Author Topic: For the life of me... (Read 15852 times)

leszek · « **on:** June 27, 2008, 08:03 »

...I still can't figure out what this is that Istock wants. Over the last couple of weeks I submitted about 100 pics, got accepted about 50%. Some of the rejected ones are "not stock material" - funny, they sell OK elsewhere, and with one I went back to Scout - the image has over 140 downloads in the last 6 weeks, so I just couldn't stand it.

Other pics are "overfilterd" and of course with "artifacts". Funny again - some of them have been shot on white background, with minimum postprocessing, and were submitted in original size (no cropping), with maximum JPEG quality. How can one produce artifacts in this way - escapes me. Most of the pics "can resubmitt", but I do not bother, since there isn't much I can do with the pics to make them better (or acceptable at least). Vast majority of the rejected pics sell happily on other sites.

OK, end of rant. It is just demoralizing...

fotoKmyst · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2008, 09:21 »

yes, IS is some kind of an enigma

I know what they DON'T like, after submitting even well-produced
shots that are accepted elsewhere . maybe it's their protective
rule to keep their exclusives happy.
as for "overfilterd" , yes, that is almost a standard with IS.
they really prefer clean "as is" image.
my advice is stop sending the types of images you get rejected,
and concentrate on the types they took.

it's worked for me. this saves you the trouble of uploading rejects,
and keep your acceptance percentage high.

dullegg · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2008, 10:03 »

Two things I never do for my images to IStock:
1) Saturate
2) Sharpen
Actually, I don't do anything for my images to IStock,
if they are not good enough from RAW,
I don't bother submitting to IStock.
Works for me.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2008, 10:12 »

Ranting about rejections we can't see does no hood. Post some images for critique.

Argus · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2008, 10:25 »

iStock.. i'm pretty close to giving up on that site.. the only thing holding me back is the fact that of the 8(!) files i got accepted, one of them is doing pretty good.

Other then that, they obviously do not like my images.. perhaps it's time to change my style, get dramatically better at what I do, or make the switch to illustrator.. i don't really know.

Still, it sort of hurts my pride to have about 7000 images accepted at SS, while the same images are flatout rejected at iStock. $:-\$

4seasons · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2008, 10:50 »

che che.. IS is kind of adrenalin. When I feel lack of it, I'm uploading to IS. From my last batch of 35 they approved 2.
Of course, all uploaded images are best and good sellers on other agencies, but IS think they are "not stock oriented".
Though they are plain jpgs from my vectors, IS say "there is noise and artifacts".
Though they are original graphic renders, IS say "please upload original photo"...
etc.. etc.. Wacky...

One thing what they love and want, are exclusives.

epantha · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2008, 10:53 »

Quote

Other then that, they obviously do not like my images.. perhaps it's time to change my style, get dramatically better at what I do, or make the switch to illustrator.. i don't really know.

I have learned in my very short time on iStock that they like good, straight, photography – natural shots of people and food that have minimal manipulation, no special effects and no composite work. They seem to love simple images that can make good backgrounds and they will take isolated pieces. They want elements for the designer to work with, not a finished design that you have done yourself. A helpful thing to do is to study the newest uploads coming through on the front page of their site.

rjmiz · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2008, 11:11 »

Here try this.
http://microstockpix.com/supplies/page5/page5.html

If it don't work you at least get double your money back.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

Allsa · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2008, 12:09 »

The main reasons I won't even consider exclusivity with iStock is that their narrow idea of what constitutes good stock imagery would effectively kill my creativity. Eventually, microstock, for me, would become a joyless exercise in frustration - not to mention a grinding bore. If that isn't bad enough, I would also take a big cut in income.

Linda B

Roadrunner · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2008, 13:12 »

After reading all your comments, I get the message. They should make it clear to dummies like me by stating up front that they want Exclusive Images only.

Now I can very easily put them on the back burner; it is a waste of thime considrering they have such an awkward upload system. It is from the pit of Hell!

On second thought - I should take them off the burner completely.

Allsa · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2008, 13:28 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on June 27, 2008, 13:12

After reading all your comments, I get the message. They should make it clear to dummies like me by stating up front that they want Exclusive Images only.

Now I can very easily put them on the back burner; it is a waste of thime considrering they have such an awkward upload system. It is from the pit of Hell!

On second thought - I should take them off the burner completely.

That might be a mistake - iStock is a pain, but for me they are well worth the trouble - iStock is my best earner. I'd never go exclusive, but I wouldn't drop them, either.

jeffclow · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2008, 13:58 »

I share your frustration - recently a majority of my photos have been rejected for noise/artifacts after having an approval rate of 65% plus for a couple of years.

I appreciate others sharing their ideas of how to avoid this - I've now uploaded several photos without any sharpening or retouching whatsoever to see if they will be accepted or rejected.

But is is VERY frustrating to see shots turned down that sell so well elsewhere.

Lizard · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2008, 14:13 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2008, 14:32 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on June 27, 2008, 13:12

After reading all your comments, I get the message. They should make it clear to dummies like me by stating up front that they want Exclusive Images only.

Now I can very easily put them on the back burner; it is a waste of thime considrering they have such an awkward upload system. It is from the pit of Hell!

On second thought - I should take them off the burner completely.

Still not interested in posting samples?

rjmiz · « **Reply #14 on:** June 27, 2008, 14:39 »

Why so you can make fun of them?
Don't tell me because your interested in lizards images.
...or that perhaps you want to offer constructive criticism.
I get very suspicious of people with big egos who prey on us little people in microstock.

I think Lizard is well to leave the images unposted.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

bittersweet · « **Reply #15 on:** June 27, 2008, 14:52 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on June 27, 2008, 13:12

After reading all your comments, I get the message. They should make it clear to dummies like me by stating up front that they want Exclusive Images only.

Now I can very easily put them on the back burner; it is a waste of thime considrering they have such an awkward upload system. It is from the pit of Hell!

On second thought - I should take them off the burner completely.

This is just patently untrue (except the pit of Hell part). If it makes people's whose images have been rejected by istock feel better to believe such stuff and nonsense, then whatever. It still doesn't make it any more than a fantasy.

Concept: iStock is not out to get you.

epantha · « **Reply #16 on:** June 27, 2008, 15:31 »

Quote

Concept: iStock is not out to get you.

I will sometimes reshoot worthy subjects that have been rejected by iStock and in many cases end up with a much better photo for my portfolio and for them to sell. I have learned so much, so fast by going through their inspection process and really appreciate the constructive criticism.

nruboc · « **Reply #17 on:** June 27, 2008, 15:42 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on June 27, 2008, 13:12

After reading all your comments, I get the message. They should make it clear to dummies like me by stating up front that they want Exclusive Images only.

Now I can very easily put them on the back burner; it is a waste of thime considrering they have such an awkward upload system. It is from the pit of Hell!

On second thought - I should take them off the burner completely.

I agree with you 1000%!!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #18 on:** June 27, 2008, 18:20 »

Quote from: rjmiz on June 27, 2008, 14:39

Why so you can make fun of them?
Don't tell me because your interested in lizards images.
...or that perhaps you want to offer constructive criticism.
I get very suspicious of people with big egos who prey on us little people in microstock.

I think Lizard is well to leave the images unposted.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

You're the guy with ego issues. I'm one guy with a camera and a bunch of downloads. People who rant about how great their images are but don't back that up with some examples... Well, saying ss accepts them doesn't lend a lot of credence.

I know your feelings are hurt because I don't like your PS work, and neither does istock apparently, but that doesn't automatically apply to anyone else.

rjmiz · « **Reply #19 on:** June 27, 2008, 18:38 »

You mentioned something about BIG egos?

"I'm one guy with a camera and a bunch of downloads"

Hmmmmm seems to me your your own worst enemy!

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

chellyar · « **Reply #20 on:** June 27, 2008, 18:52 »

Hurro,

Don't loose heart with IS, I've got a 79% acceptance ratio there with a very 'general' portfolio.

If you take a look at my stuff you'll see it's not the best stock in the world, but it is simple in the sense that I don't process stuff for any of the sites I upload to, if I can't get it in the camera I don't bother.

Having said that I've had some mystery 'artifacts' rejections in the last week or two, which is weird for raw images with default conversions.. Whatever, I just move on, it's still better that fotolia who seem to reject pretty much everything these days...

I'm not endorsing my portfolio as something to follow though, as not a lot of the newer stuff seems to sell these days, all my selling images on IS are the older ones... Such is life.

I'm just saying that it's not that hard to get images on there if you're making simple, clean images.

Cheers, Me.

Susan S. · « **Reply #21 on:** June 27, 2008, 18:55 »

Quote from: Lizard on June 27, 2008, 14:13

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.

The easy way of getting around that is to upload in the model release field a screen shot of the brush and the texture source from which you derived it. Argument over before it starts, no need for scout. I do it with all my hand painted vectors and I've never had a rejection for that reason. (It's a good idea to have that documentation available in any event for all sites in case someone wants to argue the toss about the source of a component)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #22 on:** June 27, 2008, 19:12 »

Quote from: rjmiz on June 27, 2008, 18:38

You mentioned something about BIG egos?

"I'm one guy with a camera and a bunch of downloads"

Hmmmmm seems to me your your own worst enemy!

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

Thats not ego, that's just the truth. Just me, my camera, and my downloads. Sometimes I have no idea what you're talking about.

Suljo · « **Reply #23 on:** June 27, 2008, 19:21 »

Isolation
always been problem at iStok,
they always replay with two errors
1st is isolation and second is overfitered or oversaturated but the very thin border border of this is flatt dull colors.
After that when you fix that "problems" they say that image is no stock image???
But not always. They always complain on two complement side so they in that way may dont make mistake for they boss after you eventually complain for that image.
So If you want to complain to someone just try and thats it. (In my language Fart in the Pot)-for better sound.
Anyhow they are want to sell youre audiostreams and they see or hear noise to, over sharpened of overuse of noise programs.
Best one is post of my video rejections to explain them how I do that???
Another way in my language iStock means CATTLE with little teeth.
So how I can explain to my self.
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.

leszek · « **Reply #24 on:** June 27, 2008, 19:29 »

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

Suljo · « **Reply #25 on:** June 27, 2008, 19:43 »

iCATTLE dont allow us to see youre rejected file

Quote from: leszek on June 27, 2008, 19:29

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 »

Quote from: Suljo on June 27, 2008, 19:21

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.

thank you Suljo, you made my weekend for sure. i like FART IN THE POT
better than iStock.
in whatever language, i thank you

leszek · « **Reply #27 on:** June 27, 2008, 20:05 »

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.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 27, 2008, 20:22 »

Quote from: leszek on June 27, 2008, 20:05

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #29 on:** June 27, 2008, 23:28 »

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.

leszek · « **Reply #30 on:** June 28, 2008, 00:20 »

Well, it has 140+ downloads and counting...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #31 on:** June 28, 2008, 08:44 »

Quote from: leszek on June 28, 2008, 00:20

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.

rjmiz · « **Reply #32 on:** June 28, 2008, 11:12 »

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 »

Quote from: leszek on June 27, 2008, 20:05

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)

leszek · « **Reply #34 on:** June 28, 2008, 19:24 »

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

leszek · « **Reply #35 on:** June 28, 2008, 19:52 »

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.

Phil · « **Reply #36 on:** June 28, 2008, 20:08 »

Quote from: Lizard on June 27, 2008, 14:13

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

Lizard · « **Reply #37 on:** June 30, 2008, 14:14 »

Quote from: clearviewstock on June 28, 2008, 20:08

Quote from: Lizard on June 27, 2008, 14:13
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 »

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.

Karimala · « **Reply #39 on:** August 07, 2008, 10:42 »

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 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 07, 2008, 14:53 »

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.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #41 on:** August 07, 2008, 21:35 »

Quote from: DanP68 on June 30, 2008, 22:40

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: For the life of me... (Read 15852 times)

fotoKmyst

dullegg

bittersweet

nruboc

fotoKmyst

nruboc

DanP68

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors