So If you want to complain to someone just try and thats it. (In my language Fart in the Pot)-for better sound.
Another way in my language iStock means CATTLE with little teeth.

If I am not they exclusive this means that I am not CATTLE.
If you are not CATTLE you have not place in they barn.

thank you Suljo, you made my weekend for sure. i like FART IN THE POT
better than iStock.
in whatever language, i thank you 

Maybe this will work:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9430288-green-stalk-and-earth-earth-image-courtesy-of-nasa-blue-marble-mission-apollo.html

It is no big deal, just wanted to vent my spleen a bit.

I thought iStock had decided to stop allowing people to use NASA images as stock.

Well, it has 140+ downloads and counting...

This is unfortunate, but true.
Shutterstock is the wholesale retailer of many images.
Many designers use Shutterstock like a fast food restaurant, while iStock is more like a restaurant where a tie and jacket is required. 

They both serve food though.

Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason

Sean, I do pay attention to what you say - you record on Istock certainly gives you the right to voice opinions which should be treated with consideration. I like your pics very much - nice pastel colors, excellent lighting, clearly separated subjects, happy/pretty people etc. etc.

But...what does all this have to do with the price of potatoes ?  I would be the first to admit that I lack a lot when it comes to producing pics (in all the departments I mentioned above: lighting, composition, other technical aspects), although I learn a lot and fast every day.

I just think that sometimes (not always, mind it) the rejections justified as overfiltered/artifacts/non-stock are just a bit of a BS. Of course Istock has the right to accept/reject whatever they like and I would be the first to defend this right.
In the process of doing that, however,  they reject sellable images - which kind of leaves me puzzled, considering that this is a commercial site.

I agree that selling on SS does not mean much as far as Istock is concerned - although out of the 140 downloads I mentioned only only about 60% come from SS. Doesn't matter, really, as I said earlier - I just need to figure out what it is that Istock considers acceptable. Certainly it is not just any good picture - more likely it needs to be a good picture of certain kind.  NO problem with that.

Having said that - the "artifacting/overfiltered" issue is, I suspect, a canned answer which really means "we do not like it" - which would be much more informative. Again - not a big deal, this is just a certain kind of a puzzle to be solved, which will happen in due time, and having a little (OK, not so little) studio in my next-to-be-yet-build-house will certainly help a lot 

What really frustrates me lately , is rejections for  "We have reasons to believe the image was created with components or brushes that are not originally yours"  or something like that.

I contacted scout few times and clearly stated that I never used a single brush that was not created by me and from my photos , that I can prove them that by sending them the brushes set or photos and scans of my textures or something , and they have been approved then.  But they keep rejecting stuff for that reason , and I cant be constantly complain.

put in your description "all artwork is original" or "xxx element created from own resources" etc. (you can change the description and take this comment out if you like after it is approved) - of course Istock really, really dont like raster art anyways (pity coz their customers do)

Phil

I read the boards frequently and there are a lot of exclusives who complain about the rejection rate too.  I honestly don't believe it has to do with whether you are exclusive or independent.

I've never bought the "artifacts" rejection, and the "too rough or feathered" edges for shots over white is particularly maddening.  For the record, the vast majority of the images I submitted to Scout were eventually accepted.  This factoid alone suggests the reviewers probably reject too many images.

But it is what it is.  I still like iStock, and enjoy working with them.

The bigger concern I have, which I do not believe to be paranoid at all, is that newer submissions from non-exclusives seem to go straight into a black hole.  Almost every download I get from iStock is from images which are several months old.  My newer submissions are buried deep in search. 

I'm not the only person to notice this alarming trend.  It has been brought up by Douglas Freer and (Sean) Forgiss too.

Is ist possible the reviewers are flipping a coin or just using a random selection type thing in order to keep their rejection rate up.  I have had an image accepted after doing extensive post processing work, and all the others that had any work at all were rejected.  Any mor I just upload and wait to see if they accepted anything.  Most of my uploading to iS is after I am finished uploading to the three main sites I deal with.

At one time I was trying to work with about eight sites which got out of hand.  Now I just concentrating on sites that make it easy to upload and that are still accepting images.