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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.  

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Quote from: cybernesco on February 26, 2009, 15:12

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

Quote from: cybernesco on February 26, 2009, 15:12

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.

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.

Same computer, same (calibrated monthly) monitor.  Only difference in workflow is I got a 5D II which takes better images than my 5D I.  But even that isn't the likely culprit because I am still tweaking and uploading images from both cameras and getting random rejections on both. 

Not to mention that if I had a workflow issue I would not be getting 95%+ acceptances on other sites. In a year I have never had any rejections from Crestock out of 4300+ images submitted, and I have had 100% acceptance at DT for the last three months out of several hundred submissions. 

Nope, this is definitely istock's issue and I have given up looking for a logical answer.  Just keep taking images and uploading to the sites that will take them and watch the downloads roll in.  I am happy to make money for those sites that want my work...

I can't think of a logical reason why the 3 photos submitted for initial approval should not be passed through the normal review process.  The fact that IStockphoto documents this weirdness  means their butts are covered if you fail to notice it. I feel so much better knowing that.

It is a system that admits in people with potential, who then are subject to full inspection standards.  If you can't handle that reality, then you're better off not submitting there, like you said.  Just because you don't understand the process (even when told in your acceptance), doesn't mean the process is faulty.

Scout takes more than two weeks.  Sorry, that's the way it is.

I see we still don't have any image examples of these invisible artifacts.

 

Sounds like a plan.  Although one has to wonder if getting your work accepted by a site with low standards is really a goal.

The goal on microstock is to make money. SS made me 8X as much as IS lately, just the opposite of 2006. Follow the money.

I'm just a beginner with a very small number of photos suitable for stock. I'd really like to make some money at this, but first I need to learn. And I can't learn anything from IStock other than that half my photos apparently have "artifacts" which no one else sees.

So... the other sites accept your images without rejection... and iStock rejects it for some reason... and that's why you can't learn from iStock how to improve. Strange way of making your case.

Jim - you posted in here for advice, but you're refuting advice, you won't show us your images and you're suggesting iStock is the problem and not your images. your images are probably very nice, but also probably contain artefacting. if you won't show them, you can't expect much more in the way of suggestions than what you have already been told.

if you believe it is just iStock rejecting you for no reason, then you're not going to grow much as a photographer with that kind of attitude. iStock is known for their tough acceptance standards. I see that as a really positive thing. you've got two choices. blame it on iStock and join the ranks of the jaded believing iStock is missing out on their fabulous images, or step up to the plate and show us how wrong we all are, and keep working towards getting accepted at IS. obviously you care about it or you wouldn't be posting here.

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.

So after reading this thread and re-reading your original post, I'm getting the impression you feel Istock is flawed and you just wanted people to agree with you. Pretty accurate?

Please note that the thread is entitled "a rant".

@PaulieWalnuts,
I don't think everybody around here agrees with him, but yes, I do!
I hope that's good enough to validate his thread. He got me.

@Jim_H,
no, you don't have to show your image! In fact, I would strongly advise you against it.
But even if you decide to post your photo here, and even if it's a truly perfect image, I BET the Istockers will definitely, absolutely, most certainly, find the one, single, out of 10 million, lone pixel, guilty of CA, or artefacts, or perhaps 'halo'-ing, or maybe noise, or something new completely, one not yet invented photographic sin.
Remember that they want to find it, and they will.
Problem is that while frowning upon your lost pixel, the Istockers somehow forget an important factor. Inside their very own portfolios lurk much worse images. Right there, right under their noses.
Cropped heads, blown highlights, skewed WB, noisy skies, out of this world compositions, laughable isolations and spamming-the-hell-out-of-the-customer keywords, to name just a few, are all running freely inside their ports.
How come then such horrors got accepted?
That's because Istock doesn't sell quality.
It sells an image, a chimera, it sells 'exclusivity'.
The exclusive Istock file may well be 10 times worse than yours. Nevertheless, it will get accepted. Much, much easier, and a lot faster.
And that is a fact.
Fooling customers under the spell of a dream, disregarding quality and real needs, IStock sells banality at higher prices.

Wish you all the best,
Anna

Quote from: jim_h on February 26, 2009, 14:53

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.

Well then just do it and quit whining. Crikey  There are more than enough of these threads.

 And 3 pages of it. Now pushing Ignore button.

I should spank myself for even looking at this again.

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.

@PaulieWalnuts,
I don't think everybody around here agrees with him, but yes, I do!
I hope that's good enough to validate his thread. He got me.

@Jim_H,
no, you don't have to show your image! In fact, I would strongly advise you against it.
But even if you decide to post your photo here, and even if it's a truly perfect image, I BET the Istockers will definitely, absolutely, most certainly, find the one, single, out of 10 million, lone pixel, guilty of CA, or artefacts, or perhaps 'halo'-ing, or maybe noise, or something new completely, one not yet invented photographic sin.
Remember that they want to find it, and they will.
Problem is that while frowning upon your lost pixel, the Istockers somehow forget an important factor. Inside their very own portfolios lurk much worse images. Right there, right under their noses.
Cropped heads, blown highlights, skewed WB, noisy skies, out of this world compositions, laughable isolations and spamming-the-hell-out-of-the-customer keywords, to name just a few, are all running freely inside their ports.
How come then such horrors got accepted?
That's because Istock doesn't sell quality.
It sells an image, a chimera, it sells 'exclusivity'.
The exclusive Istock file may well be 10 times worse than yours. Nevertheless, it will get accepted. Much, much easier, and a lot faster.
And that is a fact.
Fooling customers under the spell of a dream, disregarding quality and real needs, IStock sells banality at higher prices.

Wish you all the best,
Anna

That is and old and repeated rant posted many times, and that has been proved wrong many times. I think it comes from personal (an why not, quite logic) frustration at having files rejected. On other sites you can blame other things. At istock, having a strong exclusivity program it's easier and better for one's ego to blame it to "non-exclusivity discrimination". I'm exclusive and I've had many files rejected for artifacts and other motives. As everybody. The true fact is that IS is harder on artifacts than any other site.

And for what's the oroginal OP issue... It's absolutely true that without seeing his rejected work, there's nothing we can do to help, advise or put the blame on the pic or on a flawed inspection. Witout seeing it it'ls like discussing angel's sex.

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 ...

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.

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...

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