I am not a complainer (doesn't every complainer start their post that way?) but, I couldn't help but to really feel as though the review process needs to be a little...no...ALOT more fair at most of the sites. 

Let me start by giving this image as an example:



If you use the zoom function, you can see a few problems with the image:

1.  The lens is dirty.  We all know that no self respecting photographer is going to shoot through a lens that dirty.

2. The removal of the word "Canon" from the lens is horrible.  The clone is obvious and not even or blended.

3. The blown highlights (which is seemingly 'the old standby' when it comes to rejection reasons-  we all know that digital cameras suck for retaining highlights AND that sometimes we sacrifice highlights in certain parts of an image for proper exposure in the main subject...but I digress)

Overall, it is a pretty simplistic image and well photographed subject.  I can see overlooking some of the issues, but when there are that many, on a subject that well photographed, it seems ludicrous to accept another mediocre (at best) image.

Here is the ....'and then...':  The photographer is exclusive to Istock!  Could that be the golden ticket?  Being exclusive means that you can submit so-so images and build your portfolio faster?  I am submitting quality images, 15 at a time per week, and getting silly rejections on one or two of them, so I am not complaining that I never get any images accepted, but I just wonder if those one or two would slide if I was exclusive?

Whatever, I think it is not a very scientific approach to use such discutable examples as a proof of the fact that exclusive contributors are treated differently than other contributors. I'm sure you will find plenty of bad pictures from non exclusive contributors.

And frankly, I don't care that much because for me, if the photo is bad nobody will purchase it.

You should concentrate more on building your portfolio IMHO. But this is just my own personal opinion of course 

1.  Nice job working in the word 'discutable'. 

2. I didn't mean it to be scientific, but rather a simple example, and hard evidence as to the types of images that slip through the watchful eye of the reviewers, exclusive or not (I did mention it at the end as a PS)

3. I would rather compete against great images than drown in a hoard of sorry images, which is why sales are so slow at places like Canstock.  If a designer has to search through thousands of crap images, they won't ever SEE mine.  On this point I strongly disagree with you.

4. I guess I should stop posting here, too in order to concentrate on building my portfolio.  I am uploading the limit at Istock, so I am doing all I can to build my portfolio. 

1.  Nice job working in the word 'discutable'. 

"discutable" is a french word meaning "debatable" in english. Sorry for the mistake and my bad english. And thank you for taking some time to help me improve my skills in english! 

3. I would rather compete against great images than drown in a hoard of sorry images, which is why sales are so slow at places like Canstock.  If a designer has to search through thousands of crap images, they won't ever SEE mine.  On this point I strongly disagree with you.

I'm quite confident that search engines will show good images which sell before crap images which don't sell. I may be wrong however.

I'm still waiting to get some pictures of some "dirt" so I can see if they make it through the process... This is such a  crappy picture of a camera... Everyone here can pick out the model of this camera in an instant, yet they won't let you upload images of cars now...