Author Topic: Repeated rejection from iStockphoto (Read 26877 times)

drnickburton · « **on:** September 14, 2009, 17:45 »

Hi,

I just my 3rd application to submit to iStockphoto rejected. Such is life.

All the pictures I've used to try and get accepted have been accepted and have sold at one or more of SS, DT and Fotolia. The usual story.

The rejection I get is that the shots are "too similar". This is annoying because so far I've submitted 3 wildlife shots, 3 isolations, and 3 travel shots. I can't see what is so simlar about a parrot, tower bridge in london, and a christmas decoration. This rejection is pretty idiotic therefore, IMO. I would rather they just said "not good enough, try again". At least that would give me something to go on.

The trouble is, I don't see how I can improve next time, given that the reason for rejection they give is so clearly BS.

Any advice?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** September 14, 2009, 18:31 »

Not without seeing the rejections

.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** September 14, 2009, 19:38 »

Quote from: drnickburton on September 14, 2009, 17:45

The trouble is, I don't see how I can improve next time, given that the reason for rejection they give is so clearly BS.

Any advice?

My advice would be to decide whether you'd rather rant at iStock's rejection or figure out how to get accepted. If you really believe that their rejection reason is BS, do you want to try again?

If you do, then post to the iStock critique forum (or if you don't have any credits, post somewhere else, like here) showing what's been rejected. The fact that it's been accepted at another site doesn't really add much to the discussion as each site has its own acceptance criteria (and I used to be independent so I'm familiar with submitting to multiple sites).

You might also want to look at posts in iStock's critique forum from other people in your circumstances - it won't tell you about your specific images, but you'll get some general pointers about having a range of types of images, technical standards, etc.

There are lots of people who will help point you in the right direction, if that's what you're looking for.

goldenangel · « **Reply #3 on:** September 14, 2009, 21:22 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 14, 2009, 19:38

If you do, then post to the iStock critique forum (or if you don't have any credits, post somewhere else, like here) showing what's been rejected.

You can also get someone else to post the photos on IS forum for you for critiques.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #4 on:** September 14, 2009, 21:52 »

Is it clearly BS or are you not meeting the requirements? It's their game. You may want to learn how to play it rather than dispute it.

sgcallaway1994 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 14, 2009, 22:16 »

I think it took me at least three times before I was finally accepted to I-stock. Even after being accepted, its been rough going building my portfolio there. However, that being said, I still think it was well worth it. I have less than 40 images on line there and have made over $60.00. Stuff that gets accepted sells!

So, the advice I've give is send in 1 type of each photo ie: 1 isoloation, 1 wildlife and 1 travel shot. Then, the rest of the photos need to be something different. They are intersted in seeing that you can shoot a wide range of technically sound photos. Once you show them you can, they will accept your application.

Don't give up, do keep trying.

drnickburton · « **Reply #6 on:** September 15, 2009, 04:43 »

@sgcallaway1994 - thanks, that's good advice. I guess they review each 3 shots in isolation, without looking at what came before. Hence they get the impression of a lack of variation. I'm really hoping to get it right next time, as the re-sunmission time just doubled to two weeks!

-

To be clear, none of the stuff I submitted so far was rejected on technical grounds. Also no mention of a lack of commercial value (and indeed, I intentionally picked shots that are selling elsewhere). So I'm not sure why people want me to post examples here - can't really see how that would help (other than to confirm that a parrot indeed is not similar to tower bridge in London

).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2009, 05:22 »

Quote from: drnickburton on September 15, 2009, 04:43

To be clear, none of the stuff I submitted so far was rejected on technical grounds. Also no mention of a lack of commercial value (and indeed, I intentionally picked shots that are selling elsewhere). So I'm not sure why people want me to post examples here - can't really see how that would help (other than to confirm that a parrot indeed is not similar to tower bridge in London ).

Well, I guess we're done then. Better luck next time.

Noodles · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2009, 06:14 »

Quote from: drnickburton on September 15, 2009, 04:43

To be clear, none of the stuff I submitted so far was rejected on technical grounds. Also no mention of a lack of commercial value (and indeed, I intentionally picked shots that are selling elsewhere). So I'm not sure why people want me to post examples here - can't really see how that would help (other than to confirm that a parrot indeed is not similar to tower bridge in London ).

I got accepted first try with a ladybird, a daisy and an abstract. When I re-uploaded them to sell they were all rejected

They were rejected for technical reasons so you can safely assume that IS is looking for creativity and originality in the way you photograph your subject.

There are a million ways to photograph a parrot - lets see yours and someone here might be able to help you.

goldenangel · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2009, 12:55 »

Quote from: drnickburton on September 15, 2009, 04:43

@sgcallaway1994 - thanks, that's good advice. I guess they review each 3 shots in isolation, without looking at what came before. Hence they get the impression of a lack of variation. I'm really hoping to get it right next time, as the re-sunmission time just doubled to two weeks!

That's true. I also had the same feeling when I got rejected by them for lack of variety. They don't' look at previous applications at all.

PowerDroid · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2009, 13:24 »

I was in a similar boat just recently. Had to wait a long time to resubmit. I didn't want to gamble and possibly have to wait another many more months if rejected again, so I reached out to the iStock critique forum for help. I showed several that I was considering and most were shot down by the members for various technical reasons. It has hard to hear, but I took their advice and selected three shots that I hadn't been considering... and I was accepted! So take my advice... get help from the iStock forum... those people know the iStock processes, and the reviewers' likes and dislikes, better than anyone. They could save you from longer and longer review periods, as they did for me!

goldenangel · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2009, 13:37 »

Quote from: PowerDroid on September 15, 2009, 13:24

I was in a similar boat just recently. Had to wait a long time to resubmit. I didn't want to gamble and possibly have to wait another many more months if rejected again, so I reached out to the iStock critique forum for help. I showed several that I was considering and most were shot down by the members for various technical reasons. It has hard to hear, but I took their advice and selected three shots that I hadn't been considering... and I was accepted! So take my advice... get help from the iStock forum... those people know the iStock processes, and the reviewers' likes and dislikes, better than anyone. They could save you from longer and longer review periods, as they did for me!

Well said! That's how I got accepted too.

ap · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2009, 17:50 »

i only had one more image to be accepted by istock and i posted several pics here. sean (sjlocke) helped me choose the winning image (one i wouldn't have considered) and i was approved within the hour.

so, there's no harm in posting your pics.

it was also not my prettiest picture and was rejected later for addition to my portfolio.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2009, 01:40 »

Quote from: goldenangel on September 15, 2009, 13:37

Quote from: PowerDroid on September 15, 2009, 13:24
... so I reached out to the iStock critique forum for help.
Well said! That's how I got accepted too.

Other than the fact that OP doesn't want to show his work, I think the critique forum would work well

Just as there are stages of grief, I think there are stages of rejection. Perhaps once the OP has moved on a stage or two he'll be ready

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2009, 02:10 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 16, 2009, 01:40

Quote from: goldenangel on September 15, 2009, 13:37
Quote from: PowerDroid on September 15, 2009, 13:24
... so I reached out to the iStock critique forum for help.

Well said! That's how I got accepted too.

Other than the fact that OP doesn't want to show his work, I think the critique forum would work well

Just as there are stages of grief, I think there are stages of rejection. Perhaps once the OP has moved on a stage or two he'll be ready

Yes, it's true!
iStock evey has an article on just that: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=2 - but you have to be at the right stage to be ready to take it on board. When I was getting rejections at the beginning which I didn't believe (I guess that's fairly common) I just wasn't 'in the place' which made the advice helpful.
@OP: my beginning accceptance rate was below 50% - it hovered around 40% for a couple of weeks

. Now it's well over 90% (i.e. in recent months, not overall :'( )
(Also +1 that you post your rejections.)

drnickburton · « **Reply #15 on:** September 16, 2009, 11:01 »

I'll be posting my next 3 selections on the IS forum for sure.

drnickburton · « **Reply #16 on:** September 24, 2009, 16:36 »

Ok, so my next question is... ...how do I post something (anything...) on the IS forum? Forum page lacks any means of making a new post. I joined iStock ages ago, have been able submit 3 times to be a contibutor, and yet I do not seem to have access to their forums. What is this???

iStock FAQs completely silent about theirs forums.

Forum has no search tool (perhaps only available once you can post?) so no joy there.

Would like to post at istock forum to ask how to post at istock forum, but cannot post at istock forum to ask how.

Why does this have to be like pulling teeth? Is this rest of iStock as user unfreindly?

Meanwhile, selling well on other sites!

Gannet77 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 24, 2009, 16:52 »

Quote from: drnickburton on September 24, 2009, 16:36

Ok, so my next question is... ...how do I post something (anything...) on the IS forum? Forum page lacks any means of making a new post. I joined iStock ages ago, have been able submit 3 times to be a contibutor, and yet I do not seem to have access to their forums. What is this???

iStock FAQs completely silent about theirs forums.

Forum has no search tool (perhaps only available once you can post?) so no joy there.

Would like to post at istock forum to ask how to post at istock forum, but cannot post at istock forum to ask how.

Why does this have to be like pulling teeth? Is this rest of iStock as user unfreindly?

Meanwhile, selling well on other sites!

It's not that hard. You go to the forums list (link on the left), select the forum you want (Critique?) and click the "Add Topic" button.

If you're posting for critique though, you need to make a link to a 100% image somewhere. They usually suggest vox.

But the search function isn't very good, you're right about that.

drnickburton · « **Reply #18 on:** September 24, 2009, 17:13 »

You really would think it would be as easy that eh? The thing is though, there is no Add Topic button!

Having wasted about an hour on this now, I finally noticed the following, at the bottom of a thread I was reading (it does not appear on the main forum page, which is why I have not noticed it before):

"Note: Your account is not yet eligible for forum participation, but feel free to browse our forums until your posting privileges are activated."

It would be nice if there some explanation as to why, how, when etc. my posting privileges might be activated. Grrr!!!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #19 on:** September 24, 2009, 18:09 »

You need to buy credits, or be accepted as a contributor. Sorry, that's how it works.

drnickburton · « **Reply #20 on:** September 25, 2009, 02:44 »

Really? So everyone who has posted on the iStock forum with a view to having their submissions critiqued (i.e. the ones that they propose to submit to apply to become a contibutor) first had to buy credits (which they typically had no intention of using)? Wow, that really sucks!

Perhaps I'll try posting my next 3 here instead. I can re-apply in a few days from now. If it were not for the fact that they having a good reputation for earnings, I really wouldn't bother. My expriance with iStock so far has been the worst of any of the half dozen site I've used.

Thanks for your reply sj. At least you solved the mystery for me!

Gannet77 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 25, 2009, 05:49 »

OK, I hadn't realised you had to be accepted first. Makes sense though, it's not a public forum like this one and there's no reason why iStock should make it fully available to anyone who isn't a contributor or a buyer I suppose.

Although as I recall I had to send a scan of my passport or other ID when applying, I would have thought that ought to qualify for posting rights!

Though I do think that going into iStock with the attitude that you don't like the site but you want to join because they sell well isn't a very good way to start. You'll end up bitter and twisted about them like so many other posters I read here.

From what I can tell, the only reason you're annoyed with them is that they haven't accepted you yet; but that's because you sent them three similar images of one subject, they asked to see a bit more variety in your work (same thing with my first application, actually) and you sent another three images of a different subject. Then did the same again, when what they wanted was three different subjects.

You just misunderstood, that's all. Move on, try again, and best of luck next time!

drnickburton · « **Reply #22 on:** September 25, 2009, 09:22 »

"Though I do think that going into iStock with the attitude that you don't like the site but you want to join because they sell well isn't a very good way to start. You'll end up bitter and twisted about them like so many other posters I read here."

I agree it's not a good start, not for want of trying on my part though (multiple resubmissions plus detective work on other forums to try and fathom their idiosynchrosies). My experiance with SS, FT and DT so far has been better in each case.

"From what I can tell, the only reason you're annoyed with them is that they haven't accepted you yet"

Yes, that's right. And, in particular, it's the lack of clarity in the reaon for rejection which led to getting the same rejection more than once, wasting my time and theirs too.

It's also the time wasted working out the reason why I cant access their forum as suggested by members here that I should do. SS forum is open for this exact use, by the way.

stockastic · « **Reply #23 on:** September 25, 2009, 16:51 »

Having been through this myself, I advise you to save yourself a lot of aggravation by just accepting that right at the start that compared to the other microstock sites, IStock is a PITA.

Acceptance is difficult, rejections can be arbitrary or totally off base. Keywording in their system is tedious at best. Reviews take weeks. You can't use FTP. Your upload quota is low. Your best-selling images from other sites will be rejected. I could go on.

You have to take a different approach with IS, switch off your emotions entirely and take whatever you can get from them. They do sell a lot of images, in part because their search engine is better than the others.

IStock's forums are a good place to find threads on topics like "IStock totally rocks", "thanks to the reviewers", and "IStock has changed my life". I think I recall going through that same period of trying to figure out why I couldn't post on the forum after first registering with the site.

studioportosabbia · « **Reply #24 on:** September 25, 2009, 18:15 »

I'm still waiting for the results of my 1st application (3 weeks ago....) but when I read the story I think it won't be the last. I submitted 3 bestsellers, various topics: one studio shot, a model and one conceptual.....Let's wait (some more weeks?) and see

drnickburton · « **Reply #25 on:** September 26, 2009, 02:56 »

@stacktastic

lol that's really great advice - I'll bear it in mind

Anyway, my next submission is early next week, so fingers crossed.

kaycee · « **Reply #26 on:** September 26, 2009, 05:43 »

Most rejects I get is for over filtered very strange because I'm really careful with filters such as saturation,noise reduction,etc.
And the most fun part I send them to scout and the got approved by scout but don't show as approved in my portfolio.
After sending the approved scout message back to the scout I got the messages we really terrible sorry but you photo is been over turned and the original reviewer is right.....

This is for the second time this month....

kmtheman · « **Reply #27 on:** October 21, 2009, 20:11 »

wow that is wierd all my stuff is accepted in istock but non, not even one is accepted in SS phooey... :/ life what can u do.
its murphys fault for making them stupid laws lol

hyperdude · « **Reply #28 on:** October 21, 2009, 23:07 »

I was extremely lucky to get accepted in iStock on first try. I had sent in three shots all on food and the reply from the iStock inspector folks was that while they found the photos to be good technically - they are more keen to find out what else I can bring to iStock and whether I am creative in other genres or whether I can only just do food shots. So I sent back another shot of a travel and a creative studio shot and was accepted in the iStock fold.

The thing I feel is for iStock the inspectors are looking at your images and asking themselves why they should bet on this potential contributor and whether the potential contributors can be an asset to iStock that in turns will offer something that can be commercially viable IN ADDITION to all their existing contributors.

Interesting enough, I send in my best shots at iStock to SS and thinking I will breeze through. Wrong, I was rejected twice and I will try again shortly. So maybe its not just a matter of sending in your best selling shots from other sites at iStock and expecting them to be accepted but trying to find out that extra little creative spark that will tell the image inspectors that they should bet on you and accept you into the fold.

ap · « **Reply #29 on:** October 21, 2009, 23:16 »

i don't know if you're a member at ft, but i found anything that passes through both ft and is a shoe-in for the ss test.

OxfordSquare · « **Reply #30 on:** April 03, 2010, 19:58 »

Quote

Repeated rejection from iStockphoto

just keep on trying... i needed 4 times to get in

lisafx · « **Reply #31 on:** April 03, 2010, 22:45 »

Quote from: OxfordSquare on April 03, 2010, 19:58

Quote
Repeated rejection from iStockphoto

just keep on trying... i needed 4 times to get in

This thread is over 6 months old. Surely the OP has had time to resolve his issue by now?

CCK · « **Reply #32 on:** April 04, 2010, 12:54 »

I am a contributor at iStock, who did well for myself at a time. I even considered going exclusive. Now I get many rejections, I think my last 5 photos were rejected. I have now decided not to bother trying there. I still get sales from iStock, but my contribution days are over.

stockmonkey · « **Reply #33 on:** April 23, 2010, 15:46 »

If I remember correctly it took me a few tries to get accepted with iStock. Initially they took two out of three, then rejected the alternate third image, then accepted me after another go-around. I'm new to stock and had no idea how hard they were on digital artifacting, which many of us "old-timers" equate with film grain - something our clients demanded we add to an image after going digital years ago because the photo looked too "sterile." How things have changed.

Nonetheless, I got on with iStock then they rejected 11 of 15 of my images, which is were mostly due to noise/artifacts. Since i've worked to correct that and have had much better luck but IS is still a slow, slow process to build a port there.

Good luck!

stockastic · « **Reply #34 on:** April 23, 2010, 16:45 »

Quote from: stockmonkey on April 23, 2010, 15:46

IS is still a slow, slow process to build a port there.

Part of the problem is that they use the term "artifact" with no clear definition. Are they talking about compression artifacts, color fringing, oversharpening, other post-processing anomalies? You never really know what the reviewer is referring to. Occasionally the problem has been obvious; more often I'm left scratching my head. Sometimes I've appealed or re-submitted and it sails through.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #35 on:** April 23, 2010, 16:46 »

iStock has double standards!

When knowing that it is much easier to trick their system...

Just see about that to make something VETTA-Like... And upload that for initial exam...
You'll get through for sure because they have someone who is watching on that kind of images... I think that all initial submissions are reviewed by SCOUT(s)... Read carefully what they need and what they don't need.

Also, after you're accepted - they will accept any image which is technically OK. That means NO NOISE as well in-camera colors... Try not to radically process your images and that is all!

Best of luck!

[ADDED] Preferred Cameras for iStock: Nikon D700, Canon 5DMkII... And similar! If you have such camera - you'll have full pass!

Albert Martin · « **Reply #36 on:** April 23, 2010, 16:52 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 23, 2010, 16:45

Quote from: stockmonkey on April 23, 2010, 15:46
IS is still a slow, slow process to build a port there.

Part of the problem is that they use the term "artifact" with no clear definition. Are they talking about compression artifacts, color fringing, oversharpening, other post-processing anomalies? You never really know what the reviewer is referring to. Occasionally the problem has been obvious; more often I'm left scratching my head. Sometimes I've appealed or re-submitted and it sails through.

Double standards bias comes to conclusion that you must shoot raw and process your images on minimal level. Noise is something No-No for iStock... And artifacts are shown after you overprocess your photos or if you shoot with aps-c.

lisafx · « **Reply #37 on:** April 23, 2010, 18:10 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 16:46

[ADDED] Preferred Cameras for iStock: Nikon D700, Canon 5DMkII... And similar! If you have such camera - you'll have full pass!

I shoot with a 5DII. Where's my full pass? I still get rejections....

ap · « **Reply #38 on:** April 23, 2010, 18:16 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 16:46

That means NO NOISE as well in-camera colors... Try not to radically process your images and that is all!

[ADDED] Preferred Cameras for iStock: Nikon D700, Canon 5DMkII... And similar! If you have such camera - you'll have full pass!

not so fast, my nikon d700 does not get automatic pass, in fact get lots of overfiltered rejections when the colors were in-camera and not altered. however, ss likes them.

in fact, my acceptance rate has gone down since i replaced my nikon d90, but i think this may have more to do with their recent changes in review policy.

gostwyck · « **Reply #39 on:** April 23, 2010, 18:25 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 16:52

Double standards bias comes to conclusion that you must shoot raw and process your images on minimal level. Noise is something No-No for iStock... And artifacts are shown after you overprocess your photos or if you shoot with aps-c.

Another popular myth. I never shoot RAW and have about a 90% acceptance rate at IS. If you get it right in-camera then a) RAW won't make any difference, and b) you'll save yourself a lot of time fannying about in post-processing.

If you're shooting stock then you'll normally be in control of the conditions and, if you are in control, then you should work on getting it right rather than accepting poor results, thinking it can all be fixed up later.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #40 on:** April 23, 2010, 20:15 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on April 23, 2010, 16:46

i... That means NO NOISE as well in-camera colors... Try not to radically process your images and that is all!

...
[ADDED] Preferred Cameras for iStock: Nikon D700, Canon 5DMkII... And similar! If you have such camera - you'll have full pass!

For the benefit of anyone else reading this, especially those thinking of becoming a contributor, the above is utter nonsense.

If you know what you're doing you can heavily process images and get them accepted. A quick browse through IS's big sellers will tell you this if you don't want to take anyone's word for it.

And having a certain camera doesn't get you a "full pass". I am frequently amazed at those with expensive (lots of 5DIIs) cameras who stop by the critique forum for assistance with rejections and it's clear they really don't know how to work their equipment. You can produce a noise and artifact filled image just as easily with a 5DII as with anything else .

And as far as RAW vs. JPEG, IS inspectors don't know or care how you got to the JPEG they inspect. My take is that typically folks who are working in completely controlled light do just fine with JPEG and those doing more shots outside in light they only partially control most often do better with RAW.

crazychristina · « **Reply #41 on:** April 23, 2010, 20:34 »

My current acceptance rate on istock (for recent images) is excellent, and most rejections are for similars. I'm shooting still-life type shots, different subjects under very similar lighting (strobes and reflectors) and it works well. However, I don't even bother taking my camera outside anymore. Too many rejections for lighting from outdoor shots.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #42 on:** May 06, 2010, 10:29 »

Ok... People you're right! I didn't said all ;-)

Sure thing, You'll have full pass IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR CAMERA - FF preferred!

Also, you must have such images that aren't similar too much to images their exclusives have online there. Especially because their exclusives ARE INSPECTORS ;-)

Sorry for misunderstanding!

lisafx · « **Reply #43 on:** May 06, 2010, 13:18 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 10:29

Sure thing, You'll have full pass IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR CAMERA - FF preferred!

Also, you must have such images that aren't similar too much to images their exclusives have online there. Especially because their exclusives ARE INSPECTORS ;-)

Again, complete BS^^. NOBODY gets a free pass on IS. I have 5DII and over 90% acceptance rate (so presumably know how to use it) and still get my share of rejections.

And exclusive inspectors approve images that are similar concepts to their own all the time. I don't know how they manage to do it - would drive me nuts.

stockastic · « **Reply #44 on:** May 06, 2010, 13:24 »

I've gotten most of my photos accepted at IS, and I use the humble Nikon D80. But lately, I'm getting too many rejections that I don't understand. By not attaching any specifics (image clips) to rejections, IS is creating a huge expanding oil slick of confusion and misinformation.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #45 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:30 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2010, 13:18

Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 10:29

Sure thing, You'll have full pass IF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR CAMERA - FF preferred!

Also, you must have such images that aren't similar too much to images their exclusives have online there. Especially because their exclusives ARE INSPECTORS ;-)

Again, complete BS^^. NOBODY gets a free pass on IS. I have 5DII and over 90% acceptance rate (so presumably know how to use it) and still get my share of rejections.

90% is very nice percentage for micros... And, I won't comment about BS... But, I saw some of rejected images from some people which was better than those accepted. Difference was that bad ones uploaded by exclusives and better ones uploaded by non-exclusives. And that is called FREE PASS for me - crown is something that gives you discount there by all means ;-)

I am curious how many % do you have in QC passed on Alamy or Corbis ;-)

And exclusive inspectors approve images that are similar concepts to their own all the time. I don't know how they manage to do it - would drive me nuts.

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** May 06, 2010, 17:42 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 17:30

I am curious how many % do you have in QC passed on Alamy or Corbis ;-)

I don't submit to Corbis, but I have over 5k on Alamy and have never had a rejection there. Do they actually reject images after your initial test batch??

Xalanx · « **Reply #47 on:** May 06, 2010, 18:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2010, 17:42

Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 17:30

I am curious how many % do you have in QC passed on Alamy or Corbis ;-)

I don't submit to Corbis, but I have over 5k on Alamy and have never had a rejection there. Do they actually reject images after your initial test batch??

I always thought Alamy inspectors are on auto-accept mode...

Albert Martin · « **Reply #48 on:** May 07, 2010, 02:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2010, 17:42

Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 17:30

I am curious how many % do you have in QC passed on Alamy or Corbis ;-)

I don't submit to Corbis, but I have over 5k on Alamy and have never had a rejection there. Do they actually reject images after your initial test batch??

Yes, they do reject...

I have had some old images taken with sony A100 rejected due to 'not enough resolution' ;-)

[EDIT] But, it's more due to crappy 55-200 lens I've used than to A100...

jamirae · « **Reply #49 on:** June 07, 2010, 17:58 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 17:30

....

- crown is something that gives you discount there by all means ;-)

....

Not true. Having a crown means that you should pretty well know what iStock standards are and be able to upload to those standards.

There are 'perks' associated with the crown but that has nothing to do with acceptance rate. True, I've gotten questionable rejections at times from iStock, but usually if I spend the time to go back to the file and check it out, I understand why the rejection (most times, not all

). They have tough standards, but buyers know that, too. They know that an image from istock will be technically good as well as aesthetically good. I can't speak for other stock sites since I've never contributed to any other.

Suljo · « **Reply #50 on:** June 07, 2010, 20:58 »

Quote from: averil on April 23, 2010, 20:34

My current acceptance rate on istock (for recent images) is excellent, and most rejections are for similars. I'm shooting still-life type shots, different subjects under very similar lighting (strobes and reflectors) and it works well. However, I don't even bother taking my camera outside anymore. Too many rejections for lighting from outdoor shots.

Wow
Averil catch on strobes

Only on iStock they dont say to you that they will earn you pay back

Sorry Averil I cant help myself with stupid argue

Phil · « **Reply #51 on:** June 07, 2010, 21:59 »

Quote from: Xalanx on May 06, 2010, 18:03

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2010, 17:42
Quote from: Albert Martin on May 06, 2010, 17:30

I am curious how many % do you have in QC passed on Alamy or Corbis ;-)

I don't submit to Corbis, but I have over 5k on Alamy and have never had a rejection there. Do they actually reject images after your initial test batch??

I always thought Alamy inspectors are on auto-accept mode...

I got the feeling somewhere along the line that they consider your rejection rate. Basically if you dont get rejections then you are at top of queue and takes 24hrs-ish for approval (and basically someone skims your thumbnails

. People who get rejections it is slower and they get examined more closely. But I dont know now where I got this idea.

cthoman · « **Reply #52 on:** June 08, 2010, 00:35 »

Yeah, I don't think there are any big conspiracies there, so you may want to put down the tin foil hats. I probably have a better approval rating than a lot of exclusives, but I still get rejections. I think they have a good reviewal process, but (like most agencies) it depends on the reviewer's interpretation of the rules.

Personally, I've come to realize that I'm not always going to see eye to eye with every agency's acceptance policies, but I still think most of them are reasonable. I hope it stays that way, but I'm sure I just jinxed myself.

drgogineni · « **Reply #53 on:** June 09, 2010, 04:36 »

Well I need to fulfill my obligatory 1 post before asking for help in a new thread so I just wanted to say hello and thanks to everybody here for the very useful info. I'm just getting into microstock and working on my photography skills and this site has proven very helpful (been lurking for a few months).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Repeated rejection from iStockphoto (Read 26877 times)

Noodles

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

Xalanx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors