Hello everyone,

Apologies in advance if I'm posting this in the wrong section.  My question pertains to what happened to me at one particular site, though, I can imagine, similar things could happen elsewhere.

After several attempts, I finally got accepted at Istockphoto.  I was quite pleased, and submitted my first batch of photos for approval.  I included the three samples that allowed me to be accepted there in the first place.  To my dismay, two of the three samples that were initially approved were now rejected due to "artifacting".  I guess I had a different person inspecting the photos on that day.

My question is: do I resubmit the images in hopes that I get the initial inspector back? Is it better to wait a few months til I resubmit.  Ironically, one of the images was the one that was immediately accepted when I sent my first samples, it's had several downloads already within its first week at Shutterstock.
I guess this an example of things that I'll encounter in this world of Microstock.

It is common for iStock to reject pictures that were accepted at exam.

iStock has the most consistent reviewers, so if one photo was rejected by one it will probably be rejected by other too. If you see "Can resubmit" next to your image that means that the reviewer consider your image not too bad and you have a chance to fix the issues and resubmit (but it doesn't guarantee it will be accepted second time).
It's up to you if you want to bother spending time fixing and resubmitting your image(s).

Don't resubmit those images that are just rejected without "can resubmit". You may end up being punished.

Many thanks for the responses!

I just checked, and I do see the re-submit option on the two photos.  I'll see what I can do.  At least there are explanations, and they show you what they are rejecting with Istock.

Fotolia just sent me a file number of the ones that were not approved leaving me scratching my head trying to figure out which ones they were.

This should be quite a learning experience.

My portfolio really needs to grow if I'm going to do anything with myself in micro.  At this point I've got mostly animals and flowers.  I can see the flowers will be a challenge to get approved/sold.

Fotolia just sent me a file number of the ones that were not approved leaving me scratching my head trying to figure out which ones they were.

Lisa is so right; Fotolia's reviews are a lottery. I've seen so many examples of technically and artistically great images rejected there (and some not very good images accepted).

To find out the rejection reason, you need to make a note of the image #, then click on "Member Home" which shows you your inbox. There you'll find a "Photographed Declined" message with the rejection "reason". If you have multiple rejections, click on one of the mail links to open the message and compare the image #.

The most likely reasons are "Quality of Photo" and "Type of Photo" (both of which are fairly meaningless and completely not helpful in my experience). "Overabundance" might be an indication that that type of photo will be difficult to get approved there (but not always; again, it often is up to the reviewer).

It's sort of hidden, though easy to find once you know about it. 

Click on the "My Files" tab, and you'll see the list of your accepted files.  Scroll to the bottom, and click on the link that reads "View deleted files". There you'll find the rejected files, along with their assigned numbers.

Simple, no? 

Thanks - this will help me figure out the boatload of rejections there. 

Not really! 

I've stopped paying any attention to Fotolia rejections. Among all the agencies I contribute to, there's are the only rejections I simply ignore. Too bad; their sales can be very good.

I wouldn't stress too much over Fotolia rejections.  They are among the most arbitrary and inconsistent site for reviews. 

Istock reviews are usually dead accurate and provide a great learning experience. 

Amen to that! And if you look at some/a lot of the stuff that does get through, it's horrifying. Sometimes I wonder if they expect a contributor never to make 50 credits so the site gets to keep all the money!

Meanwhile their database gets more and more polluted with junk.........then the buyers leave.

I am sorry but I have to disagree over the consistency of istock reviews.
I didn't upload to them in months, due to the horrendous process to get my files to the site. So I have about 30 photos, no more.
But I uploaded 15 images few weeks ago with DeepMeta (btw - very nice piece of software). Well, among those there were about 8 with landscape and ruins from a very old castle in the mountains. They all are of the same quality, since I shot them in the same conditions with the same camera and lens. Only 5 of them made it through, the others being rejected for:
- keywords (the same keywords were used to all since all the photos were showing the castle in various compositions)
- overuse of noise reduction software (i do NOT use noise reduction software AT ALL)
or
- noise (same settings, same conditions, noise levels were the same in all photos. Camera is 5D, lens is 17-40, iso 100, sunny day).

Inconsistent reviews is the second reason for what I don't bother with istockphoto.

My 0.02$...

Certainly a bit odd to get rejections based on both "overuse of noise reduction" and for excessive noise when you've used the same settings on much the same scene!

I don't seem to have this problem with them though, I usually find their reviewing fair, even when I have used a little noise reduction it seems to have been considered acceptable.

Have you tried posting samples in their critique forum to get some feedback?