I've only recently began uploading to Veer, and I hope it turns out to be a good site.  With over a month review time, upload limits, and high rejection rate, it's gonna take quite some time to get a decent portfolio there, but I already have three sales with a portfolio of 83 (151 rejections and 48 pending).  I can tell you that I have much higher approval rates and sales at SS.

I'm having a real challenge getting any night-time cityscapes accepted on SS.  The first batch was done well after dark...



I figured they don't like cityscapes in actual darkness, so the next batch was more twilight...



I get the canned, "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." reason for all of them.

I did a search on "cityscape night" which returned just over 200 shots, the vast majority of which are anything but night.  Most are barely dusk.  Other sites are accepting them.  Anyone else have any experience with night-time cityscapes?

All good points, stockmarketer, except for the accusation that I'm just trying to get everyone's panties in a knot.  Denied.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the situation, and the purpose of my post was to see whether or not I'm the only one with this experience.  If so, then it would give us cause to believe that it was somehow my mistake.  The experience caught me quite by surprise, and from what I can tell, it's not a pattern of behavior on the part of the FT people, which lends more credibility to the notion that it was my mistake.  The evidence...

1.  I've never made this mistake before, but of course, there's always a first time.
2.  I don't remember ever having a 100% rejection rate on FT before.
3.  Every file that was rejected was made available in the free section.
4.  Apparently, it's not a common occurrence.
5.  It's entirely possible that I thought I was clicking the "yes" button to the EL option, when in fact, I clicked the button to make rejected files available in the free section.  The options carry forward to the next image unless and until they are changed (which is a good feature, IMO).
6.  With so many rejections of best-selling images on other sites, could it be a motive to reject files that would otherwise have been approved?  If so, what would be the motive?  Perhaps it's to make quality free files available in order to drive more traffic to the site, but on the other hand, FT is in the business of selling photos, not giving them away.

Since the evidence in inconclusive, I prefer to think it was my mistake.  I've uploaded three more files, making sure that the right boxes are checked.  After they're inspected, I'll know for sure.

The dot will be blue.

I've just accepted the fact that when I upload photos to FT, I know they're gonna reject some of them.  I also know that they're probably gonna give that same reason because it's likely the easiest catch-all choice from a list that the inspectors choose from, that it's pointless to try to figure out what they like and what they don't like, and that their "reason" is completely meaningless.  So I just upload, let 'em approve what they will and reject what they will, and move on to the next site where the same thing will happen, but they'll reject different photos for different "reasons."  So between all the sites, all of my photos end up being for sale somewhere on the web.   

I'm celebrating because this morning, I awoke to discover that I had reached payout on DT for the first time!  I've been uploading there since April 9 of last year.  If you're interested in my stats:

Uploaded files:  641
Total sales:  112
Acceptance ratio: 47%*

*I think they go way overboard on rejections because of the "too many similar images" thing.  For example, they approved this one...



...and rejected this one because it's similar...



I'll be the first to admit that they're similar because I used the same cell phone image, but one says "Christmas," and the other says "Phone."  I would say that they're dissimilar enough to approve both.  The friendly folks at Fotolia are of a "similar" mindset (bad pun intended) because they approved both.

Oddly enough, the inspectors at SS didn't approve any of the cell phone photos I sent to them because of copyright violation issues, even though I removed every vistige of brand names and logos.  They're the only ones.   

I'm able to upload via FTP with no problems, but the site doesn't seem to be processing the files.  I can see the files on the server in my FTP program, but the site doesn't show them in my unfinished section so that I can edit and submit them.

DT is notorious for rejecting "similar" images, so you might be seeing that quite a bit.  They won't take more than a couple of images from a set, which I think is a mistake because it limits the buyer's choices.  I get rejections from all the sites, but never the same images from any particular batch, and never for the same reasons.  So at the end of the day, all of the images from a particular batch are available somewhere on the web, which is one reason why I won't go exclusive anywhere.  I've been at this for a while now, and I choose very carefully which images to upload, knowing that the inspectors will simply take what they like, and all of 'em have different criteria, likes, and dislikes, even among inspectors for any given site.  They are very subjective, when (IMHO) they should limit themselves to technical quality.  But that's just the way it is, and I don't see it changing any time soon.

I can connect with my FTP program, but I can't get to the web site.  (I always upload with via FTP.)  I wonder if it has anything to do with Hurricane Irene?

Got it.  Not architectural.  Wrong button.  Twice.   

Although I have the most activity and sales on SS, one does have to wonder what those inspectors are smokin'.  Here's a screen shot of a couple of my most recent rejections, because I don't think you'd believe me otherwise...



I guess I'll be more attentive about getting property releases for these architectural photos!   

The Pixmac site you upload to must be different from the one I uploaded to.  After being approved as a contributing photographer a while back, I uploaded my first batch, and decided not to do so again.  I forgot about that decision until I uploaded another batch today.  It's almost as bad as istock!  Numerous categories, feelings, number of objects, hair color, hair length, type of portrait, facial expression, ad nauseum.  I probably won't be uploading again because I just can't afford the time.   

Just to make sure I understand your USP (Unique Selling Proposition):  You sell stock imagery that's decidedly more artistic than what's generally available on the big 4, am I correct?  If so, then the inspection process would even more subjective, would it not?  I mean, how would one recognize an image that's more "artistic?"  What would it look like?  What inspection criteria would be applied?  And does it mean that you don't accept an image which would be accepted on the big 4 sites?  Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult - just trying to clarify.  I don't think I would be a good match for the site because I'm all about furthering my technical knowledge and abilities while creating commercial imagery that appeals to the broadest clientele possible.  If that means an image of shaking hands that's evenly lit and sharply focused, I'm more than happy to do it.  I'm not the stereotypical artist with a superior attitude; neither do I feel like I have to prove anything to anyone.  I do have to balance my creative itch with my empty stomach!