0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The "Not Stock Worthy" rejections for nearly all non-vector illustrations is getting obsurd. I have only managed to get 14 raster illustrations accepted and at least half of those were rejected at least once and were only accepted after a scout reinspection. The 14 raster illustrations that were almost all initially rejected (not stock worthy) average more than twice the number of downloads of the photos of mine that were accepted.Let me provide an example of one of my raster illustrations that was initially rejected. I can admit that it does seem to have limited usage. But it has brought in over $600 worth of sales in which $480 of it went straight to iStocks pocket. Not to mention it has had 10 downloads this month alone...By all means keep the strict technical standards. All I am really asking is that you losen up a bit and let the buyers have more of a say in what is and isn't stock worthy. As it stands now, I can't submit 70% of my images. And that unfortunately makes exclusivity a non-option for me. =\EDIT: This one was just rejected for of course not being stock worthy. I submit it for a scout review.. now I wait a month to get a response.
Many of their photoreviewers hate illustrations / 3d stuff. That sucks...
Quote from: Magnum on May 16, 2009, 04:02Many of their photoreviewers hate illustrations / 3d stuff. That sucks...I don't do illustrations so may be wrong, but I always thought that sort of stuff was reviewed by different people other than normal photo inspectors
And as a non-exclusive it will not help to post it on their forum. All reaction that it will have is a swarm of golden crowns that will rush out of the castle in defence of their queen (her name is "artifacting").
Kngkyle, Whitechild.......those are some fantastic images in my opinion. I can't believe they would reject them. That is downright stupid on their part. I must ask a stupid question though. What is a raster image. I'm just a plain ol photographer and never tryed anything like that.
Quote from: donding on May 16, 2009, 09:36Kngkyle, Whitechild.......those are some fantastic images in my opinion. I can't believe they would reject them. That is downright stupid on their part. I must ask a stupid question though. What is a raster image. I'm just a plain ol photographer and never tryed anything like that.Let me google that for u http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raster+image
How about making your illustrations in a vector program instead of a raster one? After all an artist is an artist whatever medium they use. If Illustrator is too pricey maybe Inkscape would do. I think artists need to be fairly flexible.
Quote from: averil on May 16, 2009, 17:37How about making your illustrations in a vector program instead of a raster one? After all an artist is an artist whatever medium they use. If Illustrator is too pricey maybe Inkscape would do. I think artists need to be fairly flexible.Because most are made in a 3D program.Anyway, I just submitted this one.. clearly not stock worthy as I'm sure Istock will say.
I hear so much about Istock giving advantage to exclusives, that it makes me sick...Obviously it's all non-exclusives who say that.Let me straighten some facts:I became exclusive on istock on september, after being independent for 3 years.I still get about the same amount of rejections. if there is something wrong woth a file then it's rejected, exclusive or not.Do I agree with all the rejections? of course not, but I just can't whine like a lot of people here that it would be accepted if I was exclusive...Do I get more downloads because I'm exclusive?No.It was like that in the first month or so, but since BM2 was launched, I'm down to about 25% of my pre BM2 downloads. and no, I don't span and keywords are all fine...So please, find another reason to bash istock...btw, I never woo-yayed in istock forums, and I do have a lot of critism about it... but that's for another thread...
...But it has brought in over $600 worth of sales in which $480 of it went straight to iStocks pocket...