Author Topic: iStock rejections (Read 11660 times)

ichiro17 · « **on:** November 15, 2007, 20:14 »

I don't usually vent, but I feel that I have to on this one. I have quite a few photos that I'm fairly sure will do well because they do well everywhere, but I think I'm getting shafted because I have the stupidest rejection reasons.

For example, I cloned out every logo and every trademark in a hockey photo and I get the rejection reason that this photo has copyrighted or trademarked material, meanwhile the standard set on my previous photos showed that this was okay.

Then there's the pixel discoloration rejection. Photos accepted at SS are being rejected at IS for that? I look and I see nothing. Its really annoying because I'll have some photos accepted that are less exciting but the narrow-minded reviewer cannot look past these phantom 'pixels' to see the better picture.

I'm just going to continue to upload them with minor tweaks until they get accepted, because its a bit ridiculous. If only I didn't have 260+ photos still waiting to upload.

Hope everyone is having a good month for earnings

Thanks for reading.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2007, 20:22 »

Yes, it pisses me off at times as well.

My illustrations are almost always rejected for not being stock worthy, yet, they are my best sellers on other sites, so I submit a scout report. 4/5 times they have been accepted and are by far my top sellers on IS. Not much I can do about it. ;\

sharply_done · « **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2007, 20:49 »

Yes, uploading to IS can be very frustrating.
We all have this experience in common to one degree or another.

zorki · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2007, 21:11 »

It happens all over the place... I had 33 photos accepted to IS and then SS reject 25 of them... go figure!

sharply_done · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2007, 22:21 »

My rejection problems are only with IS - mostly for "over filtered" and "artifacts". It's very typical for me to have an image accepted everywhere - even Crestock - only to have IS reject it.

Allsa · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2007, 22:49 »

I think iStock must have hired Adrian Monk as Head Inspector

In fact, having OCD is probably a job requirement.

GWB · « **Reply #6 on:** November 16, 2007, 00:01 »

I had a deal with them today. I had some tractor photos that were rejected. I made sure the logos were all cloned out. It seems that John Deere's green/yellow color scheme has been registered as a trademark. Live and learn. It's not just logos, it can be colors too.

G~

Bateleur · « **Reply #7 on:** November 16, 2007, 03:33 »

Let's face it, assessing an image is a hugely subjective affair.

Rejection's part of the game on this field. Don't let it raise your blood pressure.

Who was it who said "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?

fotografer · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2007, 03:35 »

Same here but although they are being a bit too picky they are usually right and a little adjustment gets it accepted.
.

Quote from: sharply_done on November 15, 2007, 22:21

My rejection problems are only with IS - mostly for "over filtered" and "artifacts". It's very typical for me to have an image accepted everywhere - even Crestock - only to have IS reject it.

w7lwi · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2007, 12:19 »

Quote from: Bateleur on November 16, 2007, 03:33

Who was it who said "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"?

President Harry Truman.

sharply_done · « **Reply #10 on:** November 16, 2007, 12:44 »

Quote from: Bateleur on November 16, 2007, 03:33

Let's face it, assessing an image is a hugely subjective affair.

Why don't these companies develop/use software to check the technical qualities of images? It can't be that difficult to remove the seemingly arbitrary nature of rejections due to noise, artifacts, haloing, CA, etc.

I can accept a reviewer's ruling that my image isn't commercially viable on their site, but it drives me crazy when something is rejected for technical reasons when it is within accepted site and industry standards.

madelaide · « **Reply #11 on:** November 16, 2007, 15:47 »

I get some artifacting rejections that are a bit absurd, the inspector mistook texture as artifacting. I email Scout, but it takes so long!

A few occasions, however, I agree with them, especially when it's an image that was originally a bit undexposed, but even then it's a kind of exagerate search for perfection.

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #12 on:** November 16, 2007, 21:02 »

This is a typical reject from IS for me: "over filtered".
Sure it's a bit saturated, and there's added whitespace, but is it really under IS standards?

yingyang0 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 17, 2007, 00:10 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on November 15, 2007, 20:14

Photos accepted at SS are being rejected at IS for that? I look and I see nothing. Its really annoying because I'll have some photos accepted that are less exciting but the narrow-minded reviewer cannot look past these phantom 'pixels' to see the better picture.

I'm just going to continue to upload them with minor tweaks until they get accepted, because its a bit ridiculous.

Yes, and because you don't see it, then it must not be there.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #14 on:** November 17, 2007, 00:18 »

Quote from: sharply_done on November 16, 2007, 21:02

This is a typical reject from IS for me: "over filtered".
Sure it's a bit saturated, and there's added whitespace, but is it really under IS standards?

It's ridiculous for them to reject a perfect stock picture like that! It has probably a hundred or more potential uses. Istock is by far my #1 seller, but sometimes their rejections totally mystify me (and sometimes I can understand them). Well, reviewers are only human (I think), and their eyes and minds must go buggy after looking at thousands of submissions back to back for hours. What a job! Not for me, thanks!

Ziva_K · « **Reply #15 on:** November 17, 2007, 03:57 »

Hey, Sharply_done, those leafs in your picture look familiar !

Did we shoot the same tree ?

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=4613950

sharply_done · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2007, 12:27 »

Yes, we have very similar pictures.
So why is it that your yellow one was accepted, and my red one wasn't. A bias towards red, perhaps?

madelaide · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2007, 15:13 »

Red is a popular color, but I sometimes find it tend to bleed a bit - maybe that's what they see in your image? Although it may well just be the natural texture of the leaves that they're seeing as "artifacting".

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #18 on:** November 17, 2007, 15:44 »

There definitely aren't any artifacts present, but you're probably right about the red. I desaturated it a bit, then resubmitted. It was accepted everywhere else, and it even got a DL on Crestock today.

madelaide · « **Reply #19 on:** November 18, 2007, 10:36 »

Wehn I am in a good mood, rejections are even funny.

I got two images rejected for artifacting with "No resubmit". Funny though they're details of a larger image accepted a while ago. Nevermind.

I got another (another subject) rejected for artifacting and lighting, but I can resubmit this one.

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #20 on:** November 18, 2007, 12:18 »

I am sometimes amused, too, but not when the rejection is unreasonable and comes from a high earning site. I make my living doing this, and not having an image available for sale has deeper implications than it does for those who use microstock as supplemental income.

Ziva_K · « **Reply #21 on:** November 18, 2007, 12:41 »

Quote from: sharply_done on November 17, 2007, 12:27

So why is it that your yellow one was accepted, and my red one wasn't. A bias towards red, perhaps?

I don't know why was your picture rejected. Maybe inspector was having bad day.
I hope your picture sells good on other sites.

madelaide · « **Reply #22 on:** November 19, 2007, 15:32 »

Guys, maybe you can help me with this reply from Scout on an image rejected for artifacting.

Quote

As you've requested I've taken another look at image number 4616508 which was rejected due to artifacting. There is a bit of artifacting the satin but most of it is in the flowers particularly in the outline of the shapes.

The sample attached in this reply is below. I don't see artifacting, one may say there is a lack of sharpness. What do you think?

http://www.geocities.com/adelaide.geo/iStock_000004616508.jpg

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #23 on:** November 19, 2007, 15:47 »

There are a few areas that have a tiny bit of artifacting. I can see some along the edges of the flower - most noticeable where there is a thin purple line. I can also see some at the center of the flower, on the left and right sides on the yellowish white part. On the bright side, it should only take a few minutes to clone these out ... good luck!

hatman12 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 19, 2007, 16:11 »

Yes, I can see lots of artifacts as sharply has noted. Most noticeable (to me) in the shadow area above the flower on the right hand side, but there are lots all over the image.

Is this a 100% crop? I ask because the 'blockiness' makes it look like a 200%.

madelaide · « **Reply #25 on:** November 19, 2007, 16:48 »

I see your points, thank you for your feedback. I don't know however how much is actually artifacting and how much is the orchid's texture - it does have a specked and velvety aspect, as seen in this excerpt from a close-up (another shot, unedited).

http://www.geocities.com/adelaide.geo/img_7486.jpg

I'll try to edit them later. First I want to finish some New Year's images that I did much in delay.

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #26 on:** November 19, 2007, 19:40 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 19, 2007, 16:48

... I don't know however how much is actually artifacting and how much is the orchid's texture ...

I frequently get "artifact" rejects from IS - I think in my case it's because I shoot with such a hi-res camera that reviewers aren't accustomed to seeing stuff so close up. I shrug it off and try again ... that's about all you can do, I suppose.

hatman12 · « **Reply #27 on:** November 19, 2007, 20:19 »

I never get IS rejections for noise or artifacts. Never ever. Mind you I am a fanatic (as most people here know).

However in the last ten days or so I have had five rejections due to 'artifacts'. I know those pictures don't contain any artifacts, but the image inspectors seem suddenly to be on a 'let's find anything that might remotely look like artifacts' campaign.

Unfortunately there are many things that without detailed scrutiny can indeed 'look' like artifacts; examples being a close weave on clothing, the 'grain' of stainless steel or other metals, even a texture finish on ordinary paper (particularly in shadows).

The queue at IS has grown again so I'll put these rejections down to 'reviewing too fast, too keen to get to the next image etc'....

I don't have sharply's problem of ultra high resolution (my D200 only produces 10.2mp), but I can see that the higher the resolution the greater the potential problems (and presumably the more time needed to examine everything in fine detail).

sharply_done · « **Reply #28 on:** November 19, 2007, 21:03 »

Too bad about the rejections, hatman - I know it must drive you nuts. I guess you have your rather high IS sales of late as consolation. (wink)

modellocate · « **Reply #29 on:** November 20, 2007, 07:11 »

My theory: Long queues = hire more inspectors;
hire more inspectors = inspectors must be trained.

I run a (different type of) site that has an approval process for it's membership. The first reaction of most inspectors is to reject about 50%, where on my site the real goal is about 5% -- after a few nudges they learn...

I can only assume that microstock sites have a review process for their inspectors, and that as decisions are reversed the training takes place.

madelaide · « **Reply #30 on:** November 20, 2007, 09:38 »

They often make an issue of paper texture as artifacting (*sigh*). I managed to have it reversed in the past, but yesterday Scout took the inspector's side on two images - I have other three in another ticket, which is in fact older (Oct 24th) and must have been forgotten in his mailbox.

Regards,
Adelaide

sharply_done · « **Reply #31 on:** November 20, 2007, 14:47 »

Scout takes so long that I no longer bother using that service. If I feel strongly about a rejected image I simply resubmit it - sure, it uses up a valuable upload slot, but it (hopefully) gets on the site far quicker that way.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #32 on:** November 20, 2007, 15:16 »

Quote from: sharply_done on November 20, 2007, 14:47

Scout takes so long that I no longer bother using that service. If I feel strongly about a rejected image I simply resubmit it - sure, it uses up a valuable upload slot, but it (hopefully) gets on the site far quicker that way.

Scout is the only way I can get my illustrations (not vector) accepted. They are always rejected for not being stock worthy. Yet they outsell my photos 4:1 and I have 5x as many photos on Istock!

Talk about frustrating...

vonkara · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2007, 16:02 »

I waited so long for scout that I was not thinking about anymore...About 3 weeks and the answer was a bit absurd so.

madelaide · « **Reply #34 on:** November 20, 2007, 17:03 »

I take it on the optimist side, hoping that Scout can correct inspectors when he checks they have taken a wrong decision.

About illustrations, I applied once and also get that not-stockworthy rejection, and I haven't still picked other images for a second attempt. Mine are not amazing, but they sell ok.

Regards,
Adelaide

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock rejections (Read 11660 times)

vonkara

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors