Hi there,

i never ever had rejections at IS with the reason "Flat Dull Colors", only at SS. Since i photograph with the Nikon D3X i don't have rejections "Flat Dull Colors" at SS, but now at IS. Do you think that a former SS-Inspector changed to IS or is it just an unhappy coincidence?

It is just BS... As many other rejection 'reasons'...

Flat dull colours is the first line of a long list of possible problems with your image that you're given with iStock's standard poor lighting rejection.  Unless it's been specifically marked as being the reason by the inspector, then any one, or more, of the list can apply.
Perhaps you could post the image for critique? The reason might be simpler than a consipracy.

Hi Ralf, I had the same rejection few times at IS. Maybe it's just your first time.

Like I said, there isn't a rejection at istock that just says Flat/Dull lighting. The rejection wording for poor lighting is :
We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:

-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance

This rejection wording for poor lighting has been in place for a while now, so unless the inspector has specifically marked the flat dull bit for you, any or all of the list might apply. It doesn't necessarily mean all of them.

...*if image is "can resubmit" - i'm sure that image has some problems that was pointed at the first place. - take another (on 200% ) look .

Images are supposed to be reviewed at 100%. At 200%, anybody can find issues with images and if the reviewers ARE starting to review at 200%, then a mass emailing to contributors should be made to announce this new procedure, instead of just handing out rejections for things that can't be seen at 100%. This way, we could review our images properly before submitting.

I understand what you are saying and that's cool...sometimes I go bigger than 100%, especially with chromatic aberration, because it's easier to correct the pixel color.