Are you one of the guys that would do the same tomato from a hundred angles - do you think that a buyer on a site that would accept them all would buy all 100?

no, not tomato; maybe golden people doing every which way, or cigarettes stacked in a hundred positions 

But all the "Exclusive" tag means is that it's only available on iStock - not that the buyer has exclusive use of it.  There's nothing stopping anyone else downloading from there.  All it really means is that the buyer needn't waste time looking for the same image somewhere else, because, in theory at least, it won't be anywhere else.  It's up to them to decide if they think it's good enough to be worth paying the extra price.

ah, cheers 4 the clairification. i suppose that applies to all sites when you select "i want xxx to be the exclusive distributor"  to mean i only have it here with you, ... it does not mean the buyer has exclusive use.
very good !

if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely

you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices

good point.
no cascoly, not dls, they are selling framed-prints of their own work.

and I've made a whopping $.35 this month to continue this NIGHTMARE!

if they had accepted similars, it would be 35cts times the number of approved similars
i think dreamstime has gone noddy nod and is no more than a social-media, collecting likes for fb !!!

another factor which may not be indicated is the grafitti. it would be better to clone them off, as some sites will consider graffiti as a reason to rejection.  even in editorials, it still, i am sure, nicer to have this bridge clean as no one would want to perpetuate that grafitti. not unless you are the one who placed it there.
as for denoise . perharps u remove noise generally, as one frame. it might have been better if u just reduced noise locally with marquee, leaving the rest unaffected to cause the softness due to pixel movement.

another tuppence worth of my idea to help, hopefully.

I don't understand your logic here. If SStock sells best for the majority, it makes sense to learn how to pass their review filters.

In particular, I enjoy their turn around time. istock takes weeks to reply sometimes. SStock only takes 24 hours. That's a much better learn -> change -> resubmit cycle.

i repeat the 2nd comment on first page by Mr. Locke for my logic...

"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."

Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell.

[/b]

SStock do not always take 24 hours. You are in the low season and during this time, I used to get approval within the hour.
The approval time varies dependant on the period . My logic is that other sites may make as much money for you . Lifestyle makes a lot more than waterfalls.
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?keyword_search=1&searchterm=waterfall&search_group=images%2C&prev_sort_method=popular&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=undiscovered&sort_method=relevance2&page=1
you can measure if you can cut it with your own by looking at the sellers here.

I make 90% of my sales with Shutterstock, but I don't shoot waterfalls. And with Shutterstock, if you do not record sales within a week or that month with your new images, you can forget about it being a regular earner for you. The ones on page one, do just that upon approval.

Just based on my own portfolio and other consensus.

many !!!  but volume is not one of them. eg.  if you have 400(0) dl on one vacation image. and one dl with 400 images. which  do you think will get you more downloads in the future regularly ? your bottom-line is the same $x for 400(0) dl. but one will cannibalize your portfolio and you have to keep feeding the beast like some people. others do better like some people i know who get the same amount of downloads and money for far less uploading.
keywords is definitely the first thing, as it is what gets you found by the clients.
colour scheme too, i find. if you look at many of the images you see on the web pages (with Getty, SS, etc as a side line) you can see a certain colour scheme, and a certain lighting and lighting balance level
that are favoured by the buyers.
and you can also either be one of the many copycats of the top sellers, or be in a niche
where not many fill.  the former does not make you a top seller either.
as a buyer, why would i change to look at a copycat when i already have my bookmark on the top sellers?  some disagree, like always, i too disagree with many things i said earlier 

it all depends on your situation. the best thing to do is find what you do best.
no one else can replace that. and when those certain images sell for you,
make more of those. and hopefully you will find your niche.

or you can be a one stop shop for every thing under the sun, until you run out of ideas.
only you know where to draw the line.
but of course, technique, exposure , etc must be there on every image. the less post-processing the better, as your images will be cleaner , as will your workflow faster as soon as you master that.

still i expected you already mastered your equipment before even thinking of making money with your camera

I am going contrary to most of the advice here. You, like me, are not in it to feed your family, but rather to get a return on an activity you enjoy and make a few bucks to further your expensive hobby. That's what I do. I've surpassed $18,000 all time on SS and a few dollars more on other sites. One went belly up recently, so I really only have SS and one other. That suits me just fine.

I shoot what I want and what interests me. If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work. For instance, I've never been interested in studio work, models with releases or 17,000 varieties of business people posing in front of a white background. There are plenty of folks who are good at that and ready to (over)supply the market.

Ever since my army career in public information (writer and photographer) I've been interested in photojournalism and that's mainly what I do, along with the usual grist for my amateur's mill. I'm happy. I get to afford excellent equipment. I roam my territory photographing as the mood strikes me.

I really think you should photograph what you love. Maybe examine those images of yours that DO sell critically � see if there is a common denominator that made them interesting to buyers. Good luck!

well said, sir !  i don't know how many stock photographers i met who have pretty much had it with all that has been going on with microstock ( mad rejection inconsistency at SS, dc at fotolia, istock everything that went belly up and arse forward, dreamstime the little engine that didn't ...to quote another knowledgeable regular here,... oh the list is endless), and the sad refrain is "i burn out and lost interest in photography".

this is tragic, because it is not photography that burnt you out, it is the total anal structure of the microstock and G culture.
then again, many started stock photography as a business, so like many who lost their drawers during the market crash, they throw in the towel before they reach stress level of dangerous BP , blocked arteries, etc.

i think the balance way as Who's Pete Townsend used to say, or Sting, or so many tennis greats say..."i do it for myself first... i master the game... and then let the money come by itself. i will do it even if there is one person in the spectator section"

good advice, although not everyone will agree. we make our bed...

I think the upload process needs to be more streamlined. ...I think Dreamstime and SS have got it right.

funny, i just finished commenting on P5 needing to streamline their procedure, and thought the same way.. why not do it simply like dt ss ..!!!  KISS.

if i recall, Shutterstock you have to send an invite to gain that referral. dreamstime, i think the new member has just to give your id#. lastly, the latter referral is not forever, it is limited to 3 years.
and if your referral becomes exclusive later on, i think they end your referral. at least that's what happened to all my referrals.
like most sites, there will always be one form and another to cap what they pay you  ie as soon as they don't need you, they throw you out like one used to do in the dark ages with the piss collected overnight the spittoon  before shouting to the passersby "regarde leau"

I realize this will sound asinine, but I'm guessing their pre-review software identified significant areas not in focus - probably because of the blurry water (which you intended to be that way) and the particular inspector wasn't on the ball enough to realize this was fine.

I have participated in many threads about problems with SS inspections on non-studio shots of various kinds (and at the moment am taking a break from uploading there as I had just had it with the inconsistent inspection process). You can read them (here and in the SS forums).

It's nonsense but as long as they get a largish pile of new content each week they're happy so I don't expect them to improve things. Which means that you can resubmit with a note  explaining the water focus and it's likely it'll be accepted. Or move on if you don't have the patience to jump through the additional hoop.

worth repeating this one by Jo Ann