Author Topic: And again all rejected by istock (Read 23190 times)

StockManiac · « **Reply #25 on:** September 10, 2006, 06:29 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on September 10, 2006, 01:55

Go to alexa.com

Quote from: StockManiac on September 10, 2006, 01:46
Quote from: amanda1863 on September 09, 2006, 21:18
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".

fotografer · « **Reply #26 on:** September 10, 2006, 13:57 »

Quote from: StockManiac on September 08, 2006, 06:14

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

fotografer · « **Reply #27 on:** September 10, 2006, 14:08 »

Quote from: amanda1863 on September 09, 2006, 21:18

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

leaf · « **Reply #28 on:** September 11, 2006, 00:56 »

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.

beisea · « **Reply #29 on:** October 05, 2006, 12:36 »

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

Enjoylife · « **Reply #30 on:** October 05, 2006, 18:57 »

Same here !
I,ve had all my vector images rejected with no reason other then: We’re 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

fintastique · « **Reply #31 on:** October 07, 2006, 01:28 »

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.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 07, 2006, 02:39 »

Quote from: Enjoylife on September 06, 2006, 16:20

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.

leaf · « **Reply #33 on:** October 07, 2006, 03:03 »

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.

Enjoylife · « **Reply #34 on:** October 07, 2006, 04:26 »

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

leaf · « **Reply #35 on:** October 07, 2006, 04:31 »

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 »

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.

Quote from: leaf on October 07, 2006, 04:31

Nice work.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 07, 2006, 20:06 »

Quote from: Enjoylife on October 07, 2006, 04:26

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.

Marti91257 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 08, 2006, 06:53 »

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.

leaf · « **Reply #39 on:** October 08, 2006, 09:24 »

by the sounds of it, you have to fix a noise problem for shutterstock.

Bateleur · « **Reply #40 on:** October 08, 2006, 14:45 »

Quote from: Enjoylife on October 05, 2006, 18:57

I,ve had all my vector images rejected with no reason other then: We’re 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.

Quote from: Enjoylife on October 05, 2006, 18:57

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: And again all rejected by istock (Read 23190 times)

StockManiac

fotografer

fotografer

leaf

beisea

Enjoylife

fintastique

yingyang0

leaf

Enjoylife

leaf

Greg Boiarsky

yingyang0

Marti91257

leaf

Bateleur

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors