pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: And again all rejected by istock  (Read 18037 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 06, 2006, 16:20 »
0
I save my best work for istock because i can only submit 20 a week anyway.
The stuff i send sells like crazy on other sites.
I had to wait 1 1/2 week for my pictures got reviewed
But all of them got rejected by Istock, they really start to piss me off.
From now on i don't think i,m gonna send them any photos anymore only vectors, hope it will get better then.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
#@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[


« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2006, 16:31 »
0
it is very frustrating... i understand completely. This is the reason i've chosen not to be exclusive - that and the fact that some of my photos sell very well on one site and not on another - each seems to draw its own crowd.

« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2006, 16:32 »
0
yeah, it is frustrating.

what were the rejection reasons?

« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2006, 17:41 »
0
All sorts of reasons wayyy to many....

Composition and Impact

The execution of isolation contains stray areas that are either too feathered or rough. (scanned stuff very high resolution and corrected)

We found this file over filtered from its original appearance/quality
etc. etc.

oh well can resubmit a couple in a few weeks  :-[ :-[ :-[

And i just started to make some money there... the upload of 20 a week is just not enough !



« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2006, 17:43 »
0
And i still have about a 1000 files to upload ............hmmmmm how long is that gonna take me.. :-[

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2006, 11:19 »
0
About a decade, at the rate they're reviewing.  I just got some acceptances for stuff uploaded two weeks ago.

That's too long.

And i still have about a 1000 files to upload ............hmmmmm how long is that gonna take me.. :-[

« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2006, 11:28 »
0
Same here.  I think they are trying to weed out non-exclusives.  They seem to only accept the least marketable pics I submit.

« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2006, 18:26 »
0
Well that is the same idear i got, they accepted some tulips  ???

« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2006, 22:06 »
0
Just submitted my first 25 pics. One has been accepted. I'm still waiting for the 24 to be approved/disapproved.

Now, based on your theory, I wonder if I should continue submitting.... Let's see, if my picture is approved, should I be happy or not since it would mean that my picture has low selling potential. Then if its rejected, it would mean that it has the potential to compete with the the exclusives then I should be happy .... Hmmm ... :-\

This is very confusing ... ??? ;D

I hope the theory is wrong, otherwise, they'll be killing themselves. SS is very close behind them in terms of agency sales performance. Not to mention DT which is slowly creeping in.

nruboc

« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2006, 22:59 »
0
Just do what all the other NON-EXCLUSIVES do:

A.) Keep submitting to IStock if you choose since their sales are good at this point in time. Or you can stop submitting to them as I have since their upload process is the BIGGEST pain in the ASS, and their commission is the absolute LOWEST in the industry

B.) Promote all the othe sites with the best commissions, on you website, with your friends, etc. etc. so that one of the other sites take over the sales  lead from IStock over time.

Then we will all benefit. Can you imagine for example if Stock Xpert or Dreamstime had the sales of IStock? You would make more than 2x the amount you are making now since Stock Xpert and Dreamstime pay 50% commission vs a measly 20% from IStock.

It's in all the non-exclusives interest if Istock loses customers to the better paying sites. It will happen over time. It's already starting. I'm gonna love watching it play out

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2006, 23:42 »
0
Not to start an argument or anything, but would you mind telling us what evidence you're basing this claim on?

It's in all the non-exclusives interest if Istock loses customers to the better paying sites. It will happen over time. It's already starting. I'm gonna love watching it play out

nruboc

« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2006, 00:24 »
0
What, "It's already starting" ? That's hardly a statement that needs a factual basis to make. Call it a gut feeling, the performance of my own portfolio, whatever. All I know is ShutterStock, Dreamstime , Fotolia, and Stock Xpert are increasing by leaps and bounds while Istock is remaining constant. Istock is making new ICONS for the forums while other sites are busy attracting new customers. IStock pays the LOWEST, is their any other reason to promote the other sites? IStock has the MOST convoluted upload process - they just redid their whole * site and didn't bother to incorporate a simple FTP upload process. They don't give a sh*t about their contributors paying an insulting 20%. Not trying to be confrontational, but I don't see any reason why a non-exclusive would want IStock to succeed. Please enlighten me if your a non-exclusive

« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2006, 02:35 »
0
We should promote featurepics, they pay 70 percent !!!!

grp_photo

« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2006, 02:42 »
0
We should promote featurepics, they pay 70 percent !!!!
yes and they put a lot of work in their site. Also they give you the tools for easy promoting have a look at their HTML-snippets they even offer you to do some individual designs if you need them.
Its a very well made site with friendly and responsive administration they obvisouly don't have the money for expensive promotion so we should do our best its in our own interest.

« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2006, 03:49 »
0
I keep hearing people say that istock pay less than anywhere else. My commission from them averages out at around 50c per image which is double what shutterstock pay and almost the same as a lot of the other sites.

« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2006, 06:14 »
0
eyckmans:  Are you exclusive?  If so, what is your canister color?  And what do you submit (photos, vectors)?  If photos, do you have images that requires MRs?

iStock does have the lowest royalty for a per image microsite.  They only offer a 20% royalty.  Most other sites offer much more.  FT 33%, DT 50%, StockXpert 50%, FP 70%, etc.

Some people report higher earnings but that is because they either are exclusive, have gorgeous models (which sell quite well), or sell vectors (which sell much better than photos and at a higher price) or some combination.

I don't think that it is fair comparing these sites to SS, since a subscriber on SS has to pay a minimum of $169 for a monthly subscription.  This leads to a different revenue stream, since you will probably end up with a LOT more sales on SS compared to many of the other microsites.  On top of that, SS has now become the #1 paying site for a majority of submitters.

So in summary, IS is currently the "Walmart" of the micros.  Hopefully we can "unionize" and force them to give us a pay increase.

« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2006, 06:41 »
0
I keep hearing people say that istock pay less than anywhere else.  My commission from them averages out at around 50c per image which is double what shutterstock pay and almost the same as a lot of the other sites.

Yeah, I have an allright average earnings per image as well on istock, i think it is almost as high as dreamstime, HOWEVER that still doens't negate the fact that I am ONLY receiving 20%... that is the kicker.  I make $100 per sale on alamy.. but that doesn't mean it is 1000 times more fair than the micros.  I earn 40% or something on alamy.  The low % on Istock is what people are irritated with.

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2006, 09:19 »
0
As you could tell from my other posts, I'm not necessarily a fan of Istock.  They treat non-exclusives poorly and they pay the lowest commission around.  To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of microstock; but, microstock is here to stay, and a good business person doesn't ignore trends.

As to your claims, I dispute them.  Your personal experience with daily income is hardly a basis for making claims about the performance of the company as a whole.  So, you do in fact need to use a "factual basis."  A gut feeling won't feed the cat; only true data will tell you how well a company is performing.  When you can demonstrate that Istock is losing income, photographers, or both, then show me the numbers.  (Good lord.  I'm channeling Gerry Maguire.  And, I don't even like Tom Cruise movies.)

What, "It's already starting" ? That's hardly a statement that needs a factual basis to make. Call it a gut feeling, the performance of my own portfolio, whatever.

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2006, 09:25 »
0
From Alamy, you get 65% of the sale price for normal sales.  For "distribution sales," where a third party sells the images, you get 45%.

I earn 40% or something on alamy.  The low % on Istock is what people are irritated with.

« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2006, 10:28 »
0
From Alamy, you get 65% of the sale price for normal sales. For "distribution sales," where a third party sells the images, you get 45%.

I earn 40% or something on alamy. The low % on Istock is what people are irritated with.

Or they pay 55% if you are not in one of their approved countries and then they charge additional fees to make a payout (no fee free paypal).

amanda1863

« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2006, 21:18 »
0
I'm not trying to start anytihng but seriously...people LOVE to bitch about two things with iStock.  Low Comission & Favoritism to Exclusives.  I won't take the time to debate either of these issues again (but I could) but here is what you have to consider.  1) The low comission rate is what allows iStock to have the HIGHEST marketing budget in the industry and hence the higest traffic.  Undisputedly the highest traffic.  Sorry but it's true.  2) Benefits for exclusives...that's just good business sense.  If you ran the company and you had artists you wanted to claim exclusively, you'd give them perks too.  And that just makes sense as a business.

iStock craeted the microstock industry.  They are on top.  They didn't get there by being stupid.

As far as rejections, we all get rejections we don't agree with.  I hate to shatter any conspiracies, but I am exclusive and still get rejection I don't agree with.  When you are a serious business tryign to build up a library you want to have a direction and a vision fo that library.  iStock has made it clear that they have standards and a cohesive vison for their library.  If they don;t accept your images it's not [personal...it's not because you aren't exclusive, it's because that image doesn't fit the library. Period.

Luckily, you have options. ;)

nruboc

« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2006, 01:15 »
0

You forgot to mention a couple of others:

No FTP - Istock just redesigned it's whole website at the beginning of the year yet FAILED to include an easy implementation of FTP uploading to it's site. Both exclusives and non-exclusive have been asking for this for a LONG time. All the other major players (StockXpert, Fotolia, Dreamstime, ShutterStock, BigStock) who actually CARE about their contributors have FTP, why not IStock??? Surely, this can only help us contributors.

No dissent on the forums - you'd think you're in the old school USSR with the quickness with which they lock threads over there. Well, sorry, but on these boards we can speak our minds.

Oh wait...BUT they did just give you new icons in the forums. I'm glad they're spending they're time on important things. IStock video.....now you see where the company is really heading. Trying to diversify so the stock photos doesn't eat away any more of Getty's net.

So, if you're so "in the know" about IStock's Marketing budget, please enlighten us. How much is it and how does it compare to the other major players?

" Benefits for exclusives...that's just good business sense.  If you ran the company and you had artists you wanted to claim exclusively, you'd give them perks too.  And that just makes sense as a business."

Exactly....and this extends to the rejections too. From what I've seen inspectors are WAY more lenient on exclusives.



I'm not trying to start anytihng but seriously...people LOVE to bitch about two things with iStock. Low Comission & Favoritism to Exclusives. I won't take the time to debate either of these issues again (but I could) but here is what you have to consider. 1) The low comission rate is what allows iStock to have the HIGHEST marketing budget in the industry and hence the higest traffic. Undisputedly the highest traffic. Sorry but it's true. 2) Benefits for exclusives...that's just good business sense. If you ran the company and you had artists you wanted to claim exclusively, you'd give them perks too. And that just makes sense as a business.

iStock craeted the microstock industry. They are on top. They didn't get there by being stupid.

As far as rejections, we all get rejections we don't agree with. I hate to shatter any conspiracies, but I am exclusive and still get rejection I don't agree with. When you are a serious business tryign to build up a library you want to have a direction and a vision fo that library. iStock has made it clear that they have standards and a cohesive vison for their library. If they don;t accept your images it's not [personal...it's not because you aren't exclusive, it's because that image doesn't fit the library. Period.

Luckily, you have options. ;)

« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2006, 01:46 »
0
Undisputedly the highest traffic.

Can you please pass along the source of your info...

« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2006, 01:55 »
0
Go to alexa.com

Undisputedly the highest traffic.

Can you please pass along the source of your info...

« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2006, 04:34 »
0
Info... on my last bunch at Istock.
All my vectors got rejected too
None of them got rejected on other sites.
And they really sell well !
Going Exlusive: I DON'T THINK SO !!!!!!!!
reason: for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons: Were sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all submissions.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

My gallery at shutterstock: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=64551

« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2006, 06:29 »
0
Go to alexa.com

Undisputedly the highest traffic.

Can you please pass along the source of your info...

Freezingpictures:

That is precisely what I thought amanda1863 would say and it is not an undisputed fact.

First, all that the Alexa charts mean is that people that use the Alexa toolbar visit those sites more.

Second, the "traffic" on Alexa doesn't take into account the breakdown of buyers vs. photographers. Much of this traffic might be for the forums or for people pressing F5 (Refresh), or something just as trivial.

Third, more people are reporting that Shutterstock is paying more per month than iStockphoto, so this would suggest that Shutterstock is actually the one with the "highest traffic" (at least from a buyers perspective).

Fourth, out of all of the design magazines that I have checked, Shutterstock usually has a more prominent position than iStock when it comes to marketing. I went to the book store a few weeks ago, and Shutterstock was on the inside cover of almost every major magazine, while iStock was relegated to many of the inner pages. So if iStock does indeed have the highest marketing budget, then they are skimping on the major trade magazines and pocketing some of that wonderful profit that they make.

So hopefully, amanda1863 has something more factual than Alexa in mind when she is talking about "undisputed traffic" and "highest marketing budget".

« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2006, 13:57 »
0
eyckmans:  Are you exclusive?  If so, what is your canister color?  And what do you submit (photos, vectors)?  If photos, do you have images that requires MRs?

I am non exclusive,  Just recently turned silver canister and almost all my 300ish photos are people with model releases.  I realize that istock take the highest percentage and make a lot more out of me but having quite a few  1$  commisions soon bumps the total payment up.
Last month was my first full month on shutterstock and I sold about 1500 photos(I'm selling a lot less so far this month) and on i.stock I sold half that but made about the same.  Dreamstime the average is about 70c per sale but I sell much less there and make about half what I do on the other two sites.   I put up 30 photos on fotolia about a month ago after having only 3 there for about a year but haven't seen more than about 4 or 5 downloads a week but will probably put up a lot more to see if a bigger portfolio makes a difference and I haven't got any of my best sellers up there yet
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 00:50 by leaf »

« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2006, 14:08 »
0
I'm not trying to start anything but seriously...people LOVE to bitch about two things with iStock.  Low Commission & Favoritism to Exclusives.

I am non exclusives and I don't feel unfairly treated by istock.. I recently put up an image for FIOTW and didn't expect them to use it as I am not exclusive but it was used only 5 days later bringing me lots of extra sales and a few designers putting me in their creative networks.  I think that it is totally fair that the exclusives  get extra commisions and privileges because of all the money they are losing out of by not uploading elsewhere.  If I get a photo refused by istock I can upload it elsewhere which is a privilege that exclusives don't have
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 00:49 by leaf »

« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2006, 00:56 »
0
a few points.

StockManiac mentioned mentioned how shutterstock was advertising everywhere.  I think that perhaps shutterstock pays 20% as well on their per-picture sales... however correct me if i'm wrong.

The reason people are saying sales are higher at shutterstock is because well, it is true but it depends on how you look at your graphs.

For me, shutterstock earns about 1.5 times what I earn on istock.  However this is because I have over 3X the images on shutterstock.  In $/image/year Istock is almost DOUBLE what the others earn.  So it depends on the quality of your pictures really. If you take images that get accepted at all the sites, istock will no doubt be your biggest earner.  If you have problems getting most of your images on istock, shutterstock will be your biggest earner.

« Reply #29 on: October 05, 2006, 12:36 »
0
Well I just got my batch of 20 pictures rejected by Istock, all pictures with model release, it's depressing.

the same batch of pictures got accepted  100% at FT, 19 out 20 at DT, 100% at BigStock, 19 out of 20 at StockXpert, 19 out 20 at SS. ( funny thing is that 3 out of the same series I submitted last week got approved at IS, all got 5 out 5 ratings, which they deserve )

Reasons for rejection: over use of  noise reduction degrade image quality or artifacts when viewed in full size, due to in camera settings.

first I apply a small  portion of noise reduction on each image, they are very clean to start with, since shot out doors over cast days, no shadows to worry about, secondly, all are shot in Raw, processed and converted to Tiff, and finally output to Jpeg 12, I cannot see any artifacts when viewed at 100%, I don't know what are they talking about???

Some images are resubmit due to a dead pix they found, sure out of 6m pixels, one dead pixel will get rejected, but once I fix the pixel, now there is more reasons...

Anyway, I have been working hard for two month trying to get pictures on IS, so with 20 per week, I only got 95 on line, while in less than half the time, I got 504 approved at SS ( lots of editorial ), over 300 at FT, 270 at DT, and 221 at BigStock, 200 at StockXpert...

it's really not very productive to submit to IS, it get you very frustrated, and earnings only distant 4th behind SS, DT, FT...

Or do they really intend to drive photographers away?

Anyway just want to vent my frustration, since I can not do that at IS :'(
 

« Reply #30 on: October 05, 2006, 18:57 »
0
Same here !
I,ve had all my vector images rejected with no reason other then: Were sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock
They are my bestsellers on other sites ! Nothing wrong with them, I find that strange..
I think they inspect files at 200 % instead of 100% with photos, i really can't see anything wrong at 100 %
All of my photos are optimal at 100 % 

One more thing avout Istock: they don't use moneybookers  :-[ While people have been asking for it since march now  ???

The photos that go through sell very well !! so i will keep trying !
Portfolio Istock : 212
other sites around 1100


« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2006, 01:28 »
0
The problem is iStock has a different pricing structure you still earn only 20% but they sell for big bucks. I chatted with on illustrator who spends a couple of days on her creations. So they are really fussy about newbies.

So I have quite a few 10 mins - 2 hour creations that sell reasonably well elsewhere (most of my best sellers at SS are vectors) but iStock won't touch me with a barge pole so you are not alone.

« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2006, 02:39 »
0
I had to wait 1 1/2 week for my pictures got reviewed
But all of them got rejected by Istock, they really start to piss me off.
From now on i don't think i,m gonna send them any photos anymore only vectors, hope it will get better then.

Did you consider that the stuff you considered "good" actually wasn't? Just because it sells on other sites doesn't mean it is not poor quality. They are really picky on the quality of the photos at iStock and it sounds to me that you're stuff just isn't good enough(0 out of 20). If the rejections had been for things like noise then things would be different, but since you said the rejections were for composition and such, I think you should go buy a book on photography with all that money you are making on the other sites.

« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2006, 03:03 »
0
I think I am in the middle here.  I think it is pretty impossible to choose who to side with (the photog. or istock) when we don't have images to look at ourselves.  I know from sites like DPChallenge  That a lot of people are really personal about their images and think they are 'THE BEST' then enter them in a challenge and then end up getting in the bottom third, and then complain about unfair voting.

So not saying enjoyimages pictures weren't  'really good', I am just saying, that I can't agree that istock is unfair either, unless I am able to see the images for myself and decide.

« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2006, 04:26 »
0
First of all i don't have a ( i,m the best ) attitude.
The problem is that i take photographing very seriously, i can take rejections but if they reject photos without any descent reason why and no possibility to re-upload i can get angry.
Anyway my acceptance rate is a lot better now. And with the ones rejected they gave a good reason why so i,m pretty happy again.
My work:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=64551
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=EnjoyLife2

http://www.pbase.com/ericgevaert

« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2006, 04:31 »
0
Sorry, I was a little vague. i didn't mean to say that some people thing they are 'the best' but that sometimes the people I was refering to (on dpchallenge specifically) thought that a certain image was 'the best' or really great.

I took a look at your images by the way.

Nice work.

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #36 on: October 07, 2006, 09:04 »
0
I have to agree.  I've seen your stuff on SS and pbase before, and I always liked it.

Time for you to sell outside of microstock, Eric.  You have a lot of talent.

Nice work.

« Reply #37 on: October 07, 2006, 20:06 »
0
Anyway my acceptance rate is a lot better now. And with the ones rejected they gave a good reason why so i,m pretty happy again.
My work:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=64551
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=profile&l=EnjoyLife2
http://www.pbase.com/ericgevaert

You have some great work. My previous statement was based on the number of rejections. It may just be iStock. I'm not a real fan of theirs in the first place because of how much they sensor the forums. Look at all the "I love iStock" postings they have, and even with the stupid keyword change they still don't have a lot of upset postings.

« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2006, 06:53 »
0
I found this thread really interesting. 

I've just started (a month ago) uploading photos to stock sites.  So far, I've had my first two batches refused at SS, while IS has given me about an 80% approval for the very same submissions.  SS makes you wait 30 days, they review a select few and if the first three or four don't make the cut, they don't bother to review the rest -- so now you have six or seven shots left and  you don't know if they'd make the grade or not (resubmit and possibly lose another 30 days???).  My first download on IS sold within the first week, by the second week, I had three sales and made $3 -- I am NOT disappointed.  They approved (and sold) shots that SS refused.

Fotilla seems to accept almost anything and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not -- in going over some of these shots, I see problems that Fotilla ignored - I don't want to get a reputation as someone who uploads junk, so I  may pull the problem shots off of Fotilla.  I've also had a scant few views and only one sale on Fotilla.  Dreamstime is a bit more discerning than Fotilla and I've sold three there as well. 

« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2006, 09:24 »
0
by the sounds of it, you have to fix a noise problem for shutterstock.

« Reply #40 on: October 08, 2006, 14:45 »
0
I,ve had all my vector images rejected with no reason other then: Were sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock
They are my bestsellers on other sites ! Nothing wrong with them, I find that strange..

It's not really strange at all when you consider that assessment of an image is a highly subjective process. Unlike in some disciplines where there is a right and a wrong, no such thing exists in photography (provided the exposure, focus and other technical details are correct). What works for one person does not work for another.

I love coffee. My wife hates it. Who's right? Who's wrong?

So it seems that, with that rejection statement, IS was simply saying your photos didn't work for them. There's no arguing against that. You just have to shrug your shoulders and get on with it.

I think they inspect files at 200 % instead of 100% with photos, i really can't see anything wrong at 100 %
All of my photos are optimal at 100 %

(Beats head against wall.) But they weren't saying anything was wrong, were they?

You have to learn to live with subjective rejections if you want to be in this business. They don't mean a thing.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3110 Views
Last post February 17, 2009, 13:56
by gostwyck
2 Replies
3164 Views
Last post August 25, 2011, 19:18
by deyu16
3 Replies
2694 Views
Last post July 23, 2014, 21:19
by Goofy
9 Replies
4113 Views
Last post October 08, 2015, 05:22
by meganclare
13 Replies
4886 Views
Last post November 20, 2018, 18:53
by lostintimeline

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle