I posted this on their forum:

I would like to call for an end to the Limited Commercial Value rejection. As a contributor and buyer for many years, that specializes in isolated objects, I know what sells. I know that everyday objects, isolated, and photographed well, are much sought after. I've done very well here and on all of the top eight microstock sites selling such objects.

Within the last few months, I've been getting this rejection for the first time, even when the same photo is accepted and sells on the other top seven agencies. Obviously Shutterstock has undergone a shakeup in the reviewing process. The rejection email gives a link to Shutterbuzz, that tries to explain "the most commonly questioned reason of all for submitters" It goes on to explain that the reviewers are well trained and that they are artists and photographers themselves. Therein lies the flaw for this kind of rejection. They are not in marketing. They may well know technical merits, but not have clue as to what buyers are looking for. It's a different side of the brain. Artistry versus Marketing.

Therefore, I respectfully call for the end of this kind of rejection, and stick to judging a photo on it's artistry and technical merit, and not speculating on what the graphic community is hunting for. As a buyer, I can testify that you just never know what the next project is going to require.

http://www.digitalpixels.net/2008/10/photo-retouching/lens-flare-control-photoshop-tutorial/

I got the email too. Highly suspicious. Plus, they want me to fax the info. I haven't faxed anything in 7 years. Everything is though email these days. They already have my info. I don't trust this. I contacted support but no answer yet,

Here's an update on PNG files for iStock. This will double my portfolio and bring in higher revenue per image.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329282&page=1

You still haven't explained how someone could make a complaint before your image was approved. How do you complain about an image that nobody has even seen yet? Doesn't make sense.

I agree. The success of PNG downloads will depend on the quality of the isolations. So far, iStock has the highest requirements for JPEG isolations. I would assume they will set the bar pretty high.

Some of us, that work in Photoshop all day, can create expert isolations in well under an hour. Once you upload it, the revenues can last for years. Multiply that times the number of different sites you contribute to, and it can generate more than just a "few dollars".

It always comes down to the question of "How can I maximize the marketability of my portfolio?"

@ cclapper

Dreamstime does offer some Raw fomats, which would be lossless. but nothing that supports an alpha channel. (transparency)

@cthoman

Of course PNG is RGB. All photos on microstock sites are RBG. PNG files are as ideal to print from as any other file downloaded from microstock. Just convert to CMYK. All printing houses are capable of this transition.

PNG files include gamma values, background color, and textual metadata information. PNG also supports color management through the inclusion of ICC color space profiles.


An awful lot of consumers don't know they want something until it is offered. Look at the iPad. I can't think of a microstock site that has ever offered lossless files. Of course the big selling point will be files with transparency.

iStock has announced the acceptance of uploads in the PNG format in the near future. I anticipate that this will be a game changer for the microstock industry. Since the PNG format has the ability to contain an alpha channel, this will provide a whole new way to load isolations. The upload requirements are yet to be determined, but for designers looking to easily drop an isolated object into their project, this will be the way to go. If iStock is the only site to offer this format, I can see a large advantage over all of the other sites.

Another advantage for PNG, over JPEG, is that it is lossless. So even if your file doesn't contain an isolation, the quality will be so much better than sites that offer the same file only in the JPEG format.

I predict that this will be the way of the future. What do you think?

Just to be clear, iStock does not strip the clips. I give them credit for that.

It really stinks that a site would go to the extra trouble of removing the clipping path for lower resolutions. I wonder what their reason is. Bait and switch? There doesn't seem to be any warning, for the customer, that clipping paths are only included with the highest resolutions on some sites. I can imagine the phone calls to customer service with disappointed buyers, and having to explain this absurd policy. Seems like bad business to me.