for me shutterstock is on top 1 ranking. actually, months before i quite, regarding uploading process - shutterstock was absolute marker for me "which files will be accepted by istock". / every single one that was rejected (the best "no" from shutterstock for me is "we do not feel that focus is ..." (who the f...dk gives a dam what you feel? )) was accepted on istock, and until now earned me some bucks.
*yesterday i visited one fellow here where i live, he is indie - and had acception/rejection emails from ss day before - i see they are still sticked to this. (**excellent images imho, -will earn some money to it's owner, i am sure about that).

 it depends from wich angle or point you look on to things. - maybe they did not (i am sure actually they did not) change standards, but image actually was mistakenly approved in the first place.
- or if it is really on public location - you can contact support and resolve this matter in a... well maybe not really short time, but reasonable time i am sure.
**you sound a bit like american irs (you nou these thieves ) who  say this and that, but on a simple demand: "show me the law" (under which  irs operates ), -they did never do this. -no one ever saw the low. - similarly - we did not see your image. if it is online on other sites, what is the problem for linking image for us? -i believe that ms community is not hostile, but friendly.

Quote from: jbarber873 on May 03, 2012, 02:57
   the simple answer is, if you don't like the rules for selling your images in the US, then don't sell them in the US. But if you want access to the US market  you have to play by the US rules. Nobody sold you a ticket- you asked to sell images on these sites, and they are obligated to follow the tax rules of the countries they operate in, even if that includes countries like the US that are clearly inferior in every way from your perfect little world.

o.k. maybe your rules, and it's o.k. but are these rules real? and i did not ask anyone for anything, when i started - ss asked me  to sell my images
and my concern, or thinking (do not appropriate word, sorry) -are these rules (rule  -something bellow the law) made by following law, or - by breaking the law? 

*why do not they take money from sellers on e-bay, when buyers are from usa, and payment is made in $ via paypal or whatever?

microbius - nicely said.

 my question would be somewhat - is it really possible, that u.s. government has no power, or will, or both to protect it's own people? -if someone is forcing you to do something, and there is no law that covers his/it's activities, this is act against the law - and if irs are really criminals, or state in state or power beyond everyone and everything there, how is it possible that people do not rise their votes against it?
** maybe it is not good moment us to discuss where us aid is going anyway, because discussion can go in unwanted direction

but money collected by irs is going nowhere - it is covering usa public debt if i understood this correctly.
b.t.w. i would love to see country in the world that usa goverment actually gave them anything for free (of charge, of interest, of political influence, ....)

for me this was 0.00$ - just as it should be

 Hi people.
Few weeks ago, i watched this movie> (it's documentary, and is free online):

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/america-freedom-to-fascism/

main idea about this, is that IRS from USA, is actually illegal organization, but, even such, - they are taking 30 percent of my income on getty images for example (and did for american sales for other sites, while i was not exclusive on is.).

Someone from USA? Is it really possible that these people are saying that, and saying this, and bla bla bla, but can not answer on a simple question - can you show me THE LAW that authorize you to rob people's money? and how is it possible that people are not making any questions about this?

 i believe lisa got the point quite good in her first post. for example, i noticed on istock that since getty photo-editors are let's say more involved (i am sure) in reviewing process (or changing the rules, i do not know, whatever..) images that are in generally good (answer for some theme/subject), are being accepted in a bit bigger percentage than before, even if there are some technical if i can say "problems". o.k. to be honest, is was the only site even before recent changes, that was much more if i can say "looking on the image" rather than just "counting pixels".
the fact is that these "problems" actually are not problems. from other hand, reviewing process, and whole microstock industry was not started by people from photo/imaging industry, but by graphic/web designers. so i believe these people had to start somewhere, and maybe gave advantage to technical aspects of the image rather than artistic/real usage/... value. (* language, i'll have to take lessons in english.. ).
from the oother hand, if you are experienced photographer, you'll see that lots of images on macro sites are not so simple for produce - you can (i can) see on the first sight "o.k. - this guy (author) knows what's he doing, very well " ..."aham, we have pretty complex lignting setup here..." ..." hm.. looks this guy knows how to work with models " or " .. i would call this excellent composition" etc etc...  - when i take a look on newest images on is, well... let's say that i do not have such thoughts so often

zajebaćeš se.

in september i said that i am going down from silver for some 1-1.5k RC. and after lowering, i am on the same. if i was exclusive for whole year, i should be on the same with no concerns. (somewhere about 24k)

" what a good thing for governments, that people do not think"
-adolf hitler-

it's more than obvious that StockXpert was bought to be shut down.
why should you first buy, and than shut down sucessful company?
answer is in my opinion somewhere in article regarding keywording on isp, an is something about:

the less is more.

^exactly

Quote from: rubyroo on November 30, 2010, 10:06


Well said Dr Bouz!  <applause>

BTW, I love your 'Mad Violinist' shot.  

thanks man. well-that's me

only thing i can tell you is never to give up. if some person had succes in anything -this is likely (and it is) that another (you for instance) person is able to do the same. all the people in the world are much more similar than different. and most of our borders, and limitations are product of our own brains, and are not real.
try to learn, and try to win every situation in life. and try not to lose your nerves if something looks like it's not a "win situation" for you. just take different angle of view.
-you got your images rejected?  "-cool. it's nice, these people spend their time to make a point that i am not still capable to produce good stock images".  etc etc... -so, take a good look on the rejection reasons, these people (inspectors) are most of the time right. i can even say "almost all-all-always right". if images are "can resubmit" and if you believe in this image (and if it is can resubmit-this means that reviewers also saw some commercial potential for the specific image), -take time, and re-edit image, and have it online.
cheers
sasha.

The following keywords used for this file do not appear to be fully relevant to the subject.

{[ Ceremonial Makeup (Face Paint),  Stage Makeup (Face Paint)]}

i just got this image accepted, with these two kwds rejected. the reason i put these images on the first place is that on serbo-coratian language makeup (noun -objects related to theme) and (verb -action-to do something) are the same. -but from this rejection, i can see that disambiguated terms ceremonial and stage makeup are obviously about objects and not acting. and i do have no intention to change (to add) more keywords on this image now when it is accepted. i think that's not o.k.

 nice article. anyhow, it's full of wrong predictions and presumptions. nothing new from non-microstock photographer if i can say.  he is not the first one, and surely won't be the last one with that opinion, that's for sure.

can you please put a thumbnail of some of rejections and keywords that you used?
did you read the article regarding keywording on istock? (i am pretty sure that one of the main reasons that istock is most successful micro stock site is their kwd. policy/search machine)
are there some other reason for rejections (what i noticed while i was not exclusive is that if you have one or two keywords that does not match image - and everything else is o.k. with image - inspectors just removed bad kwds and image would be online.)
**since "strict kwd. announce" i have had rejected up to 5 images with kwd. reason. (so - believe me "less is more" - does make sense on istock).

what is connection in between model poses, and using tripod for shooting. (my question would be - what do model pose has to do with hand shaking? how can model pose reduce handshaking on 70/200@200mm when you shoot some closeup?

i had shooting session yesterday - i used remote trigger for studio strobes, and yes -of course - the camera was on the tripod almost all the time. for some 10 shots i used monopod, and for some 10 shots -while i was lying on the floor i hold my camera in hand (and these are also sharp) - but when you lie down shaking is quite reduced. (similar like differences when you shoot in standing position using handgun vs gun). i used 70-200lens.
so -my advice is - to use tripod/monopod whenever you can.

well, all i can say is that everyone is free to found his own  www.my-stocksite.com microstock site, and to make a rules he thinks are o.k.  e.t.c.
o.k. that is true that for let's say... (2010. -1983.....=...) 27 years, i had no image "rejected" with any of microstock rejection reasons. my customers do have only one criteria: i like (or dislike) image i need. and that's it. no counting pixels, no finding noise, no looking at 200% (or re-examining big print form the film).
these standards are well... we can discuss about this. -but - these are rules. anyone can take it, or leave it.

i had this image rejected with out of focus:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/13131124/2/istockphoto_13131124-aquarium-snails.jpg

and this snapshot is online:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/12787053/2/istockphoto_12787053-helix-pomatia.jpg

do i think mine is better/ nice/... -yes.
will i quit sending images on is? - no.
why? - i like $.
*of course, i am not questioning a tehnical skill, and experience of an author, or equipment used for the second one. -i just picked it up on random search.

the main thing that i am trying to point here is that i do agree that reviewers do make mistakes, and i agree that buyers always look on to the image, and never look onto the pixels/etc... -but these mistakes - made by humans - not machines -are much more rarely done, than the contributors are boo-hoo-hoo-ing. reviewers are people like anyone of us - with heart beating in the chest, and hot blood running through the veins.  yes-they make mistakes- anyone of us do make mistakes - but once again - it's not so often.
  **i never saw -anywhere on forums that someone complained that his image is online, and later-he saw a few mistakes, and image should actually be rejected (and we will agree that there are also this kind of images)
here is one of mine
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1793156/2/istockphoto_1793156-meat.jpg
-underexposed with ugly white blownout spots.
o.k. camera used for this image was really inferior, and i shot this as jpg, but....

yes, i agree also with this. but i might mistakenly concluded that kristian did not want to re-upload/or upload images because he think that "real" inspectors are on let's say vacation, and that "reviewer students" are doing job currently. (which i disagree  100%)

^ but have in mind that images on hard drive earns nothing, and costs - at least that part of memory space on hard drive. from the other side - images that are online are fighting in between others to earn you some money .
what i am tryin' to say is - this is not smart deceision. o.k. i can agree with reviewers being wrong. but, i can't agree that reviewers are too often wrnog. but, let's say that i agree - o.k. - it's a human person. even a high professionals in any business makes a mistakes. Senna died in F1 car, regarding the fact he was the best driver in the world...
-so o.k. -you have a scout to complain - why don't you complain? after all one image here or there does not make any big difference, right? (wow, ... i'm writing like i am a is p.r. stuff, i'll link 'em this topic, and ask for +2% royalities to be razed to me lol).
no honestly -reviewer who made a mistake can not be a reason for anyone to give up. if we give up every time we have a problem, and not trying to resolve the problem - we would be still in baby bed with pampers in between our legs

i really hate when i have not to take side to my colegue - contributor in this case.
try to look things from the angle of buyer. o.k. this your buyer did type "santa barbara" in search, and he liked image, so -he bought one.
but to be honest - imagine on example that you need your previous image:

it's a photo of a movie marquee with the headliner, 'love, love, love' and they rejected these following keywords:

{[ Film Industry, Movie (Entertainment Event), Movie Theater (Entertainment Building), Movie (Entertainment Event), show, Romance]}

and he needs it. what for sure, regarding the fact these terms are connected with image - terms that will never be used for reaching your image is: romance (it's not romance(human relationship) - it's an object right?), nor film industry (again - it's an object), neither movie teather (it's not entertainment buildint, right?it's an object), nor movie (it's not a movie right?).
what buyer is going to type is: "love" (single word), electronic display (or bilboard).  the end.
*please, take this my post with reserve, i'm not 100%sure that i understand correctly from the description fi this is on your photo? -this would be much easier with image to look on.

thing that i am trying to say is that istock really have best search machine in a business. -one of the reasons that i quit other sites - i was really bored when i try to find some of my images and have a tons of spamming images before mine.

*article on istock about keywordint (on the rejection mail/message, there is a link on kwds. article) -is really really useful. i read it twice or even three times, i can't remember any more - but as i said - after a site mail (every contributor got one) with "please take one more look on your keywords" i had maybe three images rejected with keyword reason.

with no intention to offend you, i think that i would reject these kwds too.
can you put here a thumbnail? -> go to rejected image, and right-click on it , and "copy image lotcation" - and paste it here. i'll give my best honestly - because i know how this is frustrating, and can be frustrating - just to save you nerves and time. - i had let's say some... 5 rejections regarding keywords , and 3x they were right once half-right, and once this was not acceptable, so i made a complaint to scout, and kwds were back.

^^ hm... or just one (good one) dog... ...after the cats finish their .... well... after cats explan some things to the parrots

i'm kiddin' of course.

well dear colleagues - i personally wish you all the good luck.
... there are many different roads on your voyage. always take the ones that are from your heart, and listen to your inner voice - you can't miss.
s.