MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Kngkyle on May 15, 2009, 22:57
-
I never read or post anything on iStock forums but the not stock worthy rejections for any and all raster illustrations is getting to me and I had to let off some steam. Think it will get deleted? :-\
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88425&page=1
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...
([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4780604/2/istockphoto_4780604-abstract-wave.jpg[/url])
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.
([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9390292/2/istockphoto_9390292-background.jpg[/url])
-
Great images, it's their loss!! It's a good time to point out that IStock is not the end all, be all of microstock imagery. That's why I love this industry, IStock doesn't care for my images, but I truly don't give a sh_t. They have the most tedious, biased towards exclusives, upload process.... yet their competition keeps growing and growing. My advice would be to stop caring so much about what IStock thinks of your images and focus on their competition. As an added benefit, you're guaranteed to make more than their insulting 20% commission.
-
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"). :D
-
Many of their photoreviewers hate illustrations / 3d stuff. That sucks...
I would like the scout to be reviewer instead. 95% of the files send to him get approved. Much creds to scout :D
-
Many 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
-
Many 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
Thatīs only for vectors I think. 3d and rasters are submitted with photos..
-
Iīve had several 3d illustrations rejected for "jagged edges". It seems the reviewers are looking at it in wrong percentage.
Scout approved em right away. Scout rules. To bad heīs kind of busy ;)
-
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"). :D
Fantastically poetic Mr. Eco, and, sadly true . . . . . . the queen has shown her wrath on more then a few of my images.
-
I gave up trying to submit raster illustrations to IS as they seem to want only regular photos with not much manipulation. Maybe if you were accepted for vector illustrations they would be more likely to take the raster illustrations? Good to see that Scout will take some of these. I just resubmitted a couple to Scout that were rejected last year. We will see what happens. This is one of the reasons I won't go exclusive with IS. My seasonal graphics and raster illustrations do really well on SS, DT, FT, 123RF, BigStock and StockXpert.
-
I don't submit raster graphic to IS anymore, but I sell them in other places, and I must say they sell well. For example:
This image is rejected by IS, but I sold it 5 times after only 15 views on DT:
(http://www.dreamstime.com/crescent-moon-thumb8901712.jpg)
This raster graphic is also rejected from IS but it has almost 330 views and I sold it for $100 on Canstockphoto (I got $27 from it):
(http://www.canstockphoto.com/canstockphoto-1486357.jpg)
This image I didn't even try to submit to IS because I am sure it will be rejected, but I sold it OD on SS yesterday:
(http://69.90.174.250/photos/display_pic_with_logo/167695/167695,1241745420,1.jpg)
and so on....
I hope IS people will see this thread and think once more about raster graphic. Of course, vectors sell better, but raster graphic can cell better than some photographs I think.
-
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.
-
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.
Its a non vector illustration . . . . not a pure photograph and of course not a vector.
-
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.
Let me google that for u ;)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raster+image
-
Well done Magnum . . . . as Stevie Wonder sang "there nothing more to say . . " from Superstition
-
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.
Let me google that for u ;)
[url]http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raster+image[/url]
Thanks Magnum.....that helps. Just gotta go do the research now ;D
-
I remember a while ago reading that they were going to have a separate category for raster illustrations like these. Don't know what happened to that idea. It has never made sense to me that they reject 95% of these images, some that would sell really well but they accept a lot of bland photos that will never sell.
-
IS miss thousands of pictures what were accepted and sell well on nearly any other microstockagency. Because of their politic to reject illustrations what are not verctors. But why not, if they feel well with this....
Ther're also illustrationagencies who don't take photos, photoagencies who don't take any kind of illustration and a lot more of agencies who are more specialized.
Some month ago some of my rasterillustrations slipped through review and into my portfolio, they sold best of all my images there. But...the effort to upload und the quote of rejection is that high IS turned to an uninteresting agency for 3d pictures.
On the other hand, they sell vector illustrations like hell...and take nearly all of my work.
Maybe this is not as stupid as it seems like on the first view. They stay specialized as best agency for vectors and sell well...i don't see any competitor as big as IS in vectorworks.
-
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.
-
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.
averil, raster and vector graphics are very different. There is no point in using vector based program for making raster graphic. It's totally different concept and result.
-
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.
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.
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9423717/2/istockphoto_9423717-.jpg)
-
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.
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.
([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9423717/2/istockphoto_9423717-.jpg[/url])
OK, fair enough. I've had a couple of illustation type images made in a 3D program rejected for the same reason. It is a very different workflow I'll admit.
I actually am working through Illustrator tutorials at the moment, and largely for this very reason (istock prefers vector illustrations). My intention is to create images in Blender (the 3D app I use) and then try to recreate them in Illustrator. I guess I'm more comfortable with photography, even if it's virtual, than with creating artwork from scratch. Perhaps I'm foolish, but I intend to go exclusive with istock when I get my downloads up because, as a very part time artist, I think it makes more sense to use the larger upload allowance on one site than to spread myself over several (especially as SS has pretty well wiped me).
-
Istock don't need my vectors, so I don't bother with them to send rasterized versions...
But, Fotolia accepts my rasterized vectors which are above their vector size limit like hot cakes and sell some of them pretty well.
This one would never pass iStock review due to some policy known only to them as well as I don't know to comply to their 'needs' in stock illustration ;-)
(http://static-p4.fotolia.com/jpg/00/11/27/11/400_F_11271159_1OzfV595fchDPHxFU0Qxviv0P1H43vYu.jpg)
BTW, this file is not long online on Fotolia aand counting more than 70 dls only there ;-) Imagine how many is total dls then on all other agencies :-)
Yes, competition is GREAT to have as alternative to iStock due double standards giving advantage to iStock exclusives... And good to have images published on other places before their exclusives (or some bad tempered people) claim that you have 'copied' them who 'copied' your own image at the first place ;-)
-
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...
-
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...
It is not bashing at iStock - istock is not 'THEM'... iStock is stock agency... Unfortunately there are some people who work for iStock as reviewers (not all of them) who keep their noses too high and due to that iStock have that 'bad voice' amongst many of us... Not iStock - just some people there are rotten apples (as there is used to be said in Fotolia forum for some rules breakers)....
-
...But it has brought in over $600 worth of sales in which $480 of it went straight to iStocks pocket...
I would have my answer right there... I'm not with Istock...
-
Do I get more downloads because I'm exclusive?
No.
You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of going exclusive with iStock is to get more downloads due to the best match placement advantages, and of course the commission increase.
-
Do I get more downloads because I'm exclusive?
No.
You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of going exclusive with iStock is to get more downloads due to the best match placement advantages, and of course the commission increase.
The current best match does not seem to favour exclusives. This hasn't always been the case, and may not be the case in the future.
-
Do I get more downloads because I'm exclusive?
No.
You're kidding, right? The whole purpose of going exclusive with iStock is to get more downloads due to the best match placement advantages, and of course the commission increase.
The current best match does not seem to favour exclusives. This hasn't always been the case, and may not be the case in the future.
It still does, just not to such extent as the previous did. Many non-exclusives reporeted quite a big drop in sales when the previous best match took place and started to recover recently.
-
Frankly best match should mean Best Match which applies to the most relevant images. And not Biased Match. It is only fair to the buyers and everyone else.
I totally agree that the exclusives should be entitled to higher commissions, more uploads and fast reviews. But the quality and contents should be equal standards for all.
-
When I joined istock a couple of years ago I saw clear statements from admins that best match did not favour exclusives. They had 'other ways' of giving exclusive portfolios 'more exposure'. At the end of last year that clearly changed, and an istock admin admitted that they were trying to encourage people to join them (as exclusive). I personally think it was a Christmas bonus to existing exclusives before rolling out the more reality based best match 2.0, which they had to do to keep buyers happy in the face of stiff competition.
-
This one would never pass iStock review due to some policy known only to them as well as I don't know to comply to their 'needs' in stock illustration ;-)
Thank goodness.
-
This one would never pass iStock review due to some policy known only to them as well as I don't know to comply to their 'needs' in stock illustration ;-)
Thank goodness.
Someone just opened the gates to hell. :o
-
I totally agree that the exclusives should be entitled to higher commissions, more uploads and fast reviews. But the quality and contents should be equal standards for all.
Agreed. My sales on IS went back to normal this month and my top sellers are again on page 1, according to relevancy of course. If a buyer wants exclusives, he can still look for it by selecting the proper search option on IS. It's a good strategy when looking for a concept and you don't want the results cluttered with images you can also find at other sites. As a low volume buyer I first look on DT, then on IS exclusive only. That way, I have an overview of what's available. If the image isn't exclusive at IS, it's better to buy it at DT than at IS since DT is cheaper. Makes sense, huh? ;)
-
Someone just opened the gates to hell. :o
The road to hell is paved with ćevapčići ;D
-
This one would never pass iStock review due to some policy known only to them as well as I don't know to comply to their 'needs' in stock illustration ;-)
Thank goodness.
Yup... Thank Goodness! If they've accepted me year ago I'd be in same suit as you there... You're exclusive there ha? But, it is great not to be exclusive ;-)
BTW, How was that with your stolen image on that site? Did iStock lawyers contacted that people who broke lincence terms?
-
My sales doubled since new best match started.
-
This image I didn't even try to submit to IS because I am sure it will be rejected, but I sold it OD on SS yesterday:
([url]http://69.90.174.250/photos/display_pic_with_logo/167695/167695,1241745420,1.jpg[/url])
and so on....
I hope IS people will see this thread and think once more about raster graphic. Of course, vectors sell better, but raster graphic can cell better than some photographs I think.
You might be missing the point - have a look at this weeks Design Spotlight http://www.istockphoto.com/design_spotlight_details.php?ID=26164 (http://www.istockphoto.com/design_spotlight_details.php?ID=26164)
Let the designers, design! They do a better job :)
-
This image I didn't even try to submit to IS because I am sure it will be rejected, but I sold it OD on SS yesterday:
([url]http://69.90.174.250/photos/display_pic_with_logo/167695/167695,1241745420,1.jpg[/url])
and so on....
I hope IS people will see this thread and think once more about raster graphic. Of course, vectors sell better, but raster graphic can cell better than some photographs I think.
You might be missing the point - have a look at this weeks Design Spotlight [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/design_spotlight_details.php?ID=26164[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/design_spotlight_details.php?ID=26164[/url])
Let the designers, design! They do a better job :)
You want to say I had to submit plain rendered fake Moon, and wait for inspectors to review it?? It's fake Moon, it would be rejected anyway because IS reviewers don't accept these things. So, I didn't even try to upload it. I sell it on other places. :)
-
iStock does accept raster illustrations. But the thing is, they need to be good.
A quick search brought me to these
http://tinyurl.com/oc2gqo
I think that if your work is up to the artisitc and techncial standard on that link, then you'll have no trouble getting them accepted at iStock.
Other sites might well accept simple photoshopping, plug in filtering, fractals and overly simple renders. They might even have a customer base for them. But those are other sites.
-
IMHO, istock hates these rastered images. Best to upload them to Shutterstock. Anything that looks like it was rendered in Apophysis get the automatic boot, while they get accepted at SS and get decent downloads if they are unique and interesting (which the above mentioned rastered images gave me a big yawn).
-
Just looking around IS.. here is someone who seems to have gotten their stuff on there.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=509729
I am going to try out 2 Rastered Images just to see if they reject them on IS. 2 that were accepted at other sites and have some views going.
With SS, I have just failed my first application so I am wondering if I could / should throw some rasters in it next time?
-
Just looking around IS.. here is someone who seems to have gotten their stuff on there.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=509729[/url]
I am going to try out 2 Rastered Images just to see if they reject them on IS. 2 that were accepted at other sites and have some views going.
With SS, I have just failed my first application so I am wondering if I could / should throw some rasters in it next time?
^ Even he mentioned being upset over rejections in one of his blog posts, and his illustrations are among the best and most stock worthy I've seen.
Anyway... I called it:
(http://skillersunited.com/kngkyle/20090519-224129.jpg)
I guess the silver lining here would be that it only took them 3 days to reject it instead of the usual 7+ days. Now if only the scout didn't take so long... my oldest is going on 25 days now.
-
Guess I will show what I am throwing at them too.
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9453810/2/istockphoto_9453810-essence.jpg)
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9453766/2/istockphoto_9453766-whisp.jpg)
Stock worthy? I dunno. I just like them.
-
Just looking around IS.. here is someone who seems to have gotten their stuff on there.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=509729[/url]
I am going to try out 2 Rastered Images just to see if they reject them on IS. 2 that were accepted at other sites and have some views going.
With SS, I have just failed my first application so I am wondering if I could / should throw some rasters in it next time?
he has nice stuff, but it doesn't tell his approval rating.
my approval for rasters (which are in no way comparable to his) is about 25% inc scout, my best selling dozen or so have been through scout :) some subjects & types seem impossible without scout.
I once had a batch of 10 images rejected with a comment added, "nice stuff, reupload as vector." :)
-
Just looking around IS.. here is someone who seems to have gotten their stuff on there.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=509729[/url]
I am going to try out 2 Rastered Images just to see if they reject them on IS. 2 that were accepted at other sites and have some views going.
With SS, I have just failed my first application so I am wondering if I could / should throw some rasters in it next time?
just seen he has been a member for 3.5 years and has 58 files
-
Trying to get a basic/simple rastered image on iStock is imo.. close to impossible and extremely frustrating :'( I've got 15.000 images on SS (and usually over 10.000 with other major sites) while iStock has so far accepted 27 LOL :o On the bright side: life has gotten a lot less frustrating now that i've stopped regular uploads on iStock and plan to stop uploading alltogether :) No more cursing on best match changes/horrific uploading/weird policies/insert other complaint ;D
-
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.
Their policy is wrong but it is one of several reasons why they will find it impossible to dominate the market, so in a way I hope they don't change. It is healthy for the buyers to have competitive sites that have something to offer that istock doesn't.
-
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.
Their policy is wrong but it is one of several reasons why they will find it impossible to dominate the market, so in a way I hope they don't change. It is healthy for the buyers to have competitive sites that have something to offer that istock doesn't.
Less is more :)
-
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.
Less is more :)
Exactly what I thought when I see 10.000+ images on Dreamstime of which less than 2% had 10 or more sales. There are certainly quite a few brillant images among them. Why not drop the other 98% and double the amount of work spent on the rest...
-
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.
Less is more :)
Exactly what I thought when I see 10.000+ images on Dreamstime of which less than 2% had 10 or more sales. There are certainly quite a few brillant images among them. Why not drop the other 98% and double the amount of work spent on the rest...
Because that images are sold for miserable 30-50 cents commissions to authors. And, please learn a bit of economy before you start to speak loud.
In mass there should not be found one of your quality images - if you have two, five or six thousands images you will have more sales. It is the way things are set up. No one and nothing can change that volume has advance over quality on microstock!
-
And, please learn a bit of economy before you start to speak loud.
Sure... as soon as you learn some manners before speaking to other people.
-
And, please learn a bit of economy before you start to speak loud.
Sure... as soon as you learn some manners before speaking to other people.
Sorry... I forgot my manners somewhere on the road...
-
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.
Less is more :)
Exactly what I thought when I see 10.000+ images on Dreamstime of which less than 2% had 10 or more sales. There are certainly quite a few brillant images among them. Why not drop the other 98% and double the amount of work spent on the rest...
Because that images are sold for miserable 30-50 cents commissions to authors. And, please learn a bit of economy before you start to speak loud.
In mass there should not be found one of your quality images - if you have two, five or six thousands images you will have more sales. It is the way things are set up. No one and nothing can change that volume has advance over quality on microstock!
Somehow i doubt that will ever happen :D
BTW I'm not sure about other people but i'm pretty convinced I would make less $$$ if i would spend more time on single images. Let's say i spend 3-4 hours on an image which nets me 100$. Pretty cool, but in that very same time i could easily produce 50 simple images that earn 4-5$ each and might have bigger sellers among them. Also there's a lot less risk of your images getting buried in the search engine since you've got more of them. (again this is just my personal experience/idea, i'm sure other people have different ideas). I remember spending an entire day on a single file which sold.. 0 times and ended up in me deleting that image alltogether :-\
-
Wow, those 27 uploads have 1356 downloads. istock should be trying to get your portfolio on their site.
Less is more :)
Exactly what I thought when I see 10.000+ images on Dreamstime of which less than 2% had 10 or more sales. There are certainly quite a few brillant images among them. Why not drop the other 98% and double the amount of work spent on the rest...
Because that images are sold for miserable 30-50 cents commissions to authors. And, please learn a bit of economy before you start to speak loud.
In mass there should not be found one of your quality images - if you have two, five or six thousands images you will have more sales. It is the way things are set up. No one and nothing can change that volume has advance over quality on microstock!
Somehow i doubt that will ever happen :D
BTW I'm not sure about other people but i'm pretty convinced I would make less $$$ if i would spend more time on single images. Let's say i spend 3-4 hours on an image which nets me 100$. Pretty cool, but in that very same time i could easily produce 50 simple images that earn 4-5$ each and might have bigger sellers among them. Also there's a lot less risk of your images getting buried in the search engine since you've got more of them. (again this is just my personal experience/idea, i'm sure other people have different ideas). I remember spending an entire day on a single file which sold.. 0 times and ended up in me deleting that image alltogether :-\
That is exactly how microstock works.
BTW, many people wrongly use 'quality' as some definition of high standard images. I am pretty sure that I have very good and excellent quality images due to that I have very most of them accepted on many agencies... So, there is quality stamp over them due to at least 10 or more reviewers accepted that images!
The point is to produce as many as possible images which will comply to standards as well as to produce them as fast as possible.
Nothing other matters ;-)
[edit] As for those people who have small quantity images and produce them slow, microstock is not place for them. They should go on mid-stock and macrostock... They have better chances there in terms of sales as well in terms of revenue! The one more detail: My complex images are sold not for less than $40/download... So GO FIGURE... The hint I give you here is clear difference about products we create. There is microstock product as well as real stock product category. If you learn the difference in this two categories and start to upload accordingly, you can get rich! But, if you work on one image for hours or days and then upload to microstock... Then something is wrong with you!
-
That is exactly how microstock works.
No, this is how Shutterstock works.
-
BTW I'm not sure about other people but i'm pretty convinced I would make less $$$ if i would spend more time on single images. Let's say i spend 3-4 hours on an image which nets me 100$. Pretty cool, but in that very same time i could easily produce 50 simple images that earn 4-5$ each and might have bigger sellers among them. Also there's a lot less risk of your images getting buried in the search engine since you've got more of them. (again this is just my personal experience/idea, i'm sure other people have different ideas). I remember spending an entire day on a single file which sold.. 0 times and ended up in me deleting that image alltogether :-\
You make valid points and I can understand why your system works for you. But in the long run quality will always shine and while it may take longer to build such a portfolio, it will produce excellent results over time - IMHO of course :)
-
Trying to get a basic/simple rastered image on iStock is imo.. close to impossible and extremely frustrating :'( I've got 15.000 images on SS (and usually over 10.000 with other major sites) while iStock has so far accepted 27 LOL :o On the bright side: life has gotten a lot less frustrating now that i've stopped regular uploads on iStock and plan to stop uploading alltogether :) No more cursing on best match changes/horrific uploading/weird policies/insert other complaint ;D
Impressive quota.
I guess you are not going to reveal your secret how you can upload nearly 20 images/illustrations every single day for 2 years straight (rejections not counted).
On a 10 hour working day, that's 2 images per hour including keywording. If you count 3 minutes for keywording, that's another 1 hour a day just to tag the images. Then you still have to categorize them.
Are you on life support or do you ever leave the house to go shopping for food? :-X
I get dizzy uploading 10 a day to all the agencies including keywording and categorizing...
Keep going.
-
That is exactly how microstock works.
No, this is how Shutterstock works.
Sorry sljocke, but you are exclusive on iStock - how may you know how microstock works?
You just know how iStock works ;-)
-
BTW I'm not sure about other people but i'm pretty convinced I would make less $$$ if i would spend more time on single images. Let's say i spend 3-4 hours on an image which nets me 100$. Pretty cool, but in that very same time i could easily produce 50 simple images that earn 4-5$ each and might have bigger sellers among them. Also there's a lot less risk of your images getting buried in the search engine since you've got more of them. (again this is just my personal experience/idea, i'm sure other people have different ideas). I remember spending an entire day on a single file which sold.. 0 times and ended up in me deleting that image alltogether :-\
You make valid points and I can understand why your system works for you. But in the long run quality will always shine and while it may take longer to build such a portfolio, it will produce excellent results over time - IMHO of course :)
You are second time wrong... First time you accoused me on copying other copies of my own images...
Now you say that sitting for hours creating coplex vectors or taking expensive images will win at last on microstock?
Yes if we all turn to be crazy to give such works for cents... Happilly there are very few of us ready to comply to give up from $50 and more commissions and hope to get more on thousands of 1 dollar download sales on microstock....
Microstock is as its name says... Micro in quality, micro in investments and micro in revenue per image....
Yes it comes to good point when you realize that you could sell that image for few thousands dollars and it get you just hundred or even less....
-
You are second time wrong... First time you accoused me on copying other copies of my own images...
Now you say that sitting for hours creating coplex vectors or taking expensive images will win at last on microstock?
Yes if we all turn to be crazy to give such works for cents... Happilly there are very few of us ready to comply to give up from $50 and more commissions and hope to get more on thousands of 1 dollar download sales on microstock....
Microstock is as its name says... Micro in quality, micro in investments and micro in revenue per image....
Yes it comes to good point when you realize that you could sell that image for few thousands dollars and it get you just hundred or even less....
Yep, whatever you say :)
-
I just sold it on BigStock. Two times today, for $2 and $3 :)
(http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/4/0/5/large/5046472.jpg)
-
Sorry sljocke, but you are exclusive on iStock - how may you know how microstock works?
You just know how iStock works ;-)
Because from what I read here, people have to keep shoving stuff into the SS collection as fast as possible to keep sales up. Not so much true at IS.
-
Exactly what I thought when I see 10.000+ images on Dreamstime of which less than 2% had 10 or more sales. There are certainly quite a few brillant images among them. Why not drop the other 98% and double the amount of work spent on the rest...
The problem is a bit you never know in advance what those 2% will be. I have some weird (in my opinion) good sellers and some very bad sellers that I thought would make it to the top. And the weirdest is they are largely different at different sites. So how to chose? I don't have a clue.
-
I'm independent and I agree with Sean. SS is the only site that needs that sort of uploading.
Sorry sljocke, but you are exclusive on iStock - how may you know how microstock works?
You just know how iStock works ;-)
Because from what I read here, people have to keep shoving stuff into the SS collection as fast as possible to keep sales up. Not so much true at IS.
-
You make valid points and I can understand why your system works for you. But in the long run quality will always shine and while it may take longer to build such a portfolio, it will produce excellent results over time - IMHO of course :)
Possibly, but as it is now i'm getting better results with quantity :) Of course if I ever get the impression that spending more time on images will generate more cash, then i'd shift tactics in no time.
I guess you are not going to reveal your secret how you can upload nearly 20 images/illustrations every single day for 2 years straight (rejections not counted).
On a 10 hour working day, that's 2 images per hour including keywording. If you count 3 minutes for keywording, that's another 1 hour a day just to tag the images. Then you still have to categorize them.
Are you on life support or do you ever leave the house to go shopping for food? :-X
I get dizzy uploading 10 a day to all the agencies including keywording and categorizing...
Keep going.
Ahh well umm.. welcome to the new and exciting world of delegation. Last time i keyworded and categorized an image by myself must have been over a year ago :) You'd be amazed at how much time you can save by outsourcing a few boring/dull tasks.
Exactly what I thought when I see 10.000+ images on Dreamstime of which less than 2% had 10 or more sales. There are certainly quite a few brillant images among them. Why not drop the other 98% and double the amount of work spent on the rest...
The problem is a bit you never know in advance what those 2% will be. I have some weird (in my opinion) good sellers and some very bad sellers that I thought would make it to the top. And the weirdest is they are largely different at different sites. So how to chose? I don't have a clue.
So very true, some images may be popular with oh lets say DT, while others may be popular on FT and so on.. it's pretty random.
-
Ahh well umm.. welcome to the new and exciting world of delegation. Last time i keyworded and categorized an image by myself must have been over a year ago :) You'd be amazed at how much time you can save by outsourcing a few boring/dull tasks.
You find it is cost effective to delegate uploading and keywording? Do you have someone in house do it or do you outsource to a company that does that?
Just curious. I like doing everything myself and keeping my costs low.
-
Ahh well umm.. welcome to the new and exciting world of delegation. Last time i keyworded and categorized an image by myself must have been over a year ago :) You'd be amazed at how much time you can save by outsourcing a few boring/dull tasks.
I can certainly relate to that as I also outsource to a lovely girl in the Ukraine who saves me countless hours and dollars reproducing CAD illustrations for industrial manuals.
As for Microstock, well, unfortunately I'm a * Virgo perfectionist, and can't bear the thought of lowering my standards to produce bulk imagery, no matter what! Its in my blood or something. But, like yours, its still a system that works :)
-
Ahh well umm.. welcome to the new and exciting world of delegation. Last time i keyworded and categorized an image by myself must have been over a year ago :) You'd be amazed at how much time you can save by outsourcing a few boring/dull tasks.
You find it is cost effective to delegate uploading and keywording? Do you have someone in house do it or do you outsource to a company that does that?
Just curious. I like doing everything myself and keeping my costs low.
What else would you do on a wet Sunday or on the dark winter nights? ;D
-
Sorry sljocke, but you are exclusive on iStock - how may you know how microstock works?
You just know how iStock works ;-)
Because from what I read here, people have to keep shoving stuff into the SS collection as fast as possible to keep sales up. Not so much true at IS.
SS has its flow as any other agency on its own way... SS is just one of the best as well as iStock is one of the best...
BTW, I am quite not in mood to work on one vector for days and then upload it to iStock or any other microstock site... That work invested must return on other way with much more RPI and there is traditional stock as well as some specialized retailers for that kind of works. So, complex or elaborate complexity vector I make could never be sold for less than $50-$100 per download. Story with 5-10 minutes vectors is completely different and I really don't care if they sell for less than dollar by subscription or for 5, 10 or 20 dollars by single sales.... It is point in that you must find nitche for your work as well if you don't have nitche (I don't because I can draw anything in any style) then you must find adequate retailers for your different work... It is simple when you know to recognize what you are able to create and how difficult that is... It is absolutely the same with photography. Some people do isolated over white images for microstock - no big deal - one day they can produce hundreds or thousands of isolated images... But, when you must go on some trip, pay for crew, rent additional equipment, models, stylist, makeup, models , place for all to sleep and food, you really don't wish to see your results of such investment is sold for peannuts... Also, if you have TFCD and similar models, Friend stylist, many other friends who can help you with some of details you will not mind that produced images sell for peannuts... That is main difference and main advantages or disadvantages...
-
To follow up on this topic, the result of the scout review:
Issue/Question:
Not suitable as stock my ass. So tired of this complete BS rejection reason for every and any raster illustration.
--
Comment:
Congratulations, a scout ticket that you have submit has resulted in a rejection being overturned!
Regards,
scout.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9390292 (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9390292)
-
I forgot about this thread...mine got knocked off too. I wonder if I should "scout" it just to learn how.
-
To follow up on this topic, the result of the scout review:
Issue/Question:
Not suitable as stock my ass. So tired of this complete BS rejection reason for every and any raster illustration.
--
Comment:
Congratulations, a scout ticket that you have submit has resulted in a rejection being overturned!
Regards,
scout.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9390292[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9390292[/url])
Congrats! You are one of few who succeded - Maybe I can give a try ;-)
-
Because from what I read here, people have to keep shoving stuff into the SS collection as fast as possible to keep sales up.
True enough __ exclusivity at IS is almost certainly the better bet.
-
Because from what I read here, people have to keep shoving stuff into the SS collection as fast as possible to keep sales up.
True enough __ exclusivity at IS is almost certainly the better bet.
Well, not anymore... SS has changed its search results and now it is similar to iStocks best match... I have mass of old images selling ;-)
So, no - you are wrong.
-
Well, not anymore... SS has changed its search results and now it is similar to iStocks best match... I have mass of old images selling ;-)
Awful Zeus on the Olympus and holy bull's excrement, I just had a look. You're right. I didn't upload since March and I'm already at 40$ there today. We can finally stop feeding the beast.
-
Well, not anymore... SS has changed its search results and now it is similar to iStocks best match... I have mass of old images selling ;-)
Awful Zeus on the Olympus and holy bull's excrement, I just had a look. You're right. I didn't upload since March and I'm already at 40$ there today. We can finally stop feeding the beast.
Dear god he is correct. Images I uploaded over a year ago appear on page 1. When did they make this change exactly?
-
Well, not anymore... SS has changed its search results and now it is similar to iStocks best match... I have mass of old images selling ;-)
Awful Zeus on the Olympus and holy bull's excrement, I just had a look. You're right. I didn't upload since March and I'm already at 40$ there today. We can finally stop feeding the beast.
Dear god he is correct. Images I uploaded over a year ago appear on page 1. When did they make this change exactly?
Shutterstock buyers are new image hoarders. I wonder what will happen when they figure out they're hoarding old stuff.
-
Shutterstock buyers are new image hoarders. I wonder what will happen when they figure out they're hoarding old stuff.
;D
-
Well, not anymore... SS has changed its search results and now it is similar to iStocks best match... I have mass of old images selling ;-)
Awful Zeus on the Olympus and holy bull's excrement, I just had a look. You're right. I didn't upload since March and I'm already at 40$ there today. We can finally stop feeding the beast.
Dear god he is correct. Images I uploaded over a year ago appear on page 1. When did they make this change exactly?
Shutterstock buyers are new image hoarders. I wonder what will happen when they figure out they're hoarding old stuff.
They will be happy !
Nevertheless on SS you may search by two ways:
1. Best Match (MOST POPULAR)
2. Newest
-
And the 2nd one that I sent to scout:
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7442/scr1244232953.jpg)
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9423717 (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=9423717)
-
Well, not anymore... SS has changed its search results and now it is similar to iStocks best match... I have mass of old images selling ;-)
Awful Zeus on the Olympus and holy bull's excrement, I just had a look. You're right. I didn't upload since March and I'm already at 40$ there today. We can finally stop feeding the beast.
Dear god he is correct. Images I uploaded over a year ago appear on page 1. When did they make this change exactly?
Well this explains why none of my new series is generating sales there like I expected. Would be nice to stop feeding the beast, but only after I clear the backlog on my computer :)
-
Well, not anymore... SS has changed its search results and now it is similar to iStocks best match... I have mass of old images selling ;-)
That's refreshing! Now I can stop shooting my wood floor just for getting exposure. Last years I felt like I was working in a mass production Nike industry based somewhere bad in Asia
-
I was totally disappointed in the last batch I submitted. Almost no sales from the last batch I uploaded to SS. But good to know I will just stop uploading, if new images do not generate the sales. What actually happened was that an image maybe 2 weeks old ended up on the last place of my portfolio when sorted according to popularity. Now tell me what incentive do I now have to submit more images to SS?
For me currently there are only three left from the top 5 to which I now regular upload. DT, FT and IS. There at least I see new images being sold. StockXpert fell out a month or two ago, when I submitted a bigger batch of nice images and non of them got downloaded and hardly got any views.
-
I was totally disappointed in the last batch I submitted. Almost no sales from the last batch I uploaded to SS. But good to know I will just stop uploading, if new images do not generate the sales. What actually happened was that an image maybe 2 weeks old ended up on the last place of my portfolio when sorted according to popularity. Now tell me what incentive do I now have to submit more images to SS?
For me currently there are only three left from the top 5 to which I now regular upload. DT, FT and IS. There at least I see new images being sold. StockXpert fell out a month or two ago, when I submitted a bigger batch of nice images and non of them got downloaded and hardly got any views.
Well - it is time to comply to what is needed - not what is popular! 'Vogue' images are not what buyers really wish to buy! Look at show me your latest download thread and you'll see that some 'rules' on some agencies are quite wrong in terms of buyers needs... It is more likely that some agencies wish to extend their libraries on something they don't have enough and selling images which have not any connection to those they said they really need... It is stockpilling what they do... Not real picture of what will really sell!
It is one of main reasons why I can't pass on iStock initial review - I don't need artist badge or any other badge - I need money and that is why I do stock images as many other authors to whom they say 'we don't need'! When some agencies understand that, it may be too late for them!
Anyway - no feeding the beast - just making useful simplistic or original images ;-)
[EDIT] Almost forgot: Shutterstock ROCKS!
-
Although I do a very small number of photos, I can confirm that after the recent 'change', new images on SS go nowhere. The trend on all the micros is to stop boosting new images in favor of 'popularity' ranking of old images. I made many more sales just 2 months ago, with fewer photos, and on SS most of them were for new images.
If you think about this for 5 seconds you realize that images submitted today have no way to gain the popularity they'd need to become successful 'old' images.
Not sure when or if I'll start submitting again.
-
Back on the subject of frustration with iStockphoto:
We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled squares mosaic pattern...
([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9601972/2/istockphoto_9601972-squares-mosaic-pattern.jpg[/url])
... for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons: We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all submissions.
So, I've sent it to scout and it is more than obvious that this IS VERY SUITABLE STOCK IMAGE with other version downloaded more than 300 times on other places. Nevertheless, this one has 50mpix resolution!
Well, iStock will probably be my EX agency and 4th bailout due to this stupidity!
-
after being rejected several times for my vector application ...
and seing this topic I thought give it a try and submit some raster versions of my vectors...
Sofar two were accepted Yippie da doo
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9594479/2/istockphoto_9594479-halftone-raster-dancing-girls.jpg[img])
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9594439/2/istockphoto_9594439-halftone-raster-dancing-boys.jpg[img])
hope they accept many more.......
-
Congrats Kaycee!
I had my initial 10 vectrors review on Veer Marketplace and it says:
"
There has been new activity on your Veer Marketplace contributor account.
Here is a summary of your contributor statistics:
Approved: 10
"
So, I believe they need my illustrations 'in terms of composition, use of BLAH BLAH and stock value so BLAH BLAH'... Quite opposite of that as they reject on iStock ;-)
It is all in Competition - what else to say ;-)
[Edit] After last 'BLAH BLAH' there is contextual sentence which is a bit determinable about to whom is BLAH BLAH quote addressed to... It is iStock I am criticizing here - not veer!
-
Congrats Kaycee!
I had my initial 10 vectrors review on Veer Marketplace and it says:
"
There has been new activity on your Veer Marketplace contributor account.
Here is a summary of your contributor statistics:
Approved: 10
"
So, I believe they need my illustrations 'in terms of composition, use of BLAH BLAH and stock value so BLAH BLAH...
It is all in Competition - what else to say ;-)
Congratz to make to Veer... I'm still struggeling with my account (can't login anymore)
The fun part of my two vectors/raster halftone dancing was rejected by vivozoom with this reason :Image does not meet our quality standard
and rejected by Crestock for the reason of composition...So I thought it never would be accepted by Istock...I guessed wrong this time...
-
Well, real reviewer should know what images will sell... If he doubt then he better accept than reject some image... It is not the case at iStock due to my simple background/frame image has been rejected there...
But Veer reviewers know what is commercial and I know that my images ARE in that category as well as I intentionaly put this one on initial review:
(http://images.veer.com/IMG/TIMG/MPP/1440511_T.jpg)
Along with some other of my sellers and original works...
Now, it is flood of images coming up to my Veer Marketplace Dashboard ;-)
-
([url]http://images.veer.com/IMG/TIMG/MPP/1440511_T.jpg[/url])
It's so shorts-sighted of iStock to reject an image like this. The copyspace is very salable :P
-
Well, real reviewer should know what images will sell... If he doubt then he better accept than reject some image... It is not the case at iStock due to my simple background/frame image has been rejected there...
But Veer reviewers know what is commercial and I know that my images ARE in that category as well as I intentionaly put this one on initial review:
([url]http://images.veer.com/IMG/TIMG/MPP/1440511_T.jpg[/url])
Along with some other of my sellers and original works...
Now, it is flood of images coming up to my Veer Marketplace Dashboard ;-)
::) ::) :-X
-
I can confirm that after the recent 'change', new images on SS go nowhere. The trend on all the micros is to stop boosting new images in favor of 'popularity' ranking of old images. I made many more sales just 2 months ago, with fewer photos, and on SS most of them were for new images.
If you think about this for 5 seconds you realize that images submitted today have no way to gain the popularity they'd need to become successful 'old' images.
Well, the only way to get sales on "new" images is let them grow old, so upload is the only option. If you don't upload now, they will grow old later. At Kingkyle: the change happened silently somewhere around the end of May when the SS forum was in turmoil about the IRS issue, so it almost went unnoticed.
For sales, DT and SS were a bit complimentary: DT for the long run, SS for the new images. It gave a nice bipolar earnings curve. Again, the long-term contributors will benefit and the new uploads/uploaders will suffer.
Both on DT and on SS, the buyer can rank to relevance and newness. If a simple change in the default algorithm (that chan be undone by one simple click) has so much repercussions on sales, one might wonder how (un)educated buyers really are. Sjlocke was right, there is room for blogs oriented towards buyers.
-
Well, real reviewer should know what images will sell... If he doubt then he better accept than reject some image... It is not the case at iStock due to my simple background/frame image has been rejected there...
But Veer reviewers know what is commercial and I know that my images ARE in that category as well as I intentionaly put this one on initial review:
([url]http://images.veer.com/IMG/TIMG/MPP/1440511_T.jpg[/url])
Along with some other of my sellers and original works...
Now, it is flood of images coming up to my Veer Marketplace Dashboard ;-)
::) ::) :-X
That image earned over $500 on other agencies including JUI/Photos.com :o
And, sometimes it is good to have designers as friends who can tell you what kind of images they may need!
BTW, you can learn something out of the box from me... Why you are so cinical?
-
As said 'Not needed on iStock':
http://www.fotolia.com/TopSales/FromThisWeek (http://www.fotolia.com/TopSales/FromThisWeek)
It is on first page of best sales last 7 days on Fotolia!!!
-
As said 'Not needed on iStock':
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/TopSales/FromThisWeek[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/TopSales/FromThisWeek[/url])
It is on first page of best sales last 7 days on Fotolia!!!
You guys really should give the agencies a bit of credit for knowing what they are doing, if every asset is accepted on every site and the search returned the same assets, where would be the diversity and what would be the point?
As has been said Istock use a different set of acceptance rules than ShutterStock and other sites, and will have some customers that the other don't, they have not said the asset is a bad quality one, just it is 'not needed by them at this time', subscription models need a lot more new images to keep their customers coming back and downloading, not always to use the downloaded asset but just because they want to use up the subscription limits, what is a best seller this week does not follow it will still be in a month or two.
David :D
-
As said 'Not needed on iStock':
[url]http://www.fotolia.com/TopSales/FromThisWeek[/url] ([url]http://www.fotolia.com/TopSales/FromThisWeek[/url])
It is on first page of best sales last 7 days on Fotolia!!!
You guys really should give the agencies a bit of credit for knowing what they are doing, if every asset is accepted on every site and the search returned the same assets, where would be the diversity and what would be the point?
As has been said Istock use a different set of acceptance rules than ShutterStock and other sites, and will have some customers that the other don't, they have not said the asset is a bad quality one, just it is 'not needed by them at this time', subscription models need a lot more new images to keep their customers coming back and downloading, not always to use the downloaded asset but just because they want to use up the subscription limits, what is a best seller this week does not follow it will still be in a month or two.
David :D
Well, It is on Fotolia for a while and it broke some other peoples records in sales for single file...
Istock don't need my vectors and as such I tried to send them rasterized versions of some which are pretty hard to draw in illustrator only - I used 2 vector software to draw them ;-)
Well, they don't need my work at all because they've accepted just one from 18 initial vectors I've send them in 6 tries... What to say? They have other standards than all other stock agencies and there we come in that not working for me. I am also hurt now with Gettys idea to apply to istock and disabling all files originated from StockXpert to sell on JUI/Photos.com.
So, this is more policy than business and I am liberatian... So, outlets to be filled with my images are going to be more numerous than I've initially thought about it...
If iStock don't need my vectors I am sure all others do need them and I will upload where they need them with not bothering with iStock.
-
What actually happened was that an image maybe 2 weeks old ended up on the last place of my portfolio when sorted according to popularity. Now tell me what incentive do I now have to submit more images to SS?
Wow... I hadn't noticed that before. All of my latest uploads are on the last pages >:(
-
Scout got back to me and overturned one of the Raster Rejects.
This one is now online as of today...rated 5 and has 6 views...now waiting on sales.
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9453766/2/istockphoto_9453766-whisp.jpg)
But... since I got into SS.... I don't have to worry about going to Scout everytime I want to try to sell a raster.
-
^^^ What exactly is that supposed to be?
It's not going to sell unless it jumps out of a page of thumbnails as a good representation of it's subject matter __ and I can't tell what it is even at that size.
-
Just a smokey type background. Someone liked it with rating it. The only reason it was rejected before was for Artifacting. I cant say what will sell or not in photos or illustrations. Just putting it out there for the ones with money to spend to make that decision.
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. The colours are pretty but I don't understand the hard edges/shapes in particular. For an image to sell well it has to be obvious at thumbnail size __ really, really obvious. I hope I'm wrong though!
-
You didn't hurt my feelings. I have another one that all the other sites rejected save one. Today as soon as it hit SS search index.... 2 dl's in 30 minutes. I honestly cannot say yes this will sell or no it wont (unless its really uninteresting, noisy or blurry). I really wish I could (as everyone else would love to be able to also). All I can do is put it out to see if it sells or not. I might like it but that does not mean it will sell at all. There is a thread around here I think on Images that you thought would not sell or something like that.
This comes from me...A Guy...who a few years ago sold a used Cigarette Butt on Ebay for a little more than the price of a pack of Cigarettes. All you can do is try.
As soon as I find the disk I saved this one to.. I am putting it on SS.
-
^^^ What exactly is that supposed to be?
It's not going to sell unless it jumps out of a page of thumbnails as a good representation of it's subject matter __ and I can't tell what it is even at that size.
It is very useful abstract background for any designer!
-
Back on the subject of frustration with iStockphoto:
We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled squares mosaic pattern...
([url]http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9601972/2/istockphoto_9601972-squares-mosaic-pattern.jpg[/url])
... for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons: We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all submissions.
So, I've sent it to scout and it is more than obvious that this IS VERY SUITABLE STOCK IMAGE with other version downloaded more than 300 times on other places. Nevertheless, this one has 50mpix resolution!
Well, iStock will probably be my EX agency and 4th bailout due to this stupidity!
OK, here is response from scout:
Comment:
Congratulations, a scout ticket that you have submit has resulted in a rejection being overturned!
Regards,
scout.
-
You guys really should give the agencies a bit of credit for knowing what they are doing, if every asset is accepted on every site and the search returned the same assets, where would be the diversity and what would be the point?
Should accept fewer. Some people upload far too many similar shots from their shoots. It was better in the days of film when only the best few got picked out for copying and distribution.
-
You guys really should give the agencies a bit of credit for knowing what they are doing, if every asset is accepted on every site and the search returned the same assets, where would be the diversity and what would be the point?
Should accept fewer. Some people upload far too many similar shots from their shoots. It was better in the days of film when only the best few got picked out for copying and distribution.
Totally agree with you - 3-5 from different unique images from series would be more than enough!
-
([url]http://images.veer.com/IMG/TIMG/MPP/1440511_T.jpg[/url])
It's so shorts-sighted of iStock to reject an image like this. The copyspace is very salable :P
:D
Milinz, can you not understand that iStock standards are generally higher - aesthetically speaking this illustration is quite poor.
-
([url]http://images.veer.com/IMG/TIMG/MPP/1440511_T.jpg[/url])
It's so shorts-sighted of iStock to reject an image like this. The copyspace is very salable :P
:D
Milinz, can you not understand that iStock standards are generally higher - aesthetically speaking this illustration is quite poor.
Aestetically speaking - there are many people downloading that for various purposes - so aestetics standards are quite dubmb if you ask me... Nevertheless - 'poor' is wrong naming for simple decorative detail which is very useful to many designers.
-
...which is very useful to many designers.
I am sure that can be seen in some people's portfolios as a successful track record of numerous images that have been sold hundreds of times...
-
I just added my reply to back you up on this issue on the istock thread. Don't expect them to change their ways overnight, but the more that chime in about this, at least I hope the more they will consider it.
-
I've proved my points in 'not good for stock' reviews...
Also, I am stopping further uploads to Getty owned sites - which brings iStock at first place for not uploading.