best of my selection.
I've put them back up again (these are my last rejected photos).
http://www.alleaume.co.za/2009/05/attention-microstockgroup-members.html

I'm simply looking for feedback and ideas on what I could possibly do to appeal the decisions made?
Then again, I don't think that's entirely possible.
Maybe I just suck that bad

MichaelJay · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:57 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on May 11, 2009, 07:43

I'm simply looking for feedback and ideas on what I could possibly do to appeal the decisions made?

Okay... here's an idea... now you have some time to re-consider your approach to Microstock. How about this: Next week you will walk around and look at all the posters and billboards you see. And you will occasionally scroll through some magazines... no need to read articles, just look at the images. How about spending a few hours surfing the net, looking at "How to" articles and blogs mainly. News aren't interesting as they usually use real images... Concepts and Illustrations of topics.

Then you take a week and put down ideas on images you could shoot that could replace those images you have seen. Make them interesting for a potential reader - they should be eye-catching but not distract from the actual content of the ad or article.

If you come up with five ideas, try to set up the light to make it work. Move the light around the objects, look at the results on the screen and decide which ones look best. Make sure they are technically perfect, focus at the right spot, histogram looking alright, colors and contrasts as you think they should be.

Write a headline for each of those images and ask yourself how many readers would be interested in reading that article/ad after seeing your image and the headline.

Then you come back here and post your new sample images. I am already sure the next three would be much, much closer to what commercial stock is about. Once you got accepted with those "boring commercial stuff" you can still try to upload dragonflies and see if they sell...

(edit: I have started with a quote how you want to appeal the decision... but what I actually wanted to mention is that while those images might be nice I don't think based on those images you appeal looks too promising as it doesn't seem your imagery is a "must have" for commercial stock)

gostwyck · « **Reply #6 on:** May 11, 2009, 08:20 »

^^^ Exactly MJ. All the images look to have been shrunk in size or are severe crops of the originals which would give me (as a reviewer) less confidence in your abilities.

The baby shot is poorly lit and/or incorrect WB (strange greenish hue). It also has a very distracting background making it less useful for stock. There are thousands of baby images and I think that yours would be unlikely to sell in competition with them. From the lighting & composition I would describe it as a snap rather than a professional stock image.

The dragonfly shot is OK but is in a very low demand subject and also the head doesn't look to be in sharp focus.

The camel shot again has a distracting background and is in a relatively low-demand subject. Again it's a 'snap'.

Looking at your DT port those welding shots look to be excellent commercially-oriented images. The tropical beach isn't too bad either but you could have improved the comp considerably by walking 10 paces further forward, making more of the sea/huts and taking out the distracting shadows in the foreground.

Don't forget it will be assumed that what you submit is the very best of your work and it indicates not just your photography skills but also your awareness of what makes for good commercial imagery. Good luck!

karensuki · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2009, 09:34 »

Quote from: Milinz on May 11, 2009, 07:25

Dude, You're not only one... Me too have problems with their illustrator application - I got 6 rejects up to day despite they've approved me as video and photo contributor in my first application!

I'm in the same boat... This is the 3rd time that I was rejected for my illustrations. All I get is a "not what we are interested in at this time" message. So I get to wait 14 more days and hit them again. It is discouraging that this is happening, but the good thing is that shutterstock has accepted nearly every illustration that I have produced.

It just lets me know that my stuff isn't all bad. I plan on hitting iStock again and again until they get tired of hearing from me...

RaFaLe · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2009, 09:40 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on May 11, 2009, 07:57

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on May 11, 2009, 07:43
I'm simply looking for feedback and ideas on what I could possibly do to appeal the decisions made?

Okay... here's an idea... now you have some time to re-consider your approach to Microstock. How about this: Next week you will walk around and look at all the posters and billboards you see. And you will occasionally scroll through some magazines... no need to read articles, just look at the images. How about spending a few hours surfing the net, looking at "How to" articles and blogs mainly. News aren't interesting as they usually use real images... Concepts and Illustrations of topics.

Then you take a week and put down ideas on images you could shoot that could replace those images you have seen. Make them interesting for a potential reader - they should be eye-catching but not distract from the actual content of the ad or article.

If you come up with five ideas, try to set up the light to make it work. Move the light around the objects, look at the results on the screen and decide which ones look best. Make sure they are technically perfect, focus at the right spot, histogram looking alright, colors and contrasts as you think they should be.

Write a headline for each of those images and ask yourself how many readers would be interested in reading that article/ad after seeing your image and the headline.

Then you come back here and post your new sample images. I am already sure the next three would be much, much closer to what commercial stock is about. Once you got accepted with those "boring commercial stuff" you can still try to upload dragonflies and see if they sell...

(edit: I have started with a quote how you want to appeal the decision... but what I actually wanted to mention is that while those images might be nice I don't think based on those images you appeal looks too promising as it doesn't seem your imagery is a "must have" for commercial stock)

Thank you, that's brilliant feedback and excellent advice.

I'll bear that in mind - since I don't have access to studios, it's difficult to get those professional images of people, since that's typically what sells the most I guess.
Nonetheless, I'll certainly keep that in mind for my next application.

RaFaLe · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2009, 09:43 »

Quote from: karensuki on May 11, 2009, 09:34

I'm in the same boat... This is the 3rd time that I was rejected for my illustrations. All I get is a "not what we are interested in at this time" message. So I get to wait 14 more days and hit them again. It is discouraging that this is happening, but the good thing is that shutterstock has accepted nearly every illustration that I have produced.

It just lets me know that my stuff isn't all bad. I plan on hitting iStock again and again until they get tired of hearing from me...

The problem with this approach is that you may have to wait 2 years.
Bear in mind that each time you fail application, you have to wait much longer before you can apply again.
I'm only allowed to apply again in 3 months!
Good luck nonetheless.

RaFaLe · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2009, 09:49 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 11, 2009, 08:20

^^^ Exactly MJ. All the images look to have been shrunk in size or are severe crops of the originals which would give me (as a reviewer) less confidence in your abilities.

The baby shot is poorly lit and/or incorrect WB (strange greenish hue). It also has a very distracting background making it less useful for stock. There are thousands of baby images and I think that yours would be unlikely to sell in competition with them. From the lighting & composition I would describe it as a snap rather than a professional stock image.

The dragonfly shot is OK but is in a very low demand subject and also the head doesn't look to be in sharp focus.

The camel shot again has a distracting background and is in a relatively low-demand subject. Again it's a 'snap'.

Looking at your DT port those welding shots look to be excellent commercially-oriented images. The tropical beach isn't too bad either but you could have improved the comp considerably by walking 10 paces further forward, making more of the sea/huts and taking out the distracting shadows in the foreground.

Don't forget it will be assumed that what you submit is the very best of your work and it indicates not just your photography skills but also your awareness of what makes for good commercial imagery. Good luck!

Also very valuable information.
Thank you very much.
You're all right - upon further thought, I've realised that my stuff isn't really stock material.
100% spot on about the camel. And who would really use a dragonfly for stock (certainly 1 in a thousand at best).
In retrospect, this all seems very obvious, though, so I feel like I could hit my head against a wall now.

I had submitted the factory worker shot and it was also rejected.
I have a few more that relate to labour and factory work, so that is something to consider, certainly.
The only problem is that the factory I have access to has limited lighting. And I can't very well go an set up lighting while the guys are working -
it will distract them and i'll get my @ss kicked straight out of there

Thanks again guys.

stockastic · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:25 »

Not to repeat myself, but... I advise not spinning your wheels trying to get into IStock because even if you do, you may end up even more frustrated when they reject what you feel are your best shots, and you can't figure out why. And now they've added weird keywording rejections to the mix. The extremely long review times make it hard to make progress unless you keep notes on which images were rejected, when, and why.

And when you finally do get some shots up there you may find, as I did, that there are no sales at the end of this road. I think it depends a lot on your subjects, but for me, it's just been a big waste of time so far.

I suggest concentrating on other sites until you get a feel for what sells, among the shots you are able to do. Once you have a sizeable group of images that are selling on a couple other sites, you can try pumping them into IStock and see if any of them sell there, too.

Some submitters seem to produce what IStock wants and get good sales but for me, sales at IStock are insignificant compared to Shutterstock. The steady sales at SS - even though the money is peanuts - have helped me learn what sells.

gostwyck · « **Reply #12 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:31 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on May 11, 2009, 09:49

Also very valuable information.
Thank you very much.
You're all right - upon further thought, I've realised that my stuff isn't really stock material.
100% spot on about the camel. And who would really use a dragonfly for stock (certainly 1 in a thousand at best).
In retrospect, this all seems very obvious, though, so I feel like I could hit my head against a wall now.

I had submitted the factory worker shot and it was also rejected.
I have a few more that relate to labour and factory work, so that is something to consider, certainly.
The only problem is that the factory I have access to has limited lighting. And I can't very well go an set up lighting while the guys are working -
it will distract them and i'll get my @ss kicked straight out of there

Thanks again guys.

You're welcome. One of the hardest things to learn about this game is actually understanding 'stock', i.e. what an image can be used for and how. Once you understand that it makes the photography much easier as you don't even bother unless conditions for it are pretty much perfect. The standards are much higher now than when I got in too __ I really don't envy you. Most, but by no means all, of the top 'photographers' are/were either designers or at least have a design or graphics background. It gives them a huge advantage over those of us who essentially drifted into this as hobbyist photographers.

If you persevere you will eventually 'get it' but I reckon it took me 2-3 years to really start to understand stock and accelerate my earnings. I think by the end of this month I should have sold my 150K'th license but I still feel on an upward trajectory of learning __ which of course is what keeps it endlessly fascinating and rewarding.

Real-life manufacturing shots are always challenging because you have so little control of the conditions but they can sell very well if you are successful __ basically because there aren't that many of them. Most agencies will be a little more flexible on the technical aspects of the shot because they understand that and they know there's a demand for them. A large stand-alone reflector can often be a big help too if there's a nearby source of natural light.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:32 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 10:25

Some submitters seem to produce what IStock wants and get good sales but for me, sales at IStock are insignificant compared to Shutterstock. The steady sales at SS - even though the money is peanuts - have helped me learn what sells.

That's sort of a weird gauge of success. Learning to produce what sells for peanuts doesn't seem very sensible.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #14 on:** May 11, 2009, 10:48 »

you've all said most of what needs to be said, but I'd like to reiterate to the OP that composition and lighting should be your study subjects. shooting stock aside for a moment, for the sake argument let's say we are evaluating these pictures as art....even then I would suggest that this is not your best work, is it?

it is easy to get excited about applications but they want to see your best. I doubt these three images represent your talent. it took me three applications to be accepted on iStock, that was almost three years ago.

once accepted, I had uploaded close to 200 images before realizing that pretty pictures are not stock pictures. and since then, it has been a constant learning experience. only in the last few months would I say that my work is representative of my photography ambitions. and even now I still look at other photographers' work and experience talent envy.

one additional note is to try to lose the are they out to get me idea. really, no one is personally rejecting your images. it's the quality. good luck.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2009, 11:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 10:32

Quote from: stockastic on May 11, 2009, 10:25
Some submitters seem to produce what IStock wants and get good sales but for me, sales at IStock are insignificant compared to Shutterstock. The steady sales at SS - even though the money is peanuts - have helped me learn what sells.

That's sort of a weird gauge of success. Learning to produce what sells for peanuts doesn't seem very sensible.

disorderly · « **Reply #16 on:** May 11, 2009, 12:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 10:32

That's sort of a weird gauge of success. Learning to produce what sells for peanuts doesn't seem very sensible.

Depends on how many peanuts, doesn't it? Collect enough peanuts and even elephants won't go hungry.

willie · « **Reply #17 on:** May 11, 2009, 13:30 »

Quote from: disorderly on May 11, 2009, 12:12

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 10:32
That's sort of a weird gauge of success. Learning to produce what sells for peanuts doesn't seem very sensible.

Depends on how many peanuts, doesn't it? Collect enough peanuts and even elephants won't go hungry.

Ha!ha! That's funny ! Partly related topic to elephants, you have a curious-looking avatar, disorderly. Are those gorillas?

disorderly · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2009, 13:37 »

Quote from: Perseus on May 11, 2009, 13:30

Ha!ha! That's funny ! Partly related topic to elephants, you have a curious-looking avatar, disorderly. Are those gorillas?

Gorillas? I think I've been insulted! No, that's a self-portrait. I was on a ski lift coming down from one of the Andes Mountains near Bariloche, Argentina when I saw my shadow in the lupins growing on the mountainside. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to capture the moment.

Milinz · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2009, 15:52 »

Yup... That is what I really don't understand about iStock illustrator application indeed... It is to wait 6 months after they reject your images 6th time ;-)

In that 6 months I can produce 600 new MICRO and about 50 New real STOCK images (vectors) as well I am producing 100-150 Model Released STOCK photos which I am still not willing to give for peannuts on micro sites.

BTW, their "don't need" is quite not withstanding policy due to that they really accept (exceptions noticed) lower quality vectors in their image base wich are at least one or two classes lower than ones I create ;-)

So, when they for 6 months turn down already established author with quite quality, diversed and numerous portfolio already accepted on all significant agencies with tens of thousands downloads here and there... There is not more remaining to do than to change flag and go play for other team...

I thought that iStock will give me around 1000-2000 extra downloads monthly for my vectors and that would be enough for me to boost my earnigs for some percentage... But, it seems I must go elsewhere due to iStock don't need minimum of $2000 earned only on my images... I will surely upload all my vectors to CanStockPhoto due to Fotosearch selling them for nice prices... And as I already said trying with Veer... If they show that what I estimate, iStock will be just one of my bad memories...

MichaelJay · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2009, 16:13 »

Quote from: Chris.Alleaume on May 11, 2009, 09:40

I'll bear that in mind - since I don't have access to studios, it's difficult to get those professional images of people, since that's typically what sells the most I guess.

Actually it hardly takes more than a reflector and/or a flash light (that can be triggered off camera) to get pretty useful shots. Not everything has to be shot in studio and with perfect light. Just imagine a couple of friends enjoying a day in a cafe or on the beach. You won't be able to shoot that in a studio. But it's not require to have all people shots. There are quite a few landscapes and business concepts selling pretty well.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2009, 17:16 »

^ exactly Michael....to the OP, if you don't have a good speedlight, get on your tripod and bump down your shutter speed and then do a bit of levels adjustment in PS. you don't need a professional studio. I didn't have a home studio until a year ago. everything I did until then was improvised wherever I happened to be shooting.

it is a bit cheesy, but very applicable....don't take your shots, make your shots. someone said that to me years ago and as cliche as it is, it is true

willie · « **Reply #22 on:** May 11, 2009, 17:26 »

Quote from: disorderly on May 11, 2009, 13:37

Quote from: Perseus on May 11, 2009, 13:30
Ha!ha! That's funny ! Partly related topic to elephants, you have a curious-looking avatar, disorderly. Are those gorillas?

Gorillas? I think I've been insulted! No, that's a self-portrait. I was on a ski lift coming down from one of the Andes Mountains near Bariloche, Argentina when I saw my shadow in the lupins growing on the mountainside. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to capture the moment.

oops sorry , it wasn't meant to be. many years ago, i saw a shot like that in one of those Geographic publications, of gorillas. so i thought it was one of those. it wasn't meant as an insult. but i guess it's difficult to see from this size.

disorderly · « **Reply #23 on:** May 11, 2009, 17:37 »

Quote from: Perseus on May 11, 2009, 17:26

oops sorry , it wasn't meant to be. many years ago, i saw a shot like that in one of those Geographic publications, of gorillas. so i thought it was one of those. it wasn't meant as an insult. but i guess it's difficult to see from this size.

No worries. I wasn't really offended, just amused at the comparison.

digiology · « **Reply #24 on:** May 11, 2009, 22:19 »

Quote from: disorderly on May 11, 2009, 17:37

Quote from: Perseus on May 11, 2009, 17:26
oops sorry , it wasn't meant to be. many years ago, i saw a shot like that in one of those Geographic publications, of gorillas. so i thought it was one of those. it wasn't meant as an insult. but i guess it's difficult to see from this size.

No worries. I wasn't really offended, just amused at the comparison.

Sorry to be off topic... but I always think your avatar is a Sasquatch. Makes me think of this pic:

no offense... just funny what people see

willie · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2009, 22:28 »

Quote from: lclark on May 11, 2009, 22:19

Quote from: disorderly on May 11, 2009, 17:37
Quote from: Perseus on May 11, 2009, 17:26
oops sorry , it wasn't meant to be. many years ago, i saw a shot like that in one of those Geographic publications, of gorillas. so i thought it was one of those. it wasn't meant as an insult. but i guess it's difficult to see from this size.

No worries. I wasn't really offended, just amused at the comparison.

Sorry to be off topic... but I always think your avatar is a Sasquatch. Makes me think of this pic:

no offense... just funny what people see

wow lori, great minds think alike. that's the image i was referring to. wow, been like doggone years that i saw it. thx for putting it here.

Noodles · « **Reply #26 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:00 »

Quote from: karensuki on May 11, 2009, 09:34

Quote from: Milinz on May 11, 2009, 07:25
Dude, You're not only one... Me too have problems with their illustrator application - I got 6 rejects up to day despite they've approved me as video and photo contributor in my first application!

I'm in the same boat... This is the 3rd time that I was rejected for my illustrations. All I get is a "not what we are interested in at this time" message. So I get to wait 14 more days and hit them again. It is discouraging that this is happening, but the good thing is that shutterstock has accepted nearly every illustration that I have produced.

It just lets me know that my stuff isn't all bad. I plan on hitting iStock again and again until they get tired of hearing from me...

The standard is quite high now - anyone can get illustrations accepted on SS - suggest if you try again to find a subject not covered much - doesn't have to be complex but if its unique you will do better.

bittersweet · « **Reply #27 on:** May 12, 2009, 06:29 »

Quote from: Noodles on May 12, 2009, 03:00

The standard is quite high now - anyone can get illustrations accepted on SS - suggest if you try again to find a subject not covered much - doesn't have to be complex but if its unique you will do better.

I second this advice. A common misconception seems to be that if you upload something similar to what's on the best seller list, you're sure to get through. At iStock, it's exactly the opposite. They have plenty of that stuff, so you need to show them you have the potential to add something of value to the collection that they do not already have oodles of. Impress them with your drawing skills, unique perspective, and/or interesting subject matter, in addition to adherence to their strict technical standards, and you will get accepted.

Then, and only then, can you begin to upload those dime a dozen hot sellers, if you are so inclined.

Good luck!!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2009, 06:33 »

Quote from: disorderly on May 11, 2009, 12:12

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 10:32
That's sort of a weird gauge of success. Learning to produce what sells for peanuts doesn't seem very sensible.

Depends on how many peanuts, doesn't it? Collect enough peanuts and even elephants won't go hungry.

Maybe, but the poster was inferring that the "total" was peanuts. Not the "per sale", if that makes any sense.

willie · « **Reply #29 on:** May 12, 2009, 07:28 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 12, 2009, 06:29

Quote from: Noodles on May 12, 2009, 03:00
The standard is quite high now - anyone can get illustrations accepted on SS - suggest if you try again to find a subject not covered much - doesn't have to be complex but if its unique you will do better.

I second this advice. A common misconception seems to be that if you upload something similar to what's on the best seller list, you're sure to get through. At iStock, it's exactly the opposite. They have plenty of that stuff, so you need to show them you have the potential to add something of value to the collection that they do not already have oodles of. Impress them with your drawing skills, unique perspective, and/or interesting subject matter, in addition to adherence to their strict technical standards, and you will get accepted.

Then, and only then, can you begin to upload those dime a dozen hot sellers, if you are so inclined.

Good luck!!

good point Noodles. whatalife too .
and then after you submit your unique idea, others copy you and then eventually your ideas become
one of those that create the rejection notice, "sorry, we already of too many of this".

it's a viscious circle isn't it?

bittersweet · « **Reply #30 on:** May 12, 2009, 07:32 »

Quote from: Perseus on May 12, 2009, 07:28

and then after you submit your unique idea, others copy you and then eventually your ideas become
one of those that create the rejection notice, "sorry, we already of too many of this".

it's a viscious circle isn't it?

Yep, so some don't bother to try at all, and that's okay too.

Milinz · « **Reply #31 on:** May 12, 2009, 07:48 »

I did sent them links to my portfolios on all other agencies where they may choose what they need in over 700 vectors - but they are strict in accepting Getty collections without review and refusing other authors due to they think this or that ;-)

I doubt that I will do it under their rules and their standards due to that my portfolio would be crippled badly on iStock under that rules... And if it is so crippled, for me there is no point in selling images for under $10 single download... So, I would opt-out from subscriptions too... Subscriptions are meant for volume sales from volume image base where authors have volume to offer... In this case they offer just a part of my volume and that is wrong policy in my eyes.

Nevertheless, I have over 85% acceptance rate combined vector and photo submissions on ALL OTHER agencies including DT, SS, StockXpert, 123RF, BigStock, FP...
I have 100% ratio on Fotosearch from time when I was uploading via Unlistedimages Inc and they've streamed my portfolio in full to CanStockPhoto which also was accepted 100%...

So I have got the same threatmant from Fotosearch as iStock threats Getty images collections. What further to say?

I find it quite unfair that besides I have plenty of original artworks iStock doesn't need them ;-)

So more they are strict in their wrong policing, I am more determined to let them do it without my presence there. It is simple because of that there is quality, quanitity and many original works in my vectors.

bittersweet · « **Reply #32 on:** May 12, 2009, 08:22 »

Quote from: Milinz on May 12, 2009, 07:48

I did sent them links to my portfolios on all other agencies where they may choose what they need in over 700 vectors -

This was your first mistake. They have never, and hopefully will never, make decisions based on what everyone else is doing.

Quote from: Milinz on May 12, 2009, 07:48

So more they are strict in their wrong policing, I am more determined to let them do it without my presence there. It is simple because of that there is quality, quanitity and many original works in my vectors.

The cool thing is if it's not worth it to you, you don't have to participate. They might just get along without you anyway. Everyone's happy.

Milinz · « **Reply #33 on:** May 12, 2009, 08:49 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 12, 2009, 08:22

Quote from: Milinz on May 12, 2009, 07:48
I did sent them links to my portfolios on all other agencies where they may choose what they need in over 700 vectors -

This was your first mistake. They have never, and hopefully will never, make decisions based on what everyone else is doing.

Quote from: Milinz on May 12, 2009, 07:48
So more they are strict in their wrong policing, I am more determined to let them do it without my presence there. It is simple because of that there is quality, quanitity and many original works in my vectors.

The cool thing is if it's not worth it to you, you don't have to participate. They might just get along without you anyway. Everyone's happy.

As I saw it is quite not understood what I wrote. They automatically accepted Getty's Hulton archives as CanStockPhoto automatically accepted my images from Unlisted Images Inc. for Fotosearch.

So they are not the way you said!

It is that they have MASTER (Getty) who can override their decisions... And they continue to police authors with something what can't stand as policy anymore... Just wait and you'll see!

bittersweet · « **Reply #34 on:** May 12, 2009, 09:57 »

Sorry, but the Hulton archive has nothing to do with vector illustration at istock.

There was a long thread about that when those files were migrated, but they are scans and don't really have anything to do with the vector application process.

(But you are right that I didn't/don't fully understand what you were trying to say about their wrong policing.)

Milinz · « **Reply #35 on:** May 12, 2009, 15:10 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 12, 2009, 09:57

Sorry, but the Hulton archive has nothing to do with vector illustration at istock.

There was a long thread about that when those files were migrated, but they are scans and don't really have anything to do with the vector application process.

(But you are right that I didn't/don't fully understand what you were trying to say about their wrong policing.)

Did you saw any of my vectors used? You probably did but wasn't aware it was mine ;-)

So, there is issue. They look at me as I am some newbie who doesn't know what is stock illustration as well as the one who doesn't know how to draw.
I have education in arts where I've learned to draw, model and so on. So, before I started to draw vectors I already had some expirience and education in arts and how to draw or model anything on any material used for artistic expression using only hands and real artistic tools. I can model clay also or make bronze statue and so on ;-)
So, point here is that they reject me with 'we don't need' reasons with not even taking care about what I showed to them or even peeking in my portfolios which they saw I am sure! I am kind of insulted with stance of that reviewers who 'don't need' someone who knows how to draw and that to be executed chosen style in advance... My works completion time is from 5 minutes and up to 5 hours on computer. At least it is much faster than painting in oil where one layer must be waited to get dry for even 6 months! Photo realism vector is something I do for days but it is not microstock ;-)

And they still don't need my vectors?

LOL!

Noodles · « **Reply #36 on:** May 12, 2009, 18:56 »

Quote from: Milinz on May 12, 2009, 15:10

Did you saw any of my vectors used? You probably did but wasn't aware it was mine ;-)

I have seen your SS portfolio and it is FULL of vector concepts you have copied. I even remember in a forum discussion how you proudly declared this fact and wrongly accused others of doing the same.

IS is looking for originality not copy cats.

Milinz · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2009, 04:02 »

Quote from: Noodles on May 12, 2009, 18:56

Quote from: Milinz on May 12, 2009, 15:10

Did you saw any of my vectors used? You probably did but wasn't aware it was mine ;-)

I have seen your SS portfolio and it is FULL of vector concepts you have copied. I even remember in a forum discussion how you proudly declared this fact and wrongly accused others of doing the same.

IS is looking for originality not copy cats.

Original on micro? Come on dude - You must be quite OUT OF FOCUS if you think you will find original concepts on microstock. There are much more copiers than you even can imagine... All are copying others - it is just nature of business...

If we talk about copiers, Yuri has much to say about them due he is most copied author I know about. There are Andersr and others too whos works are used as inspiration for others.

BTW, Only about 10% of my images are inspired by works of other authors and NOT ANY of them can be called as infringement or copy!

IF iStock is looking for originality why then some their authors copy-cat my own original concepts? I dont mind that - that is natural to do due to some people like others people ideas! And, fortunately idea or concept in visual arts can't be Copyrighted!

BTW, iStock is full of obvious examples of copies and copiers as every other place!

Were you talking about this?

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=905003&highlight=dandelion#905003

At least I admited that I used other mans idea as inspiration... And a bit more reading along in that thread you will find someone "copies" my original image - or should I say, I found an fan of my work ;-)

And, have you some more arguments to acuse me on copying someone?

designalldone · « **Reply #38 on:** May 13, 2009, 04:23 »

Milinz, could you post a link to your portfolio? Considering you've said you have 700 - 800 illustrations, I find it hard to believe iStock can't find 3 worthy of passing their inspection

Milinz · « **Reply #39 on:** May 13, 2009, 04:27 »

Quote from: designalldone on May 13, 2009, 04:23

Milinz, could you post a link to your portfolio? Considering you've said you have 700 - 800 illustrations, I find it hard to believe iStock can't find 3 worthy of passing their inspection

You can use link I gave in my previous message with my version of image of dandelions I was inspired with. Also, click just on camera near my nickname and voila - there is almost all what is online on all significant agencies!

Noodles · « **Reply #40 on:** May 13, 2009, 20:43 »

Quote from: Milinz on May 13, 2009, 04:02

Quote from: Noodles on May 12, 2009, 18:56
Quote from: Milinz on May 12, 2009, 15:10

Did you saw any of my vectors used? You probably did but wasn't aware it was mine ;-)

I have seen your SS portfolio and it is FULL of vector concepts you have copied. I even remember in a forum discussion how you proudly declared this fact and wrongly accused others of doing the same.

IS is looking for originality not copy cats.

Original on micro? Come on dude - You must be quite OUT OF FOCUS if you think you will find original concepts on microstock. There are much more copiers than you even can imagine... All are copying others - it is just nature of business...

If we talk about copiers, Yuri has much to say about them due he is most copied author I know about. There are Andersr and others too whos works are used as inspiration for others.

BTW, Only about 10% of my images are inspired by works of other authors and NOT ANY of them can be called as infringement or copy!

IF iStock is looking for originality why then some their authors copy-cat my own original concepts? I dont mind that - that is natural to do due to some people like others people ideas! And, fortunately idea or concept in visual arts can't be Copyrighted!

BTW, iStock is full of obvious examples of copies and copiers as every other place!

Were you talking about this?

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=905003&highlight=dandelion#905003

At least I admited that I used other mans idea as inspiration... And a bit more reading along in that thread you will find someone "copies" my original image - or should I say, I found an fan of my work ;-)

And, have you some more arguments to acuse me on copying someone?

So lets get this straight. You say its okay to copy concepts as long as I don't accuse you of it but you admit to doing it anyway... umm!

And then you state how wonderful your illustration work is but IS rejected you 6 times and you don't understand why.

Go figure!

Milinz · « **Reply #41 on:** May 14, 2009, 05:54 »

Really Noodles?

1 image acceped in 6 tries with 'we don't need' is your clarification of their policy? No, they are just having someone there who thinks that he knows hes/her job and keeps his/her nose very high - that is all... It is subjective problem I have with my application as illustrator on iStock and also I don't follow the rules other people keeping their noses up-high are making. Also, I know there are at least hundreds of real copy-cat authors on iStock and their images really don't sell well... I can give them complete lists of relly close copies of other peoples works... Some of them are using old classical images for their 'original' images. Market knows who is copier and who is making some concepts look even better than originals... That is the point!

YES IT IS OK TO COPY OTHER CONCEPTS! If isn't so there would be only one stock agency selling stock images. That is concept too. Also there would be only one camera manufacturer due to camera manufacturing is concept too. And there would be only one Car manufacturer due car manufacturing is concept too ;-)

So, how many authors on iStock are submitting buttons or icons... They all copy concept from each other. How many authors there have lightbulbs? How many images of dandelion are there? How many of anythig is there anyway?
Can you find more than 100 people there who really have original artworks and styles?

All images over white are also concept copies.
Food images are concept copies too. As well as all images that can be categorized under some category... That all images are concept and are copies by your own understanding.
Celebrity candids (popular editorials) are also copies of concept.

So you don't like COMPETITION? You'd more like to have one smiley image for all than hundreds of them?
Come on dude, grow up, GET FOCUSED at once and go learn something useful!

Don't forget FACTS: I have finished art school, I am quite productive and I have photographic memory. So, I am able to draw anything with just once seeing it and with any known artistic style in execution! You say I am superior compared to you - Well, it may be so!

There are hundreds of companies worldwide for which I've made logos or complete visual business identities... Agencies will work with me despite your imaginative theory about originality opposing to market values in variety of concepts.

But, why . am I loosing time here at all with trying to explain that milk is white to someone who says that milk is black and don't hear what I am telling?

It is because you have problem with your focus dude and I just tried to explain it to you! But, as it seems you'll need to ask for profesional help about it!

[EDIT] If they've rejecting me because of something called copy-cat they could easilly state that... But, I always sent them original works based on my own ideas - not any copy-cat work because that is what to do from time when you are in as all others!

Noodles · « **Reply #42 on:** May 14, 2009, 06:26 »

Have some pride man!

Milinz · « **Reply #43 on:** May 14, 2009, 06:50 »

Quote from: Noodles on May 14, 2009, 06:26

Have some pride man!

LOL you got them ha?

See this two:

It appears to me that exclusive from iStock has 'copied' my images at first ;-)

About that boats... It is old image used for conceptual versions... It is just simplified Van Gogh style, but Who cares?

But it isn't copy... You may look a bit through iStock forum and find thread about what is conceptual copy and difference between copy-cat and pure copy. Yes they are conceptual versions... But, not copies.

BTW, I am now working on that way to make copy-cats of my own artworks ;-) So, if I am You, I'd probably sue myself for 'breaking morality standards'. And I'd take some sedative before looking in milinz's portfolio due to these series will get ALOT more images in just few days...

LOL!

P.S. Thanks for free advertising of my conceptual vectors ;-)

MichaelJay · « **Reply #44 on:** May 14, 2009, 07:26 »

Quote from: Milinz on May 14, 2009, 05:54

Don't forget FACTS: I have finished art school, I am quite productive and I have photographic memory. So, I am able to draw anything with just once seeing it and with any known artistic style in execution! You say I am superior compared to you - Well, it may be so!

Ok, I think no need to explain more. You are a great artist and a great person, and it's a loss to all agencies who don't invite you personally to enrich their libraries. I already feel sorry for all agencies who didn't understand this. I am sure market will prove them wrong.

runamock · « **Reply #45 on:** May 14, 2009, 07:39 »

Milinz chill! Too much information...just try and give iStock what they are asking for. They aren't going to be too interested in your education.

Milinz · « **Reply #46 on:** May 14, 2009, 07:43 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on May 14, 2009, 07:26

Quote from: Milinz on May 14, 2009, 05:54
Don't forget FACTS: I have finished art school, I am quite productive and I have photographic memory. So, I am able to draw anything with just once seeing it and with any known artistic style in execution! You say I am superior compared to you - Well, it may be so!

Ok, I think no need to explain more. You are a great artist and a great person, and it's a loss to all agencies who don't invite you personally to enrich their libraries. I already feel sorry for all agencies who didn't understand this. I am sure market will prove them wrong.

Sorry but, it is obvious... Isn't it?
My spiral coil tree sold many hundred times across agencies until exclusive from iStock has uploaded his version(s)... Logical response now is to flood all agencies with that kind of conceptual images due iStock don't need my images and I can't have fair threatmant as author on iStock due to things stands that way... It is just simple as that... And yes - I can stand next to any of iStock rewiewers with easel or wacom tablet and draw anything at least the same quality as they can draw it... As well as if I am not accepted in iStock, I am free to draw all iStock concepts from exclusives if I want! How else can someone compete in unfair environment?

So What else to say except I am awaiting final response from scout about this 'application review' matter while making hundred and more new ones every month!

Milinz · « **Reply #47 on:** May 14, 2009, 07:49 »

Quote from: runamock on May 14, 2009, 07:39

Milinz chill! Too much information...just try and give iStock what they are asking for. They aren't going to be too interested in your education.

Yup - you're right!

I should shut up and look how some noodles takes his freedom to acuse me on copying copies of my own images.... Very interesting point is to stay calm on that kind of provocations!

LOL!

See this users at shutterstock:

1. CLICK_HERE

2. CLICK_HERE_AND_SEE_MORE

I thought it will be nice fun to look as stress management for noodles....

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 5 Applications and still no luck! (Read 16864 times)

Milinz

stacey_newman

tan510jomast

Milinz

stacey_newman

digiology

Noodles

bittersweet

bittersweet

Milinz

bittersweet

Milinz

bittersweet

Milinz

Noodles

Milinz

Milinz

Noodles

Milinz

Noodles

Milinz

Milinz

Milinz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors