Keith,

It's very common for iStockphoto applications to be rejected because they find images to be too similar in subject. The same thing has happened to me, too. My three images were rejected because all three images were taken of people outdoors. I learned they they want to see variety, basically that you can deliver a variety of topics to your portfolio.  I would suggest to try to take some pictures of people, some of landscapes, and then some isolation. It is a great idea to post your candidate pictures on IS forum, or to get Salomone to post for you. It has helped me a lot. Only after I got positive reviews for three pictures. I submitted them and passed.
Good luck, I'm sure you will get in and it is definitely worth it

It's very common for iStockphoto applications to be rejected because they find images to be too similar in subject.

Agreed.  Your SS port is almost all things sitting there on white.  You'll need to branch out a bit, from what I've read.

Plus, Istock became much tougher since last year.

The same with me. First time I sent three still lives. Different objects, different set ups and concepts, all sharp and well lit,  but - still lives. I was rejected. Next time I sent one still life, one outdoor portrait in field and one industrial picture. I passed.

Pretty much the same as my first failure and my successful application. Isolation, nature, business building, still life, I was accepted.

It was people here who said, various subjects and lighting, and downsize to just above the minimum for first application. It worked.

My three D's of getting accepted to sell on iStock have become four D's.

1) Diversity, show your versatility.
2) Downsize, just over minimum to reduce potential problems.
3) Don't over process (natural colors and saturation)
4) Don't Panic.

Quote from: RacePhoto on September 08, 2009, 23:47

Quote from: Dook on September 08, 2009, 14:55

The same with me. First time I sent three still lives. Different objects, different set ups and concepts, all sharp and well lit,  but - still lives. I was rejected. Next time I sent one still life, one outdoor portrait in field and one industrial picture. I passed.

Pretty much the same as my first failure and my successful application. Isolation, nature, business building, still life, I was accepted.

It was people here who said, various subjects and lighting, and downsize to just above the minimum for first application. It worked.

My three D's of getting accepted to sell on iStock have become four D's.

1) Diversity, show your versatility.
2) Downsize, just over minimum to reduce potential problems.
3) Don't over process (natural colors and saturation)
4) Don't Panic.

I don't think (2) Downsize is necessary for the initial application, though it can help with getting images accepted once you're in.

The others are good advice though.  Especially (4).

Funny, usually people say, why should I downsize my images, and I have to explain it's only for the initial application, so you can get accepted. 

^  Well, maybe - but my initial applications weren't downsized, the only issue was they asked me to provide more varied images.

I'd always understood that they don't inspect application images with the same rigour as images uploaded for the collection, and certainly that was so for me, as my application images didn't pass inspection first time once I was in.

And as for later submissions, I've had some where the inspector specifically suggested downsampling in order to improve some slight flaws!

I'm not disagreeing with you, I downsize everything because I don't want full size images out selling for 69 cents, but it's odd that the initial inspection would be easier than getting a photo into the collection. Oh yes, this is Microstock, anything is possible. 

^ My understanding is that their rationale is that for the application, they want to see that you have a good "eye for an image", as opposed to just being a snapshooter.

Hence, what they like to see is a variety of subjects, well composed and well lit - technical aspects like noise and artifacts aren't so important.

Then, once you're in, the inspection process takes over and a contributor can learn the technical skills on the job, as it were.  Makes sense, they don't expect you to be a professional straight up, they just want to see ability.

Certainly this was the case for me, although that was three years ago, maybe it's changed.  None of my initial application images got past inspection without further post processing.

I often downsample too, but I don't quite understand why you say you "don't want full sized images out selling for 69 cents" though;  surely, even as a non-exclusive, you get 20% and that would be $2 or more at least for Large, excepting old credits maybe?

I suppose since this is under IS topic, one would assume I'm only talking about IS. In general I try to make the photos 3080 on the longest side so they are XL (or whatever the size is that allows for more credits) on some of the sites. If I have to crop to get something right and it can only make 2460, I'll do that. If it won't make 4mp at least IS takes 1600 shots.  Last of all, tiny stuff, 800 wide, can still go up on BS and StockXpert so everything has a place. StockXpert sells 30 cent subscriptions, sending them an 800 pixel wide 1mp image doesn't bother me. Why should I send a 10mp image and sell it for the same 30 cents?

IS my best single sales commission is $3.36, the lowest sub was 28c and the best selling photo averages 55c per download. Not that I have anything very interesting or in demand. On SS except for an occasional EL at $28 everything gets 25c per download. SS makes more in sales and dollars than any other site. Win some, lose some. I won't go into the rest they are all about equal at third best for me.

If someone wants to have a kind of universal size, make everything 4mp and all the sites will take them.

Just because I downsize to make the photos sharper and have less chance of being rejected for CA or JPG artifacts, or the dreaded "jaggies", it doesn't mean someone else should do the same. I'm just lazy and downsizing makes them quick and cleaner in appearance. There are shots on some sites that I took with a Canon A400 3mp camera. 

What I'm writing is what I do, and that was the question. Someone else may do something different and work out just fine. Downsize for the application so you don't get rejections for noise, color, sharpness or many of the things that a compressed image will hide. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.