MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Critique Request -- iStock problems :(  (Read 4976 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 19, 2010, 09:40 »
0
Hi,
I've applied and been rejected from iStock 4 times (meaning I've now got to wait 30 days to reapply D: ). This has surprised me as my photos have been accepted and have been selling at Fotolia, Dreamstime & Veer.
All of these photos have been rejected because they "did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto".
I would be very interested in what you have got to say, it is getting very annoying for me!

newbielink:http://img541.imageshack.us/i/dsc2597.jpg/ [nonactive]
newbielink:http://img155.imageshack.us/i/img1907j.jpg/ [nonactive]
newbielink:http://img62.imageshack.us/i/dsc1884.jpg/ [nonactive]
newbielink:http://img46.imageshack.us/i/dsc1993b.jpg/ [nonactive]
newbielink:http://img508.imageshack.us/i/dsc2270.jpg/ [nonactive]
newbielink:http://img689.imageshack.us/i/dsc2435x.jpg/ [nonactive]
newbielink:http://img36.imageshack.us/i/dsc2486s.jpg/ [nonactive]

Thanks again for any advice you can provide :)


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2010, 10:05 »
0
I personally see nothing wrong with your photos, composition-wise, but I will say a couple of things that have nothing to do with your photography skills, and that is:

1. It is going to be very difficult for new folks to get into istock nowadays. Getty/IS is on the path of changing the company back into high-end, high-priced RM-type of business, with exclusive members only, and what was once acceptable will not be now. If I were starting all over with IS today, I doubt that any, maybe a few, of my photos would even be accepted.

2. You are coming into the IS game when there are millions and millions of images, and hundreds of thousands contributors. There are likely hundreds of similar photos already in the database similar, some better, some worse, than your images. Basically what they mean is "we don't need any more of these".

You will have to up your game to be accepted and the only way I know how to do that is by studying what is selling best there now. Vetta collection wants artsy-type of images, etc.

All of the above is just my opinion, and maybe other, more experienced photogs here can be more specific about your composition. Hope my comments give you some perspective, at least.

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2010, 10:13 »
0
I agree with everything Cathy said.  Spot on.

« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2010, 10:21 »
0
You're going to beat your head against this wall until it's bloody, trying to get in - and if you do, find that it's very difficult to get images accepted, often very hard to figure ouit why something was rejected - and then not make enough sales to even begin to justify all the time spent. 

Wow that sounded a bit negative even for me  :)        But I got into IS 16 months ago and it's gone downhill steadily since then.

« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2010, 10:24 »
0
Of those, only the coin one shows a bit of thought or planning.  The rest are just captures of things laying about, not positioned particularly interestingly, or particularly well lit.

« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2010, 10:34 »
0
Of those, only the coin one shows a bit of thought or planning.  The rest are just captures of things laying about, not positioned particularly interestingly, or particularly well lit.

Exactly !  My thoughts too.  I got accepted a few months back (after several failed attempts), and most of my images are now accepted :)

But these are NOT stock material !!  I'm surprised Veer accepts your images !?  I can't get in there !???  :(

Hope this helps :)  Didn't want to be too negative, but you did ask !

« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2010, 10:42 »
0
I like the lighting in the set of wrenches, but on the tie it's definitely bad (strong shadows).

But since their rejection explanation - IF it is the real explanation - is the subject, I can't say much.  I never understand why sites take one image and not the other.

« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2010, 10:46 »
0
*eek*
It's not sounding as easy as I thought, though it's reassuring to know it's not just me.
Looks like they have the pick of just about everyone in the microstock arena and can therefore make it as easy or difficult as they want.

I have been sending my less artistic shots as they always seemed to look more commercial to me and therefore make them more attractive to the microstocks.
Looks like I should probably start concentrating less on the white background, isolated objects and get out there and take photos which are a bit more interesting.

Looking at the top selling photos is pretty enlightening and has given me some ideas, though theres the usual "My photo doesn't look very different to that!" :P

Thanks for the advice (both positive and negative!). Looks like I've just got to keep on working on it and one time I will be lucky  :)

« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2010, 10:56 »
0
Getty/IS is on the path of changing the company back into high-end, high-priced RM-type of business, with exclusive members only
Where did you get that info?

« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2010, 11:14 »
0
Getty/IS is on the path of changing the company back into high-end, high-priced RM-type of business, with exclusive members only
Where did you get that info?

If you read down farther, I made it clear that this is my opinion. I got it from the writing on the wall.  ;)

« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2010, 11:36 »
0
Getty/IS is on the path of changing the company back into high-end, high-priced RM-type of business, with exclusive members only
Where did you get that info?

I think this is clearly their plan.   As is often the case with grandiose corporate visions, they may end up stuck halfway down that path, mired in all the complexity they've created, unable to adapt to a rapidly changing market.  At least I hope so.  :)

lagereek

« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2010, 11:59 »
0
Agree!  but no, theres no way they gonna mix it in with the RM stuff. A= RM side is suffering, not what it used to be and images that sell are almost all conceptual.
B= IS cant throw out all non-exclusives, too big a chunk of business would go down the drain BUT they could within reason enforce exclusivity.

Apart from this, youre spot-on.  My hunch is that its going towards Macro, RF and so on.

You got to remember, any RM file is 50mb-Tiff, converted to high-end jpgs.

Shooting RM stuff for Getty is a totally different ballgame.

best

« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2010, 12:54 »
0
Agree!  but no, theres no way they gonna mix it in with the RM stuff. A= RM side is suffering, not what it used to be and images that sell are almost all conceptual.
B= IS cant throw out all non-exclusives, too big a chunk of business would go down the drain BUT they could within reason enforce exclusivity...

And I think you are correct there. They have already started down that path too. And I don't believe it will be an above-board statement made to non-exclusives that they MUST go exclusive or leave, I believe it will be below-board, underhanded business ways of pissing non-ex's off and hoping they will leave of their own accord (this is a favorite tactic of corporate America in today's business world...it allows them to cover their asses legally). As an example...best match changes, perhaps payout changes, finding excuses for not paying for ELs, enforcing the contributors participation in partner programs, etc.*

*Legal disclaimer...this is MY hunch and opinion, I hope I am wrong.

ETA: Apologies to the OP...this has diverted a little from your original question. Sorry about that.

« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2010, 13:53 »
0
1. It is going to be very difficult for new folks to get into istock nowadays. Getty/IS is on the path of changing the company back into high-end, high-priced RM-type of business, with exclusive members only, and what was once acceptable will not be now. If I were starting all over with IS today, I doubt that any, maybe a few, of my photos would even be accepted.

2. You are coming into the IS game when there are millions and millions of images, and hundreds of thousands contributors. There are likely hundreds of similar photos already in the database similar, some better, some worse, than your images. Basically what they mean is "we don't need any more of these".

All of the above is just my opinion, and maybe other, more experienced photogs here can be more specific about your composition. Hope my comments give you some perspective, at least.

I completely agree.  This seems to be the path IS is taking.

lagereek

« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2010, 14:19 »
0
Yes but in this case IS did the right thing in refusing the OPs files ( with respect), there are millions like them and the majority are better, so why accept something you dont need? just to fill space? thats wrong.
Personally I think its a good thing inspection is getting tougher, so it should be. Competition is murderous, neck-braking, there simply isnt any room anymore for weekend snappers and dilletants and in the long run it will benefit us all. I mean, come on, if every single hopeful got accepted, bloody hell! we would sink.

The way things are going, well?  it wouldnt surprise me if all of us here were IS exclusives within a year. There isnt much left out there.

best.

« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2010, 17:55 »
0
Tons of s**t that is way worse than these images gets accepted at IS (and other agencies to be fair) everyday, especially from exclusives.  Just go to their front page and see what's under "exclusive uploads" tab. Maybe if you tried to get accepted as an exclusive it would be easier.... Not that I am particularly impressed with the photos, but I've seen way way way worse;)

« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2010, 18:24 »
0
Tons of s**t that is way worse than these images gets accepted at IS (and other agencies to be fair) everyday, especially from exclusives.  Just go to their front page and see what's under "exclusive uploads" tab.

Nice to see someone else coming to that conclusion.  :)

Not long ago I decided to look at some of the "Newest Uploads" at IS.  I expected to see creative, high-quality shots and I was shocked to see mostly the same old repititious junk that flows in the doors everywhere else. 

« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2010, 18:51 »
0
Nowadays you have to be more creative to get accepted at IS. I don't say you are not creative, but you have to apply your creativity. Shoot something with stronger concept, and make three very different images with different subjects on different locations in different circumstances. And don't shoot flowers that are not really exceptionally, amazingly, extraordinary beautiful. And no sharpening! Noise reduction only very selectively!. IS hates noise reduction, so it's better to leave some noise if that preserves the details in shadows.
Watch for all technical requirements as purple fringing, color bending, artifacting, white ballans etc.

I'm sure you can do it. You just need three different images


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
18302 Views
Last post March 27, 2010, 09:47
by nancypics
12 Replies
5344 Views
Last post April 03, 2010, 14:11
by nancypics
16 Replies
6586 Views
Last post July 20, 2011, 02:22
by Freedom
9 Replies
2746 Views
Last post January 04, 2012, 20:03
by Socas
4 Replies
1775 Views
Last post January 06, 2014, 16:57
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results