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.