pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: For the life of me...  (Read 11456 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2008, 19:43 »
0
iCATTLE dont allow us to see youre rejected file  ;D

Well, sooner or later I will figure this out. I always do. I am not questioning Istock standards: it is just that I can't put my finger exactly on what the problem is.
I have no exagerrated sense of how good my pics are: each and every one of them could use some improvement, and today I would not even try to submit some images I was happy with 6 months ago.
Well, live and learn...

http://www.istockphoto.com/resubmit_rejected_file.php?RejectedFileID=6416725


fotoKmyst

« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2008, 20:04 »
0

So If you want to complain to someone just try and thats it. (In my language Fart in the Pot)-for better sound.
Another way in my language iStock means CATTLE with little teeth.

If I am not they exclusive this means that I am not CATTLE.
If you are not CATTLE you have not place in they barn.
;D
thank you Suljo, you made my weekend for sure. i like FART IN THE POT
better than iStock.
in whatever language, i thank you  8)

« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2008, 20:05 »
0

« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2008, 20:22 »
0
Maybe this will work:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9430288-green-stalk-and-earth-earth-image-courtesy-of-nasa-blue-marble-mission-apollo.html

It is no big deal, just wanted to vent my spleen a bit.

I thought iStock had decided to stop allowing people to use NASA images as stock.

« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2008, 23:28 »
0
The plant image is very nice on its own.  I don't see a need to drop the earth in there, and I don't get a clear message from the modified image.  That is istock thinking as well, probably.

« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2008, 00:20 »
0
Well, it has 140+ downloads and counting...

« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2008, 08:44 »
0
Well, it has 140+ downloads and counting...

Downloads on SS don't mean much as far as something that is acceptable on istock. Don't get defensive, I'm just pointing out how things are.

« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2008, 11:12 »
0
This is unfortunate, but true.
Shutterstock is the wholesale retailer of many images.
Many designers use Shutterstock like a fast food restaurant, while iStock is more like a restaurant where a tie and jacket is required. 

They both serve food though.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

nruboc

« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2008, 12:26 »
0
Maybe this will work:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9430288-green-stalk-and-earth-earth-image-courtesy-of-nasa-blue-marble-mission-apollo.html

It is no big deal, just wanted to vent my spleen a bit.


I like it, and I as a designer I see 100x more uses for this than the image they selected as image of the year (the one with all the heads in the cabbage field)

« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2008, 19:24 »
0
Sean, I do pay attention to what you say - you record on Istock certainly gives you the right to voice opinions which should be treated with consideration. I like your pics very much - nice pastel colors, excellent lighting, clearly separated subjects, happy/pretty people etc. etc.

But...what does all this have to do with the price of potatoes ?  I would be the first to admit that I lack a lot when it comes to producing pics (in all the departments I mentioned above: lighting, composition, other technical aspects), although I learn a lot and fast every day.

I just think that sometimes (not always, mind it) the rejections justified as overfiltered/artifacts/non-stock are just a bit of a BS. Of course Istock has the right to accept/reject whatever they like and I would be the first to defend this right.
In the process of doing that, however,  they reject sellable images - which kind of leaves me puzzled, considering that this is a commercial site.

I agree that selling on SS does not mean much as far as Istock is concerned - although out of the 140 downloads I mentioned only only about 60% come from SS. Doesn't matter, really, as I said earlier - I just need to figure out what it is that Istock considers acceptable. Certainly it is not just any good picture - more likely it needs to be a good picture of certain kind.  NO problem with that.

Having said that - the "artifacting/overfiltered" issue is, I suspect, a canned answer which really means "we do not like it" - which would be much more informative. Again - not a big deal, this is just a certain kind of a puzzle to be solved, which will happen in due time, and having a little (OK, not so little) studio in my next-to-be-yet-build-house will certainly help a lot  ;)

« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2008, 19:52 »
0
One more thing (Mr sjlocke) - if you do not mind answering (and at the risk of me being politically incorrect  :) ).
I like the quality of background in your images. I do realize that a large aperture has its part, and (particularly in studio setup) the light contributes a lot etc. etc.

I have rather decent 35mm glass (bought long before I even heard about microstock) - and her it comes:
I know it is 90% the photographer - but what glass do you use ? I am in constant search for lenses which produces really nice bokeh (I shoot Canon). 

This is not a question of the type "the meal you cooked was really nice, could you show me the pots you used" which some people may find either silly or offensive or both. Hopefully you won't.

« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2008, 20:08 »
0
What really frustrates me lately , is rejections for  "We have reasons to believe the image was created with components or brushes that are not originally yours"  or something like that.

I contacted scout few times and clearly stated that I never used a single brush that was not created by me and from my photos , that I can prove them that by sending them the brushes set or photos and scans of my textures or something , and they have been approved then.  But they keep rejecting stuff for that reason , and I cant be constantly complain.



put in your description "all artwork is original" or "xxx element created from own resources" etc. (you can change the description and take this comment out if you like after it is approved) - of course Istock really, really dont like raster art anyways (pity coz their customers do)

Phil


« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 20:13 by clearviewstock »

« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2008, 14:14 »
0
What really frustrates me lately , is rejections for  "We have reasons to believe the image was created with components or brushes that are not originally yours"  or something like that.

I contacted scout few times and clearly stated that I never used a single brush that was not created by me and from my photos , that I can prove them that by sending them the brushes set or photos and scans of my textures or something , and they have been approved then.  But they keep rejecting stuff for that reason , and I cant be constantly complain.



put in your description "all artwork is original" or "xxx element created from own resources" etc. (you can change the description and take this comment out if you like after it is approved) - of course Istock really, really dont like raster art anyways (pity coz their customers do)

Phil





Thanks , I think I will do that from now on.


Susan , thank you for your advice too, but I think it would be too time wasting , taking screen caps of brushes and textures etc , and uploading them as MR , cause often I don't even know all the exact brushes or textures  did I use for some backgrounds . I have 10 000+ textures in my arsenal , same goes for my brushes , and on some images I use few large textures and maybe even 50 smaller brushes , brushed textures etc , so it would be a problem to track all those every time I produce an image.   

DanP68

« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2008, 22:40 »
0
I read the boards frequently and there are a lot of exclusives who complain about the rejection rate too.  I honestly don't believe it has to do with whether you are exclusive or independent.

I've never bought the "artifacts" rejection, and the "too rough or feathered" edges for shots over white is particularly maddening.  For the record, the vast majority of the images I submitted to Scout were eventually accepted.  This factoid alone suggests the reviewers probably reject too many images.

But it is what it is.  I still like iStock, and enjoy working with them.

The bigger concern I have, which I do not believe to be paranoid at all, is that newer submissions from non-exclusives seem to go straight into a black hole.  Almost every download I get from iStock is from images which are several months old.  My newer submissions are buried deep in search. 

I'm not the only person to notice this alarming trend.  It has been brought up by Douglas Freer and (Sean) Forgiss too.

« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2008, 10:42 »
0
This thread prompted me to do an experiment.  I wanted to see if IS would accept a photo from a non-exclusive that is clearly manipulated from the original.  And guess what...much to my surprise, they did!


http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=6816634

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2008, 14:53 »
0
Is ist possible the reviewers are flipping a coin or just using a random selection type thing in order to keep their rejection rate up.  I have had an image accepted after doing extensive post processing work, and all the others that had any work at all were rejected.  Any mor I just upload and wait to see if they accepted anything.  Most of my uploading to iS is after I am finished uploading to the three main sites I deal with.

At one time I was trying to work with about eight sites which got out of hand.  Now I just concentrating on sites that make it easy to upload and that are still accepting images. ;D

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Good New For You
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2008, 21:35 »
0
The bigger concern I have, which I do not believe to be paranoid at all, is that newer submissions from non-exclusives seem to go straight into a black hole.  Almost every download I get from iStock is from images which are several months old.  My newer submissions are buried deep in search. 
I'm not surprised by this and I think it's driven more by buyer workflow than Istock. Designers download comps, create draft designs, and get approval from clients. Then they buy the images. This could take days or months depending on a lot of factors.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
6775 Views
Last post August 14, 2013, 10:52
by Beppe Grillo
22 Replies
3500 Views
Last post August 01, 2013, 08:12
by luissantos84
0 Replies
2087 Views
Last post April 02, 2014, 10:57
by lisafx
4 Replies
1940 Views
Last post May 21, 2016, 09:23
by fotografer
6 Replies
1948 Views
Last post August 21, 2017, 05:08
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle