MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: a rant  (Read 15436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jim_h

« on: February 26, 2009, 12:22 »
0
I'm new.

A month ago I was accepted by IStockphoto - no problem, first attempt.  I submitted a few photos and they rejected about 80%, many for "artifacts" that I can't see, some for other goofy reasons.  They even rejected photos that got me approved in the first place (yes, I know they can do that, but then what does nitial approval really mean?).  Keywording takes forever, reviews took up to 9 days.  I appealed on 2 of the photos, politely asking for clarification, and never got any response.  The images that were accepted got a couple of views, then went dead.

Meanwhile I'm off and running with Shutterstock,  no problems. They accept my images, I get a few sales.

Ok, I've walked away from IStockphoto. But would someone please enlighten me - what is the deal with these guys anyway? Do they just like to mess with people's heads, do they not want any more non-exclusives, or are they just seriously disorganized?

I keep reading that IStockphoto is the place to be, but it seems like a complete waste of effort to me.


KB

« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2009, 12:34 »
0
The application review is much more about whether you have the artistic and photographic skills needed to create stockworthy images, and much less about the technical aspects. It is very common for images "accepted" in the initial application to be rejected for technical reasons when re-submitted later.

It's a bit of a learning process, but overall iStock "inspectors" are the most consistent of any micro, IMO. That doesn't mean I don't get rejections I disagree with. But more often than not (and certainly more often than at any other agency I submit to) I do understand the reason.

Except during my first 3 months on SS, IS has been my #1 earner each month, typically accounting for about 1/3 of my income. It's worth it, in my experience, to become familiar with what the inspectors are looking for, and correct accordingly.

Spend some time reading the IS "Critique" forum. Many of the posters are quite helpful, though a few seem too eager to tear down others rather than offer genuinely helpful advice. If you have a rejection you don't understand, create a thread and ask. You might get some helpful answers.

e-person

« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2009, 12:38 »
0
IS takes six months to start selling your images.
That was what I have been told and that is my experience.
I get a bit more than 60% approval there.
They are my best agency, this month. SS is also very good.

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2009, 13:00 »
0
one of the reasons I chose iStock initially is because of their strict acceptance rules. I would argue that they maintain the best db of images in the business. it is hard to get in, but imagine how good it will feel when you do get in.

it doesn't matter that you are accepted elsewhere, I believe iStock is still the most difficult to get in with. to me that makes them worth the effort.

jim_h

« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2009, 13:08 »
0
The biggest problem for me is that I didn't understand the rejections, and got no reply to the appeals.   Some of the "artifact" rejections were images that are as good as I can produce - ISO 200, minimal noise reduction and sharpening, highest JPG quality.  They look perfect to me at 100% and are making sales on other sites.   

Apparently they have acceptance criteria which they're unable or unwilling to explain, and are happy to let photographers spend their own time trying to deduce what they are    Seeing absolutely no views on my images as weeks go by tells me that even what I got approved is not what their buyers want. 







yecatsdoherty

« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2009, 13:13 »
0
OR perhaps the images are not the level of quality you think they are. I don't mean that to be rude, but you have to take a more realistic view of the rejections. first of all, the initial acceptance is the toughest.

secondly, there is obviously something you are missing. can you post 100% images on a website and let us look at them? maybe we can help.

« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2009, 13:26 »
0
OR perhaps the images are not the level of quality you think they are. I don't mean that to be rude, but you have to take a more realistic view of the rejections. first of all, the initial acceptance is the toughest.

secondly, there is obviously something you are missing. can you post 100% images on a website and let us look at them? maybe we can help.

typical snotty exclusive remark.  exclusives get preferential treatment and EVERYONE here knows it.  Artifacts are a way for the reviewers to control content by non-exclusives, even though I've never heard of an exclusive have that problem with reviews.  On the other hand, non-exclusives get the shaft and I've seen very poor exclusive shots accepted and very good, stock-worthy shots of my own rejected because they were in an arena and taken at ISO 800 (hard to take action shots with a slow shutter speed).  Yet the ones that have been accepted sell really well. 

If you aren't exclusive, you have to deal with it and keep uploading.  If you are, well, you don't see any of that bull.  Its most likely not the photographer, but the way the system is designed in this case

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2009, 13:36 »
0
Ichiro, that hasn't been my experience. My acceptance rate stayed the same before and after being exclusive. It only improved when I improved my equipment, shooting techniques, and processing skills.

« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2009, 13:38 »
0
typical snotty exclusive remark. 

Not really.  However, nice try at inciting yet another exclusive/independent flame way.

I find that most people who post about their terrible rejection rate end up posting proof of why their rate is where it should be.  I'm not saying that's the case here, and I certainly don't find it necessary to convince the OP of submitting anywhere, but crying "unjustified rejection" ends up that way 95% of the time.

jim_h

« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2009, 13:39 »
0
yecatsdoherty, the images were some of my favorites and I'm not comfortable with posting a 100% on the web, someone might snag it. May do so at some point.



lisafx

« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2009, 13:39 »
0

It's a bit of a learning process, but overall iStock "inspectors" are the most consistent of any micro, IMO. That doesn't mean I don't get rejections I disagree with. But more often than not (and certainly more often than at any other agency I submit to) I do understand the reason.


You know, I used to feel this way about istock too and posted similar comments in the forums many times.  But the last several months have been a true revelation to me.  

I've been submitting there for over 4 years and have always maintained above a 90% approval rating.  I'm diamond there, so presumably I know what I am doing and what they accept, right?  

But the last couple of months I have had 50% or more of almost every batch I submit rejected, although these same images are accepted overwhelmingly at other sites.  And the rejections are things like "isolation too feathered or rough", or "artifacts".  Sorry, but I can't believe that after four years I suddenly have forgotten how to do isolation or what artifacts look like.  

Between the shrinking upload limits and wholesale rejections it is becoming pretty clear they are not interested in non-exclusive content.  

« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2009, 13:42 »
0
yecatsdoherty, the images were some of my favorites and I'm not comfortable with posting a 100% on the web, someone might snag it. May do so at some point.

Of course not.

Look, put a big X over the middle and post them if you want some feedback.

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2009, 14:14 »
0
I am still a snotty exclusive for a few weeks....but then I won't be. so clearly I believe what I am telling you. no inspector on iStock is out to screw anyone. that assertion is paranoid and ridiculous (not to the OP, I know you didn't say this).

I can't offer any insights from a on-exclusive perspective. but my exclusive acceptance rate fluctuates between 70 and 80%, which means a whole lot of stuff is still rejected. do you know what being rejected on iStock has done for me? it has made me a whole lot better as a photoographer.

to the OP. it is your journey and your career. read around, and decide whatever works best for you. but you should post your images. your reluctance to post them is fairly typical I'm afraid. and it usually means someone doesn't want to accept critiqueing. if this is the case, chances are you are not improving your work the way you should be anyways.

free critiqueing, when constructive, is the best thing you have available to you. take advantage of it and try to listen to those of us who are genuinely trying to help you.

there have been tons of rejections on iStock for exclusives and non-exclusives alike lately. perhaps they have adopted stricter guidelines. not a bad thing ultimately. and again the initial inspection is tougher than a regular inspection.

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2009, 14:25 »
0
Stacey, I can testify you are definitely not snotty, whether exclusive or non :)

I do understand the OP's reluctance to post his images though.  With all the copying in this industry, if he has a remotely original concept it is better to keep it to himself.  Otherwise for every person offering guidance there will be three running off to shoot it themselves ;)

« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2009, 14:36 »
0

typical snotty exclusive remark.  exclusives get preferential treatment and EVERYONE here knows it.  Artifacts are a way for the reviewers to control content by non-exclusives, even though I've never heard of an exclusive have that problem with reviews.  On the other hand, non-exclusives get the shaft and I've seen very poor exclusive shots accepted and very good, stock-worthy shots of my own rejected because they were in an arena and taken at ISO 800 (hard to take action shots with a slow shutter speed).  Yet the ones that have been accepted sell really well. 

If you aren't exclusive, you have to deal with it and keep uploading.  If you are, well, you don't see any of that bull.  Its most likely not the photographer, but the way the system is designed in this case

I am a non-exclusive and in the last few months I have been getting over 80% approval. I get 100% in all the others (except Crestock), however I don't mind about Istock rejection rate as it is the only micro-agency left where I can still be allowed to learn something. It just push me harder to do better and I see nothing wrong with that.  On the other side of the spectrum, Crestock will refuse 90-100% of your images but I don't thing anyone will learn anything with their type of rejections.

In addition Istock is my number 1 earner at the moment. I don't buy this exclusive preferential treatment as many exclusive earnings have been dropping in the last few months while mine has been increasing.

Denis

« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2009, 14:38 »
0
To the OP, I only have 20% of my port on IS and still it is my #2 earner.  I no longer send them much, just shots that needed little editing (they especially hate noise reduction).  My approval rate is slowly going up, but it was 50% for a long time.   Why put up with the rejections?  IS is the only micro that you can earn a payout each month from one or two popular photos.  Sure, a lot of (many) photos sink as soon as they are accepted, but once you get a few popular files, you can really see good times at IS.  

alias

« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2009, 14:44 »
0
But the last couple of months I have had 50% or more of almost every batch I submit rejected, although these same images are accepted overwhelmingly at other sites.  And the rejections are things like "isolation too feathered or rough", or "artifacts".  Sorry, but I can't believe that after four years I suddenly have forgotten how to do isolation or what artifacts look like.

Could there be another reason for your sudden rejections? Has something changed in your workflow? A new computer perhaps or a different monitor?

Could it be something so simple as your black and/or white points are not set correctly and that you are therefore not seeing the artifacts or other problems.

« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2009, 14:49 »
0
I don't know stacey personally, I'm sure she's a nice person.  I just thought the response was a bit snotty.

There is plenty of room for non-exclusives and exclusives.  My dad is going exclusive as soon as he can because he doesn't want to waste time uploading to other sites.  I don't blame him.  I like the idea, but I'm not going to lose my other sites.  iS only makes up 35% monthly, so I will not make it up.  But for him, its easy and he's not submitting anywhere else that way he just goes right into exclusivity.  I just think there are huge double-standards in some areas.  I've already posted about this before, so its not new.

jim_h

« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2009, 14:53 »
0
pixart, I see your point and I think noise reduction might be what they didn't like in some of my photos. This to my mind is not exactly an "artifact" like those produced by compression and sharpening.  Now, exactly who is printing these stock photos as wall-size murals? That's another question  :)  but IStockphoto is free to reject whatever they want. It's their game.

My real beefs with IStockphoto are:

1.  The photos that get you initial acceptance may not actually meet the submission criteria. Absolutely ridiculous.
2.  No response to appeals.  Can't be bothered?
3.  Mis-use of the term "artifact" as a catch-all rejection reason.

I think I'll try IStockphoto again, in the future. Right now it just doesn't make sense for me.  I would rather spend the time taking more photos for sites that want them, rather hammering on Istockphoto for future sales that might never happen.



« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2009, 14:56 »
0
I started uploading last year so establishing any portfolio on IS is virtually impossible. After half a year of trying I gave up and focused on other sites. IS got 1 upload a month, too much hassle with their workflow. I wish I could send them DVD and forget :-)

« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2009, 15:12 »
0
I started uploading last year so establishing any portfolio on IS is virtually impossible. After half a year of trying I gave up and focused on other sites.


I guess you don't mean that it is virtually impossible for everybody?

Denis
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 15:14 by cybernesco »

« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2009, 15:31 »
0
I guess you don't mean that it is virtually impossible for everybody?

There are few things which might be considered:
1. I am not professional
2. I do not have very "stockish" photographs, I do mostly landscapes and occasionally I take pictures of my family. I guess it's easier for commercial photographers to get in especially when they got access to studio equipment. Still I sold couple thousand photographs on other sites. If IS does not want to sell them they got right to do that.
3. I almost do not perform any post processing. Try to shoot at ISO 100 and maybe sometimes do some corrections of exposure. I only use Lightroom  for editing so there is no way to make isolations and any more complicated image manipulations.

« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2009, 15:45 »
0
I guess you don't mean that it is virtually impossible for everybody?

There are few things which might be considered:
1. I am not professional
2. I do not have very "stockish" photographs, I do mostly landscapes and occasionally I take pictures of my family. I guess it's easier for commercial photographers to get in especially when they got access to studio equipment. Still I sold couple thousand photographs on other sites. If IS does not want to sell them they got right to do that.
3. I almost do not perform any post processing. Try to shoot at ISO 100 and maybe sometimes do some corrections of exposure. I only use Lightroom  for editing so there is no way to make isolations and any more complicated image manipulations.


Thank you for sharing this, I like to hear other perpective beside the "stockish" photographs. Now I do understand your side.  I hope you continue to do well with the other sites. Denis

Milinz

« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2009, 16:17 »
0
My approval rate at iStock is around 40%... Quite low one...

The exclusive members is more than obvious due to that some isolated images I got rejected, I've compared to some exclusives there... The same thing - the same 'errors' - my images rejected, and their accepted. Also, I noticed that iStock reviewers love straight from camera images with just noise removed... It seems they look at IPTC DATA and if that what they see is not what is writen into IPTC - you have 'different from original' rejections... I do stock and stock should be different than original if looks better that way... So, on other places I have mainly 80-90% acceptance and that is it...

I really did not liked my recent rejection of one CG animation where they've asked for model release... I've used some released model image for basic of that animation and did quite a lot of processing into some mirrors and other filters to have model unrecognizable in that way no one would tell that is a human used as basic image... They've rejected that CG loop due to 'different from original'...

I really wish to feel how is to sell vectors on iStock and that I am workin on last month - I am preparing two more files for appliance No#6 due to that they've rejected my works 5 times until now and accepted just one image so far...
 

« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2009, 16:18 »
0
I guess you don't mean that it is virtually impossible for everybody?

There are few things which might be considered:
1. I am not professional
2. I do not have very "stockish" photographs, I do mostly landscapes and occasionally I take pictures of my family. I guess it's easier for commercial photographers to get in especially when they got access to studio equipment. Still I sold couple thousand photographs on other sites. If IS does not want to sell them they got right to do that.
3. I almost do not perform any post processing. Try to shoot at ISO 100 and maybe sometimes do some corrections of exposure. I only use Lightroom  for editing so there is no way to make isolations and any more complicated image manipulations.

The above basically applies to me, except I don't use Lightroom. I prefer nature, animals, plants, etc. I have done isolations, but not using any special equipment. I have a 75% acceptance rate (and when I went exclusive it went down a little), so if I had actually put some effort in and uploaded a lot I could have easily built a large portfolio.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2622 Views
Last post October 31, 2008, 15:56
by mantonino
12 Replies
4539 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 16:36
by madelaide
22 Replies
6254 Views
Last post May 12, 2011, 17:24
by heywoody
24 Replies
7358 Views
Last post February 12, 2012, 13:09
by CarolinaSmith
8 Replies
3860 Views
Last post December 16, 2023, 05:45
by Jasper965

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors