Author Topic: a rant (Read 17961 times)

michealo · « **Reply #50 on:** February 27, 2009, 09:22 »

I think IS inspectors are excellent.

And that was as both a non exclusive and as an exclusive.

I have no doubt that your images have artifacts, and it is only you that suffers by your general attitude of you know best.

Personally I see every rejection as an opportunity to learn not as a personal insult.

The fact that you haven't posted the images here speaks volumes.

I think you know the problem you just don't want to admit it to yourself ...

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #51 on:** February 27, 2009, 12:10 »

^ I would say all these points are true, but at the same time, don't let the OP wear any crap for what another poster in here is stirring up. I think the OP genuinely wants advice, but perhaps is not ready to admit his images need work.

inspection is not something I would complain about re: iStock. sales right now, for sure, lol. but their inspection process has truly made me so much better as a photographer. this is not an area that I think any other agency can touch iStock.

in doing my exclusivity/non-exclusivity research, I have been reviewing the databases of all the big agencies, there is so much garbage on the other sites, images and illustrations you would never find on iStock.

CraigSwatton · « **Reply #52 on:** February 27, 2009, 17:25 »

Quote from: jim_h on February 26, 2009, 20:36

I understand image processing pretty well. I have a calibrated monitor and use Nikon Capture NX, which incorporates very good noise reduction and sharpening technology. I know what historgram banding looks like, and color noise, and sharpening halos, and compression artifacts, at 100%. From that point on it's subjective, and IStock just sees things their way. Fine then.

istock isn't one person. There isn't someone sitting there who has said "we don't like Jim let's reject all his stuff". There are 100+ inspectors, any of whom could be inspecting any of the images you submit.

If you're getting a lot of rejections that means a lot of trained people with fantastic equipment to spot these things think your photos aren't up to scratch by istock's standards that are applied pretty consistently in my experience. Shouldn't that make you think you need to look inwardly rather than externally and trying to blame to anyone other than yourself for your rejections?

Yes standards are lower elsewhere and it's easier to get images accepted but prices and sales are higher istock because they're proud to offer a higher quality and higher quality QC is a major part of that.

Artifacting can incorporate a lot of things in my experience, sensor spots, compression jaggies, banding... but the critique forum is there for that reason, to help people correct them.

It's hard not to take rejections personally at first, but you shouldn't read the rejection notices as "you suck". If you're willing to put in the extra effort to get images accepted at istock then I personally think it's worth it and there are plenty of people willing to help you too, if you're not then just don't upload to istock.

At the end of the day, it's their game and they can set whatever rules they like but no-one is forcing you to play and it's your choice whether you turn up, play by their rules and reap the rewards or whether you just decide to play elsewhere.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #53 on:** February 27, 2009, 21:17 »

^ really well said Craig. particularly your last paragraph. I've been in a position lately to step back and really listen and learn. thankfully some really really kind and generous veterans of stock have given me tons of invaluable advice, and helped me to realx a bit and see things from another perspective. my sales have not improved (still very nervous about that), but I am looking at things much more optimistically.

additionally, I see these types of complaints for what they seem to be. as you said, it is their game, like it or leave it. iStock is obviously really good at what they do, so learn how to play or step off the ice. (had to use a hockey reference, it is Canada afterall.)

one thing I want to reiterate, at the end of the day I realize how bloody much I have learned thanks to the strict iStock guidelines. photographers coming into iStock can be certain of one thing, once you make the effort to be accepted, you will learn also and you'll see the changes in your work.

Milinz · « **Reply #54 on:** February 28, 2009, 10:06 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on February 27, 2009, 06:58

Quote
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...

Oh God, my heart sinks when I read stuff like this. If you're not a decent illustrator don't bother applying. If you're any good you'll get through first time, if not, don't clog up IS with 3rd rate vectors.

LOL!

I sell over 1000 a month on SS - 3rd rate?

??

By the way - with 18 accepted images on other place I earn more on week basis than with 20 accepted images on iStock in a year!

You should click down links and see if they are or not good enough...

gostwyck · « **Reply #55 on:** February 28, 2009, 10:50 »

Quote from: jim_h on February 26, 2009, 20:36

I understand image processing pretty well.

From that point on it's subjective, and IStock just sees things their way. Fine then.

On your first point maybe but then again maybe not well enough. Without examples it is obviously impossible for us to judge. Speaking personally I've had about 3000 images accepted by IS with a fairly consistent 85%+ acceptance rate. I'm an independent contributor and whilst I have experienced swathes of rejections they always seem to be followed by lots of acceptances such that my acceptance rate remains remarkably the same. Yes, it is something of a subjective process undertaken by 100-odd different humans and therefore you will of course get some inconsistencies. If however you are getting a consistently high rejection rate then it is much more likely IMHO that the issue is on your side.

On your second point, if you want to enjoy the market-leading sales revenue from IS, then you will have to learn to see things their way too.

yecatsdoherty · « **Reply #56 on:** February 28, 2009, 12:31 »

^ wow gostwyck, for the first time ever I completely agree with everything you just said. well put.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: a rant (Read 17961 times)

michealo

yecatsdoherty

CraigSwatton

yecatsdoherty

Milinz

gostwyck

yecatsdoherty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors