pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections increasing?  (Read 17102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 16, 2008, 14:16 »
0
Is it just me, or is iStock increasing the number of rejections? My acceptance rate is usually 79%, but lately most of what I upload is being rejected.  I  used up all of my scout tickets before the month was half over. If I'm learning from the rejections, I don't mind so much, but most of the rejections are for edges (even though I check and recheck edges before uploading), and I just got another one for artifacting, but it was for a 3D rendered illustration with no filters used in postwork.

Anyone else notice an increase in rejections? I do mostly raster illustrations and a lot of isolated images, so I'm highly "rejectable" at iStock anyway, but this is getting really bad. I'm tempted to stop uploading.


« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2008, 15:02 »
0
My theory is that most reviewers are on holidays and rest of them overwhelmed so they rejecting more to keep up with load :-)

« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2008, 15:09 »
0
I've seen fewer rejections the last few weeks. Figured it was just a phase or maybe they like what I'm uploading a little more than usual.

« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2008, 16:01 »
0
Quote
but most of the rejections are for edges

Yeah the same for me too... but the next time I got all the same images (nothing changed in the mean time) accepted.
Some time ago it happened that the whole series of photos was rejected for artifacting, even though they were taken in different locations under different light conditions (from sunny, cloudy day outside to studio photos). In addition post proces was only slight improvements, nothing spectacular (which would cause artifacting).

EDIT: when talking about rejection for edges i had in mind 3d renders
« Last Edit: December 16, 2008, 16:03 by miskolin »

« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2008, 16:07 »
0
Touch wood; my rejections are way down after going on a complaining rampage. Hit 100% on last weeks.

Peter

shank_ali

« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2008, 17:08 »
0
of course the rejections have increased.The total number of contributors has increased hence more files to inspect and i would imagine the rejection....not suitable as stock will increase as the library grows.
IMO there is still too many files getting  accepted into the library that are not microstock although technically sound. This is being addressed in the new year with a 3 tier library.

« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2008, 18:10 »
0
of course the rejections have increased.The total number of contributors has increased hence more files to inspect and i would imagine the rejection....not suitable as stock will increase as the library grows.
IMO there is still too many files getting  accepted into the library that are not microstock although technically sound. This is being addressed in the new year with a 3 tier library.

That would make sense if my best images were accepted while the rest were rejected, but the rejections seem entirely random to me. It seems to have less to do with the quality of the image, and mostly to do with which reviewer happens to inspect your images. ... and having been contributing to microstock since July of 2004, and having achieved very close to diamond level at iStock, do you really think that I've suddenly become incapable of producing images that are suitable as stock?

Maybe it's just a long run of very bad luck, or maybe they've decided to discourage raster illustrations by rejecting them heavily. I thought maybe they are just rejecting more these days, so I posted hoping there were others to share my unhappiness and  whine with me ;) Unfortunately they are my second highest earning site, so I just have to put up or shut up I guess.

« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2008, 18:21 »
0
They rejected 13 of my last batch of 15. A personal high. Or should I say low?
Not that these rejections were totally unreasonable (meaning: when you want to find a reason, you'll find it...), but it looks a bit strange if compared to the past. Until now I had a almost steady acceptance rate of about 64%.
It may be just a random batch though...

Btw, all photos (no renders or such) and the majority of rejections for lighting. All of them nature / wildlife and the same type of lighting / post-processing (and, by the way, subject matter) that gave me a higher acceptance rate previously.

Let's wait how the next batch performs...

« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2008, 18:22 »
0
of course the rejections have increased.The total number of contributors has increased hence more files to inspect and i would imagine the rejection....not suitable as stock will increase as the library grows.
IMO there is still too many files getting  accepted into the library that are not microstock although technically sound. This is being addressed in the new year with a 3 tier library.

That would make sense, if the rejections were for "not stock". But they are for other reasons...

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2008, 18:29 »
0
I used to almost never get a rejection at istock.  Now one or two of every batch are rejected. 

I assume shank is on to something and as the collection grows they are rejecting more. 

« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2008, 19:02 »
0
I don't waste my time there anymore, everything that I uploaded got rejected , images selling real well everywhere else. . with it, I just stop uploading. I think they just want for you to become an exclusive.

jsnover

« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2008, 19:16 »
0
They rejected 13 of my last batch of 15. ...
Let's wait how the next batch performs...

You might want to take one or two rejections from this past batch to the critique forum and see what input you get. Rather than submit another whole batch, perhaps there are some ideas about the lighting issues you  might be able to use in shooting/processing in the future.

shank_ali

« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2008, 02:19 »
0
I don't waste my time there anymore, everything that I uploaded got rejected , images selling real well everywhere else. . with it, I just stop uploading. I think they just want for you to become an exclusive.
Now now MR.Istock will always welcome good stock files from contributors whether they are exclusive or not.
Your fine images on white background have had some success on istockphoto.Think more posative and start uploading your fine work again for inspection in the new year.

« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2008, 05:20 »
0
The only difference in rejections I see lately is that they are more strict with the keywords (just as they promised earlier). I don't see a difference in rejections for picture quality

« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2008, 07:14 »
0
I have rejected few files from my last batch and I am very surprised that reviewer sent me the problematic part of my image that caused rejection. That's awesome and I am very thankful. I didn't notice that number of my rejection icreased, but lately I started to receive precise notes from reviewers about rejection reasons. I appreciate that a lot. It's so much better than simple automatic pushing a button for "overfilterd" or "artifacting". This time reviewer sent me a piece of an image...that's really kind and very proffessional. Thank you!   

« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2008, 08:13 »
0
I have rejected few files from my last batch and I am very surprised that reviewer sent me the problematic part of my image that caused rejection. That's awesome and I am very thankful. I didn't notice that number of my rejection icreased, but lately I started to receive precise notes from reviewers about rejection reasons. I appreciate that a lot. It's so much better than simple automatic pushing a button for "overfilterd" or "artifacting". This time reviewer sent me a piece of an image...that's really kind and very proffessional. Thank you!   

I agree, when the inspector points out specifically what's wrong with an image, and gives you the opportunity to correct and resubmit, that's great. This is where the iStock inspectors shine above the rest, and the quality of my work has shown a definite improvement, thanks to them. It's all the seemingly random and pointless rejections that are frustrating.  The absurd preoccupation with edges drives me batty. I think the Scout program is a great idea - I feel much better about iStock since they have worked the bugs out of the scout system. 'Scout' has saved many of my best images from oblivion. I think the other sites would do well to adopt something similar to the Scout system, it goes a long way toward helping contributor relations.

« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2008, 10:32 »
0
It seems to go in waves for me. Last month, I was having difficulty getting much of anything accepted there. This month is a lot better so far. Acceptace rate nearly 100%.

Of course now that I've said that...  ;D

« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2008, 13:57 »
0
I had the same experience with rejections reasons described in detail and the problematic part of image shown to me. it certainly helps a lot!

The Scout system seems to work as well, as I had two of my rejections reversed recently after they were rejected for lack of property releases. After my explanation, both rejections were reversed. The system is a bit slow as it took a couple of weeks, but it worked.

shank_ali

« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2008, 14:38 »
0
Bad lighting rejections use to get on my bell end so i have started to up my exposure compensation to +1/2 and leave it alone and so far so good !

« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2008, 15:02 »
0
They rejected 13 of my last batch of 15. ...
Let's wait how the next batch performs...

You might want to take one or two rejections from this past batch to the critique forum and see what input you get. Rather than submit another whole batch, perhaps there are some ideas about the lighting issues you  might be able to use in shooting/processing in the future.

Don't know if I want to take the time, but thanks for the tip anyway.

« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2008, 15:33 »
0
I don't waste my time there anymore, everything that I uploaded got rejected , images selling real well everywhere else. . with it, I just stop uploading. I think they just want for you to become an exclusive.
Now now MR.Istock will always welcome good stock files from contributors whether they are exclusive or not.
Your fine images on white background have had some success on istockphoto.Think more posative and start uploading your fine work again for inspection in the new year.

I know and  they are still selling, but here lately almost every file I upload gets rejected. Well I haven't tried for awhile now.  It's just frustrating for me, if I was just starting this, ok, but at this stage too much trouble. Maybe I'll follow your advice and start fresh with the new year.

bittersweet

« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2008, 16:42 »
0
The Scout system seems to work as well, as I had two of my rejections reversed recently after they were rejected for lack of property releases. After my explanation, both rejections were reversed. The system is a bit slow as it took a couple of weeks, but it worked.

Only a couple of weeks?? It used to take months, so a couple of weeks seems speedy in comparison. :) Maybe I'll start using it again from time to time.

They rejected 13 of my last batch of 15. ...
Let's wait how the next batch performs...

You might want to take one or two rejections from this past batch to the critique forum and see what input you get. Rather than submit another whole batch, perhaps there are some ideas about the lighting issues you  might be able to use in shooting/processing in the future.

Don't know if I want to take the time, but thanks for the tip anyway.

It sounds like your time would be better spent doing that, than wasting more and more time guessing about why you get so many rejections. I feel certain that it would take less time to post an image in the critique forum than it does to upload it and enter keywords, and then you may have some guidance so that your next batch of uploads may have a better approval rate, and the time you will have spent fixing and uploading them will have been well spent, rather than wasted.

e-person

« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2008, 18:19 »
0
Rough edges. Never mind they are really like that in real life. To inspectors the world is fake and artificially rounded.

« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2008, 22:20 »
0
Rough edges. Never mind they are really like that in real life. To inspectors the world is fake and artificially rounded.


 :D

Also, I can tell you from experience that there are no gravelly surfaces in the inspectors' world, but plenty of "noisy" ones.

« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2008, 04:11 »
0
I had the same experience with rejections reasons described in detail and the problematic part of image shown to me. it certainly helps a lot!

The Scout system seems to work as well, as I had two of my rejections reversed recently after they were rejected for lack of property releases. After my explanation, both rejections were reversed. The system is a bit slow as it took a couple of weeks, but it worked.

It has been mentioned before that the scout system isn't that good because when an image is finally accepted, it ends up way down the best match search and is unlikely to sell.  I don't bother any more.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
45 Replies
18230 Views
Last post August 27, 2010, 05:44
by mtkang
4 Replies
2864 Views
Last post January 16, 2012, 04:26
by Microbius
25 Replies
7116 Views
Last post December 31, 2012, 13:46
by w7lwi
35 Replies
6385 Views
Last post May 22, 2013, 06:29
by Microbius
5 Replies
5479 Views
Last post October 02, 2013, 08:40
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle