MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I think it will be Goodbye to IStock...  (Read 17606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 22, 2008, 17:27 »
0
Took couple of attempts to get accepted. After that - initially all was going OK with about 60% acceptance rate - then, all of a sudden everything is "overfiltered" - probably all four or five last submissions. 
I am getting tired of this - it is not worth wasting my time there (although I am getting sales). I never know what may get accepted at IStock - and I think that Iam not going to try any longer. On any other site I managed to get a reasonable grasp of acceptance criteria quite quickly - and have no problems. It's a pity, but IStock just does not work for me. As usual, YMMV.

 :-\


tan510jomast

« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2008, 17:36 »
0
hey there,  IS is not really that difficult to figure out. anything you shoot, don't do any post processing other than adjust maybe the levels or cropping. and you should be accepted.
even if you do a montage, you will be rejected. so don't waste your time trying to make an interesting montage .
IS makes the least money too, so perharps it should not be your priority site , but do give it another try.
i find that anything that is considered by other sites that prefer higher saturation, a bit of sharpening,etc...  will most times be rejected.
in fact, here's a hint. every , almost , every photo i submitted at the same time to other sites, the ones IS took is considered "low contrast" by other sites, and the ones that other sites took, are mostly rejected by IS as "overfiltered".
i hope this gives you an idea.
as i said, IS , to me, is the most consistent .
i could name another site that is the most difficult to figure out , but that's not for this topic.  good luck.

« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2008, 17:49 »
0
Funny, IS is the only site (for instant) where I have no very few rejections. The worst for me is Fotolia. My last batch accepatnce ratio :
IS - 100%
SS - 100%
DT 100%
BS 100%
123 - 80 %
StockXpert - 100%
FT - 0% <----- maybe the challenge is to have the smallest portfolio in microstock

tan510jomast

« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2008, 18:03 »
0
wow, rene! that's one heck of an almost perfect acceptance percentage!
 :P
« Last Edit: July 22, 2008, 18:23 by tan510jomast »

« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2008, 18:59 »
0
I totally agree and I seriously hate their review mentality. What . does "overfiltered from its original appearence" mean?

What is "original appearance"... How do they define it?

They are like spoiled children.


« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2008, 22:00 »
0
I have to jump in here and say what's always said....but here it is yet again.  From a designers perspective, we'd rather have a completely unfiltered image to work with.  They blow up better and retain more original data which makes it possible to filter it to our needs. 

A good stock image is one that can fit the widest array of uses and situations.  An image that you've sharpened or saturated may look great on your screen but cause huge expensive headaches when blown up for a large print job for example.

I seriously doubt it has anything to do with them being like "spoiled children" and more to do with providing sound images to clients.  But heck, what do I know? :)

« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2008, 01:18 »
0
I also feel their "overfiltered" rejections are sometimes bordering on paranoia. They are also not very consistent. With about 780 images in my portfolio with an overall acceptance rate of 85 % I am very careful what I submit to IS.  Normally I don't have much problems with IS to get my images accepted, but every now and then I got hit with a string of "overfiltered" rejections. I suspect it is one or two specific reviewers that are too critical or uses uncalibrated monitors. Examples of their inconsistency:

Prepare three identically exposed images from the same shoot (but different positions) with a batch command in PS (RAW files with moderate levels adjustments and a very low amount of USM applied).  Submitted two of them and they are accepted. Submitted the last one two weeks later and got rejected for "overfiltered". 

Re-submitted a file rejected for "overfiltered" UNALTERED some time later just to see what happen and this time it got rejected for "overuse of noise reduction software that removed too much detail". :o Now how on earth can a image be "overfiltered" (meaning over sharpened) and too soft from noise reduction at the same time? I submitted that particular image to Scout and it got accepted.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 01:22 by Eco »

« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2008, 01:33 »
0
It would be nice to upload unfiltered photos everywhere  .  The problem is that most of us find that if we add a bit of saturation our photos sell more.  Just look at the most popular images page.  Lots of over filtered images there.

http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php

And the artist of the week and image of the week often feature heavily filtered images.

Perhaps if the designer needs an unfiltered version they should be able to request it.  I don't like uploading photos that look flat, as they don't tend to catch the buyers eye.

« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2008, 01:40 »
0
After a while I also figured out that Istock only wants raw-material for designers to work with.  Dont know why though,  There are some great "readywork" out there.   Save a lazy designer some time:)

There are occasions when they accept montages though. When we do it good!

« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2008, 06:04 »
0
They are not "spoiled children" because they want "unfiltered" images. They are so because they are TOTALLY inconsistent about what they want.

helix7

« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2008, 08:50 »
0
Maybe. But when you're top dog in microstock, you get to act a little spoiled sometimes.



« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2008, 09:03 »
0
Quote
Now how on earth can a image be "overfiltered" (meaning over sharpened) and too soft from noise reduction at the same time?

I take "overfiltered" to mean over-saturated as well.

I find IS to be very consistent about accepting or rejecting images for me personally. They are normally right when they reject one of my photos and often give me a chance to fix the problem and resubmit. I appreciate the way they do things because it helps me learn what is best for stock. I can usually predict what they will reject and occasionally upload stuff just to see what they will do. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised when they take an unusual shot.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 09:06 by epantha »

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2008, 09:38 »
0
I find that resubmitting anything to IS is a wastee of time.  Resubmissions of mine were rejected for the same reason, "Overfiltered", regardless of what the rejection reason was the first time.

One shot was rejected for lighting.  So I took the raw file and used light touch of levels, and the image was rejected for Overfiltered.  That's when I decided no mor resubmissions to IS.  I only resubmit to SS and BS, and only resubmit if the reviewer advises a fix and advises me to resubmit.  Otherwise I figure there is no sense wasting the time of reviewers or my time.


« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2008, 10:12 »
0
The reviewers has no idea what the original looked like so that small tidbit should not be mentioned in the review. I have had rejections where the image
was not filtered or saturated and have had acceptances where it was. To reject because an images pops is plain nuts.

« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2008, 10:21 »
0
Quote
I find that resubmitting anything to IS is a wastee of time.

About 20 of my 101 files online were accepted after I made the corrections IS suggested and resubmitted them.

« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2008, 10:56 »
0
Quote
I find that resubmitting anything to IS is a wastee of time.

About 20 of my 101 files online were accepted after I made the corrections IS suggested and resubmitted them.

Unfortunately this displaces new work that could also be submitted. My philosophy is to shoot and process the way I believe a shot should look, if it gets rejected, oh well...

« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2008, 11:02 »
0
Quote
Unfortunately this displaces new work that could also be submitted. My philosophy is to shoot and process the way I believe a shot should look, if it gets rejected, oh well...

I've only been doing this stock thing for 4 months and realize I have a lot to learn, so I accept the learning curve imposed by the reviewers. I still upload a lot of new work but it will sometimes be delayed by resubmits.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 13:58 by epantha »

tan510jomast

« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2008, 11:05 »
0
although i don't usually re-submit, as it's faster submitting a new image,
i do have to give credit to IS (DT and StockXpert, if i can add them here), for allowing us to re-submit.
sure, 1 out of 3 will be rejected yet again, but whenever i did take the time to read the rejection reason and correct it, it was accepted.

i cannot say if it's helpful or not to all of you, but at least, as some of us here find, IS is consistent ie. submit a shot that is unprocessed, get it right at shooting. you won't get a problem of too many rejections from IS.

however, what IS puts on the frontpage and what IS wants from us, ... well.. that's yet another story. but then again, helix7 has a point.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 11:08 by tan510jomast »

« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2008, 13:33 »
0
I recently learned a lot about digital compositions, played around with layers, filters and adjustments. I used part of my original, painted artwork and the result was not like only using some simple filters. It looked quiet artistic but still not too freaky. Just to see if they would take it at all, I submitted the images to Istock, SS, DT and Fotolia. They took some, some were rejected.

Istock rejected for "overfiltering" - no surprise... But still, in this case I wanted to get a response and asked Scout what overfiltering in this special case means... I mean, I used the filters and layers to make that composition exactly to look like it looks. I did not do it by coincidence... It is like telling a painter that his artwork is not good because he used too much green.

Well, I just send the e-mail to Scout, so it might just take a little while like about 4 weeks for him to answer. Will let you know then....

« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2008, 13:45 »
0
In 18 months all they have accepted is 3 images from me. I have practically given up on them.

michealo

« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2008, 14:19 »
0
In 18 months all they have accepted is 3 images from me. I have practically given up on them.

I think you have to put that in context , how many did you submit in that much time?




« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2008, 17:09 »
0
Well, I personally see no reason to badmouth IStock (or anybody else, for that matter). They have their acceptance criteria, which is OK with me. The problem is (the way I see it) that the "overfiltering" is never explained, and I know for a fact that many pics rejected for this reason have not been processed excessively.  I think that a much more honest reason for rejection would be "We do not like this image" - which IMHO is fair enough.

Also - the rejections/approvals are not very consistent (at least this is my observation).

As a result - so far IStock does not work for me, but this is not to say that it wouldn't if I discovered the magic formula which makes the reviewers happy. So far I didn't.

I never bothered to submit images to IStock, which have been rejected elsewhere. Basically, I was limiting my submissions to what has been accepted at least at SS, Fotolia, StockXpert and Dreamstime.  Still - IStock accepted less than 40% of those - and many of the rejections are selling OK.

To me it is a bit strange - as I am not sure what the business objective at IStock is: either it is selling images and making money, or maybe it is imposing their criteria of what is overfileterd, what is not, etc.

Which is still OK - as they are free to do whatever they want on THEIR site - it just does not work very well for me.

« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2008, 19:03 »
0
i guess it just depends on who's reviewing that day. i submit filtered AND unfiltered images. they are equally accepted and rejected but IS is still my #2 earner. One day I'll have 9 out of 10 rejected for various reasons, the next day 9 out of 10 accepted..bottom line, don't over think them, just get 'er done.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2008, 20:54 »
0
In 18 months all they have accepted is 3 images from me. I have practically given up on them.

I think you have to put that in context , how many did you submit in that much time?

3?   ;D

« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2008, 21:31 »
0
Whatever the rejection reason it's usually a waste of time to "fix" it, regardless of the site. Wait a few days and resubmit the same thing and presto, accepted.

I've about had it with some of the rejection reasons as noted by others here. Especially the "poor lighting" and "incorrrect white point". 99% they are wrong. Period. I have to think that it just depends upon how good their monitors are and, mostly,  their personal preferences. I've got top equipment top to bottom and know how to use it. And that includes white balance control. I photograph paintings for artists for goodness sake. And you can't fake those white point results.

But that's the nature of this beast we serve. Best to turn the other cheek and gripe about it here to let off steam.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5133 Views
Last post November 21, 2012, 09:18
by enstoker
16 Replies
7289 Views
Last post June 18, 2013, 01:10
by borg
Shall We Say Goodbye?

Started by Leo Blanchette « 1 2  All » General Stock Discussion

40 Replies
16652 Views
Last post August 20, 2013, 05:31
by Pauws99
21 Replies
12069 Views
Last post September 18, 2018, 08:47
by nobody
200 Replies
53356 Views
Last post December 17, 2016, 11:20
by spike

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors