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

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.   

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.

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!

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!

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). 

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.

Quote from: Microbius on January 25, 2013, 07:55

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.

Quote from: Microbius on January 25, 2013, 07:55

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.