Anybody have any success?

I've been doing ok uploading photos, even though I don't have patience to upload more than one or two at  a time and going through their upload process is an awful pain... Anyways...

NOT ONCE had an illustration accepted. I don't usually do vectors, but I do illustrations (which are not fractals or backgrounds) - and they are always accepted and great sellers on all other sites... and on IS I always get the "not suitable for stock". Really frustrating, especially given that whenever I browse through IS's collections some of its non-vector illustrations are even more awful than its upload process.... really frustrating. They are complex works, and I spend hours and hours developing master files, and then IS is just really horrible. I mean.. I am thinking of emailing reviewers with my files and links to some other IS illsutrations asking for an explanation about how come THOSE things are suitable.... arrrrghggg ) 

Are there any IS reps lurking around here? ... hellooooo... !

Hehe, and now since I'm on this whining rampage -  did you see the quality of some explusive uploads? Tilted horizons, horrible composition, all sorts of exposure problems, anything else imaginable...of course not all, but the % of horrible quality images is quite high, in my opinion, just by scrolling through exclusive uploads there. Really disappointing.

Let's just say...well, I guess you all can quite well imagine what I else I might have to say

Ok, I'm better now, thanks a bunch for listening ! phew )

Quote from: ChasingMoments on March 06, 2008, 23:28

Ok, I'm better now, thanks a bunch for listening ! phew )

You're welcome! 
I know, it's frustrating. But why don't you make vectors? They sell better anyway.

Well, I like painting and playing around with color and I like transparencies and blending modes and I am not too proficient in Illustrator I guess to know exactly how to get the color and effects I want, so I use PS for illustrations. And then I create things that aren't quite stretchable, like - I don't think I could create sth like this in illustrator (I mean, I could, really, most parts, but then the planet won't be stretchable... ok... may be I'd try, but I really don't see myself forcing myself to do things in Illustrator that I am more comfortable doing in PS... so, would the same thing sell if it were in Illustrator - probably more often, but the illustration would still sell... and well, i don't want to call it a double standard... but it does seem like one - when it comes to illustrations v. vectors and when it comes to quality among exclusives and non-exclusives):

Yes I have the same problem. I have managed to get a few accepted through scout reports though. And go figure those ones that were originally rejected for not being stock worthy are by far my best sellers on IS. 
It is very frustrating indeed.

This is one of the reasons why I think istock wont be the number 1 site in years to come.  They have rejected a few of my best sellers and I haven't bothered uploading the rest.

This policy costs us money and they lose money.  Other sites accept most of my non vector illustrations, so people who buy from istock will have to look on the other sites to see the rest of my portfolio.

I have applied for vector illustrations with 3 vectors that have sold lots of times on every other site but they were all rejected.  Perhaps if I took 6 months to work on improving my vectors I could get to their application standard but I am not doing that for 1 site.

Hi,

I had a number approved, then more and more rejected to the point that I have almost given up trying to get them through. I worked out that I uploaded 97 and got 15 of them on, 8 of which went through scout.  Unfortunately those they do accept sell well (not everyone has illustrator?).   My approval rating went from about 70% to 45% over a few months. So now I get 25 uploads a week, and I make sure no more than 5 or so are this type, and with luck 2 might on  (although I see I just got 4 out of 5 through this week, must be a nice reviewer).
(Funny I had this discussion the other day through sitemail. Other person was annoyed that their acceptance ratio is now down to 16% as this is there main stuff)


Phil

Phil, thanks for the feedback, if I may ask you - what did your "note" to scout say? I sent the image above to scout, but I wasn't sure what to say... or whether whatever reasonining and explanation you may have will matter for scout.

Tell me about it.. everything i create (well, probably 98% or something) is done with photoshop. The reason? I love the flexibility of photoshop, the shades, the way it works.. illustrator just gives me a headache trying to make something i could do in 5 minutes with photoshop.

Anyway, the end result of iStock being overly picky is this:

iStock portfolio : 0
SS portfolio: Closing in to 4000

 

Wow!!! compared to the scope of your "grievances" on this issue my whining appears quite insignificant...

I emailed scout saying that if there is a different standard or expectation of quality for non-vector illustrations, I'd like an explanation and clarification ... and I really would, because there's just nothing... can't get through period. Occasionally I send stuff in, just to check in and see if their policy on non-vector stuff is same old same old, and well - I've given up..

This is the reason why my acceptance rating is 15% and teetering towards 14   But the ones I do get accepted - man do they sell...it makes it worth it for me to keep on trying.

How do you tell when scout is the one to review your batch?  I've heard a few people talk about that. 

What kills me is when I'll get an image approved, and then a slight variation that I submit later on of the same subject is rejected for "not suitable as stock" or something like that.  It's like hellooooo....look at the other one, it's got freaking flames.  I guess the reviewers don't care as much about making iStock as a company more money.  They'd rather reject it and get more money for themselves.  That's usually how reviewers are paid - more money goes to them when they reject images, than when they accept.  It's pretty standard.

[/quote]

Phil, thanks for the feedback, if I may ask you - what did your "note" to scout say? I sent the image above to scout, but I wasn't sure what to say... or whether whatever reasonining and explanation you may have will matter for scout.
[/quote]

pretty much.

Hi, can this be reviewed please as it is selling very well elsewhere.  But it is pretty hit and miss (just got 3 back from scout saying no the reviewer is correct, one of them sold 69 times in the last days at shutterstock, first time I've had anything sell anywhere near that much).

Phil

Scout doesn't take sales at other sites into consideration. Quite honestly, I'd avoid saying, "This image is selling well at other sites," when contacting Scout. Give an explanation as to why the quality or composition makes it suitable for the istock collection.

Thank you all for replies, it is somewhat of a consolation to know that some people have hit the the same wall on IS with non-vector illustrations.

Of course, i will keep working on improving my illustration skills and try again later. In  the meantime, an image from the series is among 'editors choice' on DT... hehe... c'est la vie.

As for the "i've got a flood filter and I"m not afraid to use it" remark - well, the flood filter is just a quick shortcut to create reflections, you can achieve the same result with simple photoshop steps - copy, paste, flip, ripple/motion/blur effects and you are done - same flood filter, just by hand. All filters are, in the end, basic photoshop commands condensed for convenient use into one, stand alone, operation. My images are more than just the flood filter - planets and details were created manually (not using some planet generating software0, and at 100% you see that the planet's landscape and mountains are shaped as clovers and shamrocks, of course there is no way to see this on the tiny preview, but anyways. As I said, more work went into my images than just the flood filter. And images are all 18-20mp, which means that designers have plenty of leverage to crop as tight as they wish.

I am really happy to be the editor's pick thought, it's my first on DT