MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: pixel8 on January 25, 2013, 03:12
-
Hi everyone I am new to stock photography and I want to join Istock. I can not post on Istock because I am not a contributor yet so I need some feedback on why I got rejected. Here is my Rejection letter and links to my photos I submitted. Any input is greatly appreciated.
Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:
At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be diverse in subject matter, technical ability and should be your best work. Think conceptual, creative and most important think Stock photography. Try to avoid the average eye level push the button perspective of a common subject. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.
The Colors are much more vibrant then seen here on photo bucket, I don't know whats up with photobucket but they look really dark, on my computer they look great! I have added smaller versions below since photo bucket looks so bad!
Thanks
-
To me they all look under exposed.
-
Hi,
I agree with the orevious poster, the mop is underexposed, the silver handke should sparkle. However, ask yourself is IS a site that you want to contribute to. I strongly suggest that you read sone of the posts about IS. In the last week I have taken 535 images offline there.
Mark
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
That's what I was thinking! OP: post the high resolution version. Hard to make reasonable image assessments without seeing them like the reviewers see them.
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
You have a good sense of humour Microbius ;D
-
White balance looks a bit pinkish on the skull image, could be of the light bounding off the red bands, and the background on the dollar nest is yellowish, needs cleaning up for it to be an on white. shadows are fine, but background is not white. Mob is underexposed. I do like the composition on all three.
-
These images aren't the size you submitted and downsizing can hide a lot of noise, focus and other flaws, so it's possible there are more problems than noted here.
You need white backgrounds (or some defined color) - the nest white balance is off
The lighting isn't great on the broom shot
The skull on flag is an odd shot - what were you trying to say? - and white balance is off.
When you say things look great on your monitor but not on photobucket, that's a red flag that you haven't figured out how to color manage your workflow. Is your monitor calibrated? Do you embed a profile in your JPEGs when you upload - and what color space? If you have no idea what I'm on about, read here (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-management1.htm) and here (http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter).
-
"You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that." LOL! Funny, but probably a true fact...
Tom
-
They mostly mention subject matter so shoot some diversity -- a portrait perhaps. You have two table top shots and one nice outdoor shot. mix it up more and keep the histogram hugging but not touching the right wall.
good luck
OX
-
Those actually look pretty good to me and I'm a little surprised you were rejected. With regard to noise and 'artifacts' (real or imagined), I don't think those criteria even apply to the initial submission, which is why the same photos might be rejected later as actual submissions. The bird's nest does seem to have a slight magenta cast.
As others have said - reconsider whether you even want to get involved with IS.
-
I guess I am just in a downer sort of mood, but I can no longer justify helping people get in to a site that has treated contributors so badly and will do the same to them if they are accepted.
-
Thanks for the replies, on the white balance I used my grey card and selected it in lightroom so I thought it was correct. If I photoshop the background white will help or cause more problems?
When I increased the exposure on these images when taking them it created hot spots or blowouts of the highlights. I am new to this, I am unsure how to prevent that from happening or how much I can fix highlights in lightroom before the image becomes unacceptable.
As for the embedded profile, I thought that was done automatically when you convert your raw file to jpg when you export form lightroom?
Istock did not mention the exposure but more about the composition and subject matter so please speak to that if you can thanks. I thought the solar cleaning allowed good copy space and as for the nest egg, I tought that was good subject matter so maybe it just needs the white background and a better crop? The flag with skull, not even my wife likes it so I'll give up on that one.
-
I guess I am just in a downer sort of mood, but I can no longer justify helping people get in to a site that has treated contributors so badly and will do the same to them if they are accepted.
I look at it this way. I learned a bucket load from all the rejections i got when I started with iStock. I probably consumed much more than my fair share of inspector time as they inspected, rejected and reinspected my work. Think of it as the iStock school of hard knocks.
What can help the new contributor could also be seen as treating iStock as your school to learn about producing good quality stock. Once you've done that - largely at their expense (with the contributor's own time too, of course) - the contributor can move on to other sites and upload stuff that's much more likely to get accepted and sell.
View it as bugging the heck out of a sales rep at a store you loathe, learning all about the products and then going and buying at the other store that you like better?
-
Of the three, the one I like best is the skull and flag one, but stock agencies like their photos to be very upbeat (so it's difficult to get 'issues' type images).
Can't see much wrong with the composition or subject matter.
The nest egg is a good concept, but I agree it would need to be lighter for iStock - they like light and bright rather than realistic. They have rejected some images I made for poor isolation, even though they were not isolations, and even one for 'lighting' which was a purely digital image.
They insist on technical perfection for isolations for the collection, and this one would be pretty difficult to start off with.
-
Very surprised you got rejected... I was just approved at iS and I think your images is at least at par with mine, probably better!
People here are pretty upset about iS right now, so do try to get approved, but maybe its a good idea to not uploading anything after that and wait and see what happens first!?
GL!
-
Very surprised you got rejected... I was just approved at iS and I think your images is at least at par with mine, probably better!
Congratulations! What type of images did you submit? All studio, Portrait, Wildlife or a combination? I would prefer to just submit all studio for now but it has been suggested that I should submit a range of subject matter.
I would like to submit to several different stock agencies but I am using Istock as my standard bar for now. If I can not get into Istock then I am probably not ready to be a stock photographer yet!
-
I'd say the white balance is basically correct. The skull is reflecting a bit of the red stripes on the flag. The bird's nest is brown, so depending on the light the surrounding white card ould probably pick up a warm tone due to reflection. It is possible though that IS would reject these claiming the WB is off, and if that happened - and you wanted to resubmit - you'd have to force those points to neutral gray, at the expense of accuracy in other parts of the image. In other words, sacrifice realism to satisfy the often hokey criteria of microstock inspections.
I think I've found that any color cast in shadows tends to be rejected as "incorrect white balance", so I sometimes selectively desaturate shadows to the fake-y gray hat these inspectors seem to think of as correct. It's a dumb game, but maybe that's what the buyers say they want.
-
Very surprised you got rejected... I was just approved at iS and I think your images is at least at par with mine, probably better!
People here are pretty upset about iS right now, so do try to get approved, but maybe its a good idea to not uploading anything after that and wait and see what happens first!?
GL!
Now that is experience talking (even though gained in a very short burst of time). ;)
-
Haven't you heard ... ???
https://twitter.com/sdeva/status/295157221350846464
-
I highlighted a few important bits in the response you have received:
At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be diverse in subject matter, technical ability and should be your best work. Think conceptual, creative and most important think Stock photography.
I am not even going to look at the images closely because discussion of technical issues is mute if the selected images you started with won't make the cut. That's why they didn't even provide specific reasons for the single images as they would if they reject for technical reasons. Those images you submitted could end up in the collection once you are accepted but at the application you should show a bit more diversity in what you (can) do.
Try to find three different types of image: Landscapes, cityscapes, people portraits, concepts, night shots, whatever you do. I think submitting three concept shots won't make the cut, no matter how good or bad they might be.
Also have a look at each of those images and tell yourself: What's the product this image could be used for in advertising? Don't bother thinking "well, it might illustrate an article about..." Commercial thinking is an important part of stock photography, show them you have understood. I don't see any use in the third image and hardly any for the first one. Can you imagine how your image would look on a product package? Or in a full-page ad?
The middle one is best because it has a main color (companies like their colors) and a commercial topic. Though I would expect the brush (or however you call that in English) would be much cleaner in an advertising, wouldn't you?
I hope this helps you get an idea of what iStock is looking for.
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
because there is a small contingent of photographers that hate IS. if you are good at what you do IS is second to none (in my opinion) to any other microstock agency.
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
because there is a small contingent of photographers that hate IS. if you are good at what you do IS is second to none (in my opinion) to any other microstock agency.
Yes, %15 gotta love em!
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
you can't be serious.
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
because there is a small contingent of photographers that hate IS. if you are good at what you do IS is second to none (in my opinion) to any other microstock agency.
Yes, %15 gotta love em!
yes if you are non-ex and don't sell much 15%, but exclusive and selling try 35%-40%. why sell your work for less? 0.25c - 0.33c for a download regardless of size is a crime. my last download on IS was an xsmall and received $2.95 for that, if it was SS I'd need 10-12 downloads of the same image. who in their right mind would sell themselves out for that pittance?
-
%35-%40 at best and your future efforts being tied to the whim of some corporate bean counters is not great in my books either. I think the most intelligent deal out there right now is %50 and set your own prices. Which is what a fair agency like Pond5 is offering. Istock and subscription deals are just plain usury and because the content is crowd sourced they seemingly can get away with it.
I wouldn't encourage anyone to submit to Istock, after all that has gone on with them recently!
-
IStock still makes me the most money...I'd jump onto the Pond5 bandwagon as soon as they start bringing in more than IS
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
because there is a small contingent of photographers that hate IS. if you are good at what you do IS is second to none (in my opinion) to any other microstock agency.
Yes, %15 gotta love em!
yes if you are non-ex and don't sell much 15%, but exclusive and selling try 35%-40%. why sell your work for less? 0.25c - 0.33c for a download regardless of size is a crime. my last download on IS was an xsmall and received $2.95 for that, if it was SS I'd need 10-12 downloads of the same image. who in their right mind would sell themselves out for that pittance?
10 @ $0.33 > 1 @ $2.95 and that’s ok where you can get the 10:1 sales ratio. On the other hand $0.08 is not that uncommon for an XS at IS and THAT is the lowest I’ve come across. Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
-
.
-
Agreed, subscriptions are a bum deal for photographers but so is being hog tied with exclusivity to one greedy agency that doesn't have the decency to pay 50% when others can do it without demanding exclusivity.
There is a lot of money being left on the table by microstock contributors and that won't change unless a majority of contributors start favoring the fair trade agencies.
-
.
-
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Cost of equipment?
I could take up to L with the camera I had before I ever submitted stock. To get the larger sizes took serious cash investment.
I do see the counter argument that a very large photo might be used once in a throw-away publication and an XS might be used for eternity on a website. But still, that XS could have been taken with the phonecam you didn't buy specially for the phone.
-
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Money. My last XXXL was for $27.50 and my last L Vetta was for $33. Maybe you are getting more than 25 cents but it would still take 100 XXXL sales on Shutterstock to equal one Large Vetta sale.
you guys will never understand that we don't get 25 cents subs do you? there are SODs climbing up to 120$ and daily ODs for 2.85$? if I put PP in the equation its pretty similar to SS actually, not even going to talk about the totals but sure keep on playing on the fantasy world if it makes you feel better about iStock, yep its all roses and SS is evil wooooh :D
-
.
-
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Money. My last XXXL was for $27.50 and my last L Vetta was for $33. Maybe you are getting more than 25 cents but it would still take 100 XXXL sales on Shutterstock to equal one Large Vetta sale.
Yep, size is valuable, ask every womens...
-
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Money. My last XXXL was for $27.50 and my last L Vetta was for $33. Maybe you are getting more than 25 cents but it would still take 100 XXXL sales on Shutterstock to equal one Large Vetta sale.
you guys will never understand that we don't get 25 cents subs do you? there are SODs climbing up to 120$ and daily ODs for 2.85$? if I put PP in the equation its pretty similar to SS actually, not even going to talk about the totals but sure keep on playing on the fantasy world if it makes you feel better about iStock, yep its all roses and SS is evil wooooh :D
Help me understand then Luis, what % of your DLs are for $120? Have you ever even had one that high? From reading this forum my guess is that those sales are probably less than 1 in 10,000.
like I have said my RPD equals iStock, in terms of totals SS is around 4x times more, I believe that you should continue being dreamy with iStock and stop talking about agencies you know zero, there isn't a single day here that an exclusive puts SS down due to subs (look at the poll and follow the earnings reports here), if it is working for you celebrate hard coz tomorrow might be different ;)
-
.
-
...there isn't a single day here that an exclusive puts SS down due to subs (look at the poll and follow the earnings reports here)
Are you saying the poll results for Shutterstock are low because exclusives are putting down subscription sales? I've heard it all now.
no, I am not saying that, I am talking about your insistence on the 25 cents sales
-
.
-
...there isn't a single day here that an exclusive puts SS down due to subs (look at the poll and follow the earnings reports here)
Are you saying the poll results for Shutterstock are low because exclusives are putting down subscription sales? I've heard it all now.
no, I am not saying that, I am talking about your insistence on the 25 cents sales
Oh is that what you're going on about. 25 cents or 70 cents it's not much different.
for you its nothing I know ;D (shall I remind you of the totals again?)
I will make it simple for you, its like eating fresh spaghetti or the usual dry that last until 2015, you should try it
-
.
-
Where's Lagereek when you want something written clearly?
that finished me ;D
-
.
-
...there isn't a single day here that an exclusive puts SS down due to subs (look at the poll and follow the earnings reports here)
Are you saying the poll results for Shutterstock are low because exclusives are putting down subscription sales? I've heard it all now.
You have totally misunderstood what luissanto said. He said nothing about the polls. He said that iS exclusives often put SS down (i.e. denigrate them) because of subs.
-
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Cost of equipment?
I could take up to L with the camera I had before I ever submitted stock. To get the larger sizes took serious cash investment.
I do see the counter argument that a very large photo might be used once in a throw-away publication and an XS might be used for eternity on a website. But still, that XS could have been taken with the phonecam you didn't buy specially for the phone.
Sorry, same effort, skill, creativity AND equipment Still, the guy with the nice camera will get the same price for a shot of something in his fridge as the guy with that camera plus thousands of $ in lighting, plus paying models etc etc. The 2nd guy then presumably recoups his costs based on volumes rather than the price of the individual licence.
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Money. My last XXXL was for $27.50 and my last L Vetta was for $33. Maybe you are getting more than 25 cents but it would still take 100 XXXL sales on Shutterstock to equal one Large Vetta sale.
If you’re getting loads of Vettas and XXXLs that’s great for as long as the market supports those kind of prices. There really isn’t anything to suggest that IS is offering significantly better or different product to the others so hard to see buyers continuing to pay so much more.
-
.
-
.
-
...there isn't a single day here that an exclusive puts SS down due to subs (look at the poll and follow the earnings reports here)
Are you saying the poll results for Shutterstock are low because exclusives are putting down subscription sales? I've heard it all now.
You have totally misunderstood what luissanto said. He said nothing about the polls. He said that iS exclusives often put SS down (i.e. denigrate them) because of subs.
Oh I thought he said "look at the poll".
That was a different clause. I'm pretty sure he meant, "Lots of iS exclusives denigrate SS because of subs, but look at the poll and see the money that SS contributors can make."
The poll seems to show that at the moment, indies do much better on SS than they do on iStock, but exclusives would need to submit to every agency around to make the same amount of money.
'At the moment' being a pretty important qualifier, IMO.
-
.
-
The poll seems to show that indies do much better on SS, but exclusives would need to submit to every agency around to make the same amount of money.
Of course indies do better on Shutterstock, exclusives don't submit to Shutterstock. Exclusives make more than submitting to every other agency. Maybe you could rewrite this so I can understand what you are trying to say.
I already did.
-
Exactly the same effort, skill and creativity goes in to an XS as an XXL so why folks get their knickers in a twist over the size of a download is beyond me.
Money. My last XXXL was for $27.50 and my last L Vetta was for $33. Maybe you are getting more than 25 cents but it would still take 100 XXXL sales on Shutterstock to equal one Large Vetta sale.
If you’re getting loads of Vettas and XXXLs that’s great for as long as the market supports those kind of prices. There really isn’t anything to suggest that IS is offering significantly better or different product to the others so hard to see buyers continuing to pay so much more.
I think you are very wrong here. I don't think the market can support 25 cent subs (ok Luis an average of 70 cents, happy now) because if that was my only option I would find another job, it's not worth producing this work for that pay. Prices on all the other sites need to go up (doubt royalties will so that is the next best thing) if microstock is going to be a viable option for us full timers. I know you guys that are part time or do this as hobby have different goals and expectations but mine are to make a full time living doing this.
again you are based in jack, not to mention you can't even talk/know about other goals/ambitions but yep all stock industry is about you coz you are a top notch niche photographer ;D
-
.
-
Have you read some of the woo-yay threads on here about people getting 2 sales in a month or how they got one payout on a site after a year. That's what I'm talking about, nothing wrong with being happy about that, it's just a different goal from me. I've never said I'm a top notch photographer or a niche photographer, I'm not, but that doesn't mean I can't make a full time living or set that as my goal.
If you read the monthly sales thread at iS, you'll see that for most established contributors, downloads are falling rapidly. Raising prices can't sustain that for ever.
Devil and deep blue sea.
-
.
-
Have you read some of the woo-yay threads on here about people getting 2 sales in a month or how they got one payout on a site after a year. That's what I'm talking about, nothing wrong with being happy about that, it's just a different goal from me. I've never said I'm a top notch photographer or a niche photographer, I'm not, but that doesn't mean I can't make a full time living or set that as my goal.
If you read the monthly sales thread at iS, you'll see that for most established contributors, downloads are falling rapidly. Raising prices can't sustain that for ever.
Devil and deep blue sea.
Yeah it's true. Other sites are cheaper and they pay less out to contributors. Hopefully people get fed up with that and things change. I see you're still exclusive though so it must not be too bad.
When supply outstrips demand prices fall. IS will adapt to the market or it will go under. Unfortunately we have to deal with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.
-
Have you read some of the woo-yay threads on here about people getting 2 sales in a month or how they got one payout on a site after a year. That's what I'm talking about, nothing wrong with being happy about that, it's just a different goal from me. I've never said I'm a top notch photographer or a niche photographer, I'm not, but that doesn't mean I can't make a full time living or set that as my goal.
If you read the monthly sales thread at iS, you'll see that for most established contributors, downloads are falling rapidly. Raising prices can't sustain that for ever.
Devil and deep blue sea.
Yeah it's true. Other sites are cheaper and they pay less out to contributors. Hopefully people get fed up with that and things change.
People are not fed up with that. All the cheers these days are for SS. It used to be iS. Next week, next year .. ?
I see you're still exclusive though so it must not be too bad.
That would be one interpretation. Other interpretations are available.
Suffice it to say that no-one starves on days like today when I have 0 dls.
-
what
undercut,subs, stats,market,diversions and the poor guy just asked some help over 3 images review ?
Dude your first is to hot and bit underexposed, second it not for initial review and third one would probably pass if it was accompanied with some better 2.
My main hint is that they like to see at least one people shot in application review.
And for they story that somehow developed from that simple question.... its very interesting how some peoples posts contain strong attitudes in
one hand... while they are working on some photo "disambiguation" in the other tab...
-
So even though this has gone off topic its still a learning opportunity for me so here is my question based on what has been posted. What are the following abbreviations -
Large Vetta ?
SODs
ODs
RPD
Subs
-
So even though this has gone off topic its still a learning opportunity for me so here is my question based on what has been posted. What are the following abbreviations -
Large Vetta ?
Large sized Vetta image at iS. Vetta is one of their collections, more expensive, by exclusive and pseudo exclusive members only. Agency is another collection, but more expensive.
SODs
ODs
... Something on SS, someone will no doubt be along to explain. It's non-sub sales.
RPD
Return per download.
Subs
Sales by subscription packages, as opposed to cash sales or credit bundles
-
I will do subs...
Subs are when they sell your work very cheap and manage to convince u that without that invention the image
would never been sold. ;D
-
So even though this has gone off topic its still a learning opportunity for me so here is my question based on what has been posted. What are the following abbreviations -
Large Vetta ?
SODs
ODs
RPD
Subs
Vetta is the hurray collection top notch pictures (only for iStock exclusives)
Single & Other Downloads is a license at Shutterstock (can go from around 90 cents to 120$), pretty much it can be a one time license or for sensitive use
On Demand is another license from Shutterstock where buyers get more expensive plans (less downloads for buyers for more $, like 10 downloads for 10$ per example)
RPD is rate per download (like 70 cents per sale)
subs are subscriptions, like the one SS has for 250$ (25 downloads / day)
-
I will do subs...
Subs are when they sell your work very cheap and manage to convince u that without that invention the image
would never been sold. ;D
you can always leave all stock agencies, ok not all but 95% :D
-
If you read the monthly sales thread at iS, you'll see that for most established contributors, downloads are falling rapidly. Raising prices can't sustain that for ever.
This is, of course, not necessarily true. If you read the monthly sales thread at IS you will read how the few people who bother to report there are doing. That is not the same thing as ' how most established contributors' are doing. In fact, numerous people who report either BME or WME, upon looking at their accounts, are nothing like 'established contributors' but are often people who only get a few sales a month and to whom an additional few sales less or more in a month can hugely skew results.
I'm not saying downloads aren't falling, they've been doing that for years, but extrapolating results from a few forum posts is about as un-scientific as it's possible to be.
-
I've removed a few posts and modified one.
In response to some of the posts that were removed/modified
This is the newbie area so anyone who feels they are "above" helping out someone else, or are tempting to add sarcasm to underline how much more you know than them, please keep your comments to yourself.
For reference, here is a wiki page with acronyms. I've also added a couple that Luis just explained
http://www.microstockgroup.com/wiki/index.php?title=Microstock_Acronyms (http://www.microstockgroup.com/wiki/index.php?title=Microstock_Acronyms)
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
because there is a small contingent of photographers that hate IS. if you are good at what you do IS is second to none (in my opinion) to any other microstock agency.
Thanks. And yeah, you have to be like SUPER good! They're very picky.
Jesus bless you.
-
You should probably wait until 2nd Feb and resubmit. I hear they will need a lot more contributors after that.
Lol! Why is that? (I'm curious)
because there is a small contingent of photographers that hate IS. if you are good at what you do IS is second to none (in my opinion) to any other microstock agency.
Thanks. And yeah, you have to be like SUPER good! They're very picky.
actually one of the things I like about iS is how picky they are. they often find errors other agencies didn't, and when they have a reason for rejecting I believe them (ouch, it hurts to be told you're not good enough at isolations), whereas when the others hand out their nonsensical rejections I just roll my eyes.