Author Topic: 5 Applications and still no luck! (Read 18019 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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 5 Applications and still no luck! (Read 18019 times)

RaFaLe

null

crazychristina

Milinz

RaFaLe

MichaelJay

gostwyck

karensuki

RaFaLe

RaFaLe

RaFaLe

stockastic

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

stacey_newman

tan510jomast

disorderly

willie

disorderly

Milinz

MichaelJay

stacey_newman

willie

disorderly

digiology

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors