iStock has always been the toughest for me to get my images accepted.  So I usually wait for my photos to get accepted by Shutterstock or others first.  If they pass that test then I submit only those.  Of that I get about 30% accepted at iStock.

With the last 30 or so..... None got accepted at iStock.... ugh.   Several of those are already selling on SS and others.

So I am wondering if there has been a shift in policy or I just got unlucky with the reviewer(s) that are checking my pics.

Sorry but IMO,  a good agency should be picky not letting images through only because they are technically sound.

I haven't noticed any change.

Yes, I've noticed some change on my last batch, review time is very long this week.
Rejection is higher, with, for the first time very big errors on reasons.

So, in the end of 2010, we can say:

-Istock lost his personality with an  uninspired new site design.
- Istock is lying at contributors and lowering royalties.
- istock start to reject pictures with inconsistent reviews.

And despite all that, people are still uploading   They aren't going to change if we put up with everything they do.  I just wish more people would make a stand and at least stop giving them new images.

iStock has always been the toughest for me to get my images accepted.  So I usually wait for my photos to get accepted by Shutterstock or others first.  If they pass that test then I submit only those.  Of that I get about 30% accepted at iStock.

With the last 30 or so..... None got accepted at iStock.... ugh.   Several of those are already selling on SS and others.

So I am wondering if there has been a shift in policy or I just got unlucky with the reviewer(s) that are checking my pics.

You would need to post rejection reasons and samples for us to make a call.  If they are just more steps and rocks like I see as your latest uploads there, I'd imagine they might have thought they have enough walk around type things at this point.

longer inspecting time but my approval is good. prolly because I am learning and getting better.

Simple solution - stop uploading. I wish everyone would just stop uploading to Getty, especially the independents. You keep uploading and what sort of message does that send to Getty - that it's OK to rip-off their loyal contributors? Do you really want to see the other micros follow Getty's greedy example? Because that's where this is leading to we don't don't find an effective means of protesting the commission cut. Ten cents a download anyone?

I brought my overall acceptance rate up from 35% to 70% this year, I have almost no rejections lately.  So I dunno.

Simple solution - stop uploading. I wish everyone would just stop uploading to Getty, especially the independents. You keep uploading and what sort of message does that send to Getty - that it's OK to rip-off their loyal contributors? Do you really want to see the other micros follow Getty's greedy example? Because that's where this is leading to we don't don't find an effective means of protesting the commission cut. Ten cents a download anyone?

Can't say it any better myself. Spot on.

Simple solution - stop uploading. I wish everyone would just stop uploading to Getty, especially the independents. You keep uploading and what sort of message does that send to Getty - that it's OK to rip-off their loyal contributors? Do you really want to see the other micros follow Getty's greedy example? Because that's where this is leading to we don't don't find an effective means of protesting the commission cut. Ten cents a download anyone?

+1

While I know I'm small beans there, I have noted a much longer review time and when talking to a couple other photographers that I know personally, all of us have seen that the rejections are much more than what we have seen in the past. The "walk around" and "isolated objects" are not what they seem to want to look at anymore. 

We have sat down and figured that we would need to have 1-2 shoots per month to get the higher quality theme photos that seem to past mustard there.

Now, past that, I have to see what the new year brings.

Have a great and safe week to you all.

D.

The more work the reviewers have, the more they reject.  If the queue is small, they have more time and the acceptance rate goes up.

This is sad but true. I think inconsistency in reviews is one of the biggest problems microstock contributors are facing. SS and IS were the consistent enough, i knew approximately how many they would accept but lately they just reject randomly like the rest of the sites. One week take it all the next week reject all.

Quote from: Allsa on October 01, 2010, 16:30

Simple solution - stop uploading. I wish everyone would just stop uploading to Getty, especially the independents. You keep uploading and what sort of message does that send to Getty - that it's OK to rip-off their loyal contributors? Do you really want to see the other micros follow Getty's greedy example? Because that's where this is leading to we don't don't find an effective means of protesting the commission cut. Ten cents a download anyone?

+1

+2

Loved it! Micro is getting so plastic and processed that your computer generated cartoons phrase struck me as not just isolations but also business handshake and girl with headset shots. It's really becoming sterile in so many ways. You are so correct.

I can't remember if it was this Spring or last year, but writing to scout is a waste of time. Rejected for color balance or some vague lighting reason, when the shot was perfect color balance, outdoors at Sunset. Maybe the reviewer never saw Fall colored leaves on tress in India? What difference does it make? I mean is my time worth begging to have a photo up on their site so I can make $1.50 on it, one download a year? If it's rejected, I give up. Is it that important to claw away at their face to make IS recognize that I have a useful shot, even if it would make $10 a year? I don't think so.

Does anyone think that Scout cares if they (I assume it's a position not one person) gets 1000 appeals a day or ten? Maybe my not appealing is helping everyone else, but not wasting time asking for some reasonable review. If Scout is overloaded, there will just be more easy refusals, because the workload is overwhelming and it will drag down the process for everyone, when there are too many frivolous challenges. I'll do my part and give up trying.

Is anybody here getting isolations past reviewers, which were not done in studio with white background?  I just did a quick search of recent images and found very few.  Of the subjects I searched for, most of the photos looked like studio pictures of toys or computer-generated cartoons rather than real-world objects that had been cut out.

I'm trying to understand what is going through their minds.  I've had these isolations accepted in the past, some of which sell well, including a few of them right up until a couple of weeks ago, then .... the axe fell.

If they are saying, don't bother cutting out an image captured in the real world, let the shagging customer do that then they should just say so, dammit.

I've been firing a lot of these into scout, far more than I ever have in the past.  It's frustrating because reviews are taking almost 2 weeks and presumably scout is also getting filled up with appeals to reason by other frustrated contributors.

Like I said before ... I can shoot boring copycat studio images of models and toys too, just tell me if that's the only thing you want me to upload.

Simple solution - stop uploading. I wish everyone would just stop uploading to Getty, especially the independents. You keep uploading and what sort of message does that send to Getty - that it's OK to rip-off their loyal contributors? Do you really want to see the other micros follow Getty's greedy example? Because that's where this is leading to we don't don't find an effective means of protesting the commission cut. Ten cents a download anyone?

Well its easier said then done, you know. If youve got thousands of uploads and reached a good position, gold or diamond,   the only one youre hurting is ofcourse:  yourself and your purse.
To Getty we are a spit in the ocean, they can and will live without us, even replace us before you can say, crap!
Worse!  in the end of all this business,  whos to say we dont get a better deal?

best.