The reasons to cancel excluvity are well listed here in different topics and I was thinking about it for some time. My acceptance rates was the last blow.

Irrationality behind rejections were beaten to death here but I'd like to share my own experience:

The same 3d scene, the same render and light settings, sometimes the same camera angle, just a different angle or minor change, some are accepted, some rejected for not artistic but quality reasons. For example, I designed a building with Ionic columns and wrote Bank, Government and University on it. With a connection to a laptop they became e-banking, e-government and e-learning concepts. Out of 6-7 combinations with these, only 2 are accepted, the rest are rejected for "jagged edges." There is no jagged edges of course, I always use optimum sampling settings and high polygon counts for the cost of long render times. But let's assume it is true, so how the other two were accepted?

I think I'll have more chance on other sites and it will already balance the equation.

The reasons to cancel excluvity are well listed here in different topics and I was thinking about it for some time. My acceptance rates was the last blow.

Irrationality behind rejections were beaten to death here but I'd like to share my own experience:

The same 3d scene, the same render and light settings, sometimes the same camera angle, just a different angle or minor change, some are accepted, some rejected for not artistic but quality reasons. For example, I designed a building with Ionic columns and wrote Bank, Government and University on it. With a connection to a laptop they became e-banking, e-government and e-learning concepts. Out of 6-7 combinations with these, only 2 are accepted, the rest are rejected for "jagged edges." There is no jagged edges of course, I always use optimum sampling settings and high polygon counts for the cost of long render times. But let's assume it is true, so how the other two were accepted?

I think I'll have more chance on other sites and it will already balance the equation.

I personally don't think it wise to go exclusive at any site, but regarding your images...
if you are submitting a bunch with only slight camera angles or minor changes, I can see why some might get rejected. If you have 10 images with only MINOR changes, you should choose the best one or two and only submit them. Before others jump in and start talking about similars being helpful for the designer, I agree, but the keyword you are mentioning is MINOR. If by different angle you mean front view, side view, back view, top view, etc., meaning totally different angles, then I share your disgust with the rejections, assuming all other technical aspects of the image are correct.

As far as your question "But let's assume it is true, so how the other two were accepted?"...you might as well not even worry about the answer. It is what it is. Either go exclusive, accept the rejections, learn from then, resubmit to scout, or as Sean says, post an image so others might help you understand, or give up exclusivity, submit to others sites where you might get some of the others accepted.

But my first paragraph above should be applied to all sites. Most are cracking down on MINOR CHANGE similars anyway.

The reasons to cancel excluvity are well listed here in different topics and I was thinking about it for some time. My acceptance rates was the last blow.

Irrationality behind rejections were beaten to death here but I'd like to share my own experience:

The same 3d scene, the same render and light settings, sometimes the same camera angle, just a different angle or minor change, some are accepted, some rejected for not artistic but quality reasons. For example, I designed a building with Ionic columns and wrote Bank, Government and University on it. With a connection to a laptop they became e-banking, e-government and e-learning concepts. Out of 6-7 combinations with these, only 2 are accepted, the rest are rejected for "jagged edges." There is no jagged edges of course, I always use optimum sampling settings and high polygon counts for the cost of long render times. But let's assume it is true, so how the other two were accepted?

I think I'll have more chance on other sites and it will already balance the equation.

Don't take it your hart, since most of Istock 'inspectors' are dilettants. I have a decent (around 70%) acceptance before anyone comes up with me being spiteful because of severe rejections... But. I had 'isolation' rejections for images that weren't isolated. Fail. I had 'degraded image quality from upsampling' rejections because some pics were slightly larger than what my camera (exif) produces - I extended the white background on some very tight compositions, where the subject was almost touching the edges... of course the images were razor * sharp. Fail. I added a note for the inspector to inform him/her about one of photoshop's most basic functions that even novices know: how you can enlarge image area with the crop tool which includes no upsampling whatsoever. From the answer it was pretty clear that I was communicating with clueless dilettant. It's not just they didn't know about that property of the crop tool, but seemingly didn't even understand it thru my explanation. Double fail: an inspector of digital imagery with hardly any knowledge of photoshop, and lacking the mental abilities to understand a simple explanation. : )) Well trained chimpanzees could do a better job than that.

I personally don't think it wise to go exclusive at any site, but regarding your images...
if you are submitting a bunch with only slight camera angles or minor changes, I can see why some might get rejected. If you have 10 images with only MINOR changes, you should choose the best one or two and only submit them. Before others jump in and start talking about similars being helpful for the designer, I agree, but the keyword you are mentioning is MINOR. If by different angle you mean front view, side view, back view, top view, etc., meaning totally different angles, then I share your disgust with the rejections, assuming all other technical aspects of the image are correct.

As far as your question "But let's assume it is true, so how the other two were accepted?"...you might as well not even worry about the answer. It is what it is. Either go exclusive, accept the rejections, learn from then, resubmit to scout, or as Sean says, post an image so others might help you understand, or give up exclusivity, submit to others sites where you might get some of the others accepted.

But my first paragraph above should be applied to all sites. Most are cracking down on MINOR CHANGE similars anyway.

Hi cclapper,
I know what you mean but; 

1) Sometimes minor changes make a totally different concept (thats why I gave the specific example). Just by changing the name on the building, it can be either e-gov, online banking, or e-learning concept.

2) If "minor" change is the problem, then they should say so, "jagged lines" cannot correct themselves from one image to other while I'm using the same settings and geometries.

Completely of the topic, without googling it, can u name the film? I've taken out who says what.

    It can all end, right now. Peace. Bliss. Just say it. Cry out mercy.
    Mercy...mercy!
    Cry out. Just say it. Mercy.
    Mercy lad, mercy.
    Jesus, mercy.
    The prisoner wishes to say a word.
    FREEEEE-DOMMMMMM!!!!!

I have the same issue with "jagged edges" that I can't see.

It appears to me that it's one of the standard rejection reasons if there are other issues the reasons for rejection (too many similars or LCV).

Some of my renders that I believe would never get through make it and others that are super NOT-jaggy fail for the aforementioned reason.

It's a hit and miss. Keep resubmitting. Eventually they'll get in.

...Irrationality behind rejections were beaten to death here but I'd like to share my own experience...

Standards do vary from site to site and collection to collection (even if you ignore the odd spike of weirdness from a new reviewer), but you'll have to get your head around rejections whether you're independent or exclusive. I would grant you that it's always easier if all sites but one accept something because you know it will be on sale vs. not.

I'm now uploading elsewhere again after 2+ years of exclusivity and when SS rejected a file that had been a Vetta image at iStock I could feel the old outrage welling up and I had to just remind myself that these rejections are irrelevant and move on. When you're independent, you will continue to have rejections you don't agree with - potentially more of them too (because there are more sites therefore #images x #sites opportunities to be rejected)

Quote from: lthn on May 15, 2011, 07:57

I had 'degraded image quality from upsampling' rejections because some pics were slightly larger than what my camera (exif) produces - I extended the white background on some very tight compositions, where the subject was almost touching the edges... of course the images were razor * sharp. Fail.

Images larger than native camera size are not allowed.  Next time don't frame so sharp, or downsize a bit to add white around it.

Quote

I added a note for the inspector to inform him/her about one of photoshop's most basic functions that even novices know: how you can enlarge image area with the crop tool which includes no upsampling whatsoever. From the answer it was pretty clear that I was communicating with clueless dilettant. It's not just they didn't know about that property of the crop tool, but seemingly didn't even understand it thru my explanation. Double fail: an inspector of digital imagery with hardly any knowledge of photoshop, and lacking the mental abilities to understand a simple explanation. : )) Well trained chimpanzees could do a better job than that.

What?  You can't enlarge an image without upsampling.  Using the crop tool to do so is still upsampling.  Even a capuchin would know that.

He wasn't upsampling, he was adding white background with the crop tool. The same thing as adding size in "Canvas size..."

The crop tool doesn't resize the image if you don't type any size information in the boxes.

'He wasn't upsampling, he was adding white background with the crop tool. The same thing as adding size in "Canvas size..."

The crop tool doesn't resize the image if you don't type any size information in the boxes.'

Sorry, I thought he was discussing two separate issues the way it was written.  Regardless, you can't submit an image larger than your camera native size.

Images larger than native camera size are not allowed.  Next time don't frame so sharp, or downsize a bit to add white around it.

Actually i have 2 or 3 dozen that were accepted at 600% - 1200% larger than native...made "mural" like photos...

Sigh.  A composite or panorama is fine.  

The problem here is that an image can be rejected if it's bigger than camera's native size - even if it is a composite or panorama or "added white background".

They should really concentrate only how an image LOOKS at 100%, not what it is shot with.

Images larger than native camera size are not allowed.  Next time don't frame so sharp, or downsize a bit to add white around it.

Other times I didn't forget to wip the exif, no problemo. Thats all for 'not allowed'. Another fail : ) Btw, I do stiched model shots as wierd as it may sound. Whats the problem with that? Downsizing also degrades image quality combined with getting a smaller file for no reason whatsoever... thats reasonable.

What?  You can't enlarge an image without upsampling.  Using the crop tool to do so is still upsampling.  Even a capuchin would know that.

You just failed at photoshop. The crop tool doesn't sample anything anywhere, thats the 'image size' command.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 15, 2011, 11:30

Images larger than native camera size are not allowed.  Next time don't frame so sharp, or downsize a bit to add white around it.

Other times I didn't forget to wip the exif, no problemo. Thats all for 'not allowed'. Another fail : ) Btw, I do stiched model shots as wierd as it may sound. Whats the problem with that? Downsizing also degrades image quality combined with getting a smaller file for no reason whatsoever... thats reasonable.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 15, 2011, 11:30

What?  You can't enlarge an image without upsampling.  Using the crop tool to do so is still upsampling.  Even a capuchin would know that.

You just failed at photoshop. The crop tool doesn't sample anything anywhere, thats the 'image size' command.

umm, but it does - you can enter size and resolution into the crop tool and volia - resampled!