Author Topic: Repeated rejection from iStockphoto (Read 29747 times)

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Repeated rejection from iStockphoto (Read 29747 times)

drnickburton

kaycee

kmtheman

hyperdude

ap

OxfordSquare

lisafx

CCK

stockmonkey

stockastic

Albert Martin

Albert Martin

lisafx

ap

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

crazychristina

Albert Martin

lisafx

stockastic

Albert Martin

lisafx

Xalanx

Albert Martin

jamirae

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors