Susan - thanks

What you wrote makes sense - except that I would never do any "heavy processing" on a JPEG file, no matter what the quality settings for the saved file had been. But - it makes sense, so I will try to figure out what it is that makes my pics not acceptable at Istock.

I didn't strip anything - I just had to upload it to some accessible server (and PhotoNet was it). They do not (?) support EXIF data (well, I should know, have been a member for 4 years - but I am not 100% sure - and this is the only reason I can think of).
I will check the original image.

And, on a more general note: I always thought (and still do) that the No 1 criteria for an image is: is it going to sell ?

Of course technical requirements are important - but in the end it is the customer who decides what is right and what is wrong. This image has been knocked back twice for "artifacting" and "overfiltering". Nonetheless, it sold 10 times on Fotolia within 4 weeks (with a portfolio of about 35 images).

http://www.fotolia.com/id/5549902

I am not arguing or trying to subvert the acceptance criteria. What I am saying there is no logic (at least no business logic) at work sometimes...

OK - thanks. It appears that the general consensus is that the image is... well - crap. The truth is, recently I "upgraded" to CS3 and try to use its RAW converter. Previously I was using RAWShooter (and PS7) with apparently better results.

I will check the whole workflow process again - maybe there is something I am overlooking.
At any case - thanks for the input, I will try to do better than this.

Just one more request - if someone can point out the artifacts ond the 100% crop - that would be great, and maybe I will be able to avoid this in future.

Thanks everyone.

W7LWI: yes - I know how to check for some residual color using levels - I left the background as it was, and added a clipping path instead in case someone wanted a 100% white background. Green bleed - it is just the light filtering through the green glass. CA - agreed, the 24-70 is not exactly known for being CA free. Will try with 100 macro lens.

My problem is the canned response: artifacting. If I knew what exactly this is that has been met with the reviewer's disapproval - then I could possibly fix it in in future submissions.

As things stand now, though, images which sell on other sites are being rejected for "overfiltering" or "artifacting". Both are very general statements which do not provide any specific info, making it a guessing game.

ANOUCHKA: I haven't asked the question regarding calibrated monitor at native resolution (I guess everyone is using LCDs these days), because this would suggest that the reviewers do not know what they are doing, which I am sure is not the case- but from one of the other sites I have received a rejection with a reason "moire pattern" - where there was none (but I am still using a calibrated CRT). I can see moire in some of my pics - on a LCD reset to other than native resolution.

ALE1969: there are no RAW settings on the camera which would affect the quality of the image. RAW conversion, on the other hand, could be a factor - so I will have a look at it again. When I said "barely touched' - I meant it, since I was advised to not overdo PS corrections for Istock submissions. I was similarly careful with the other two images (OTOH the definition of "excessive" adjustments somehow eludes my understanding).

I guess it is just frustration on my part. All of the images which I have submitted to Istock so far have been accepted elsewhere - and most of them sell, despite my very small portfolio.

I think I will give it one last go in 3 months - but there is only so much work I am willing to put into it considering the amount of comission paid.

Thanks - this is quite informative !

Started 5 weeks ago, so far accepted on 6 sites (still waiting to be accepted at SS and iStock).
About 50 downloads so far across 5 sites (including one image with 10 downloads) - with a prtfolio of about 35 pics on average. Recently uploaded another 40, most of it is waiting for acceptance, inluding all uploads to Stockxpert.

My question - how does it look like ? Average ? Poor ? Good ?
Just curious.

I never had problems uploading with ProStockMaster. You just give the program your passwords, then select the images to upload to different sites, press the button - and go to sleep. In the morning all is as it should be - e.g. all images at their respective destination. Highly recommended - it does some rudimentary keywording too and keeps track of uploaded images and earnings. I have no affiliation with the software - just like it, and it will (I hope) be further developed - I provided a lot of suggestions.

Well - I only started a month ago. This one sells well at fotolia (I know that "well" means different things to different people though - but it had about 10 downlods so far  )

http://www.fotolia.com/Member/IndexContent/5549902

Basically - I use the ProStock Master which gives me a first cut (generates 20-30 keywords from initial entry of 2-3 words). Then I remove the ones I consider irrelevant - and go through all keywords with Image Keyworder (trial version so far). It appears to produce more detailed keywords, but is a pain to use when starting w/o any keywords (that's why ProStock Master is soooooo convenient to give me the first cut in just few seconds).

Anyone has any suggestions ?

Thanks - will do so ASAP.

This is what iStock reviewers seem to think. I have attached two small images - they contain comparison of the final JPEG and unprocessed RAW files. Maybe someone could have a look and give me some tips - I am rather new at this. If larger images are needed - I can post them too. Thanks

Correction - I tried to attach a 60K JPEG - got an error message "Upload folder is full"...