Hi all,

Got a rejection from Shutterstock reviewer of two photos with classical yellow cabs in NYC where I have desaturated everything else but the cabs (classics as well, I know). I submitted these photos as editorial as they contained some people and stores/brands in the street. While the same but unedited (full-color) photos have been accepted, these two were rejected with the following reasoning: "Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable."

My question is: can desaturating part of a photo be described as "traditional photographic techniques (.... color adjustments)" which are, apparently, allowed? If yes, why were the photos rejected then? And should I be able to succeed in getting these photos accepted, with another reviewer then?

Thanks for your advice.

If you're interested in the free script for Chrome browser (only), it can be downloaded from here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/istock-myuploads-fixes/ckloododgagaeepfamopjnjgbhbanlcg

Thanks a lot for a tip, this plugin is in fact very cool and useful. Back to subject, it appears to me that what iStock cares about in terms of stats is the DLs from IS directly, for instance, to be eligible for exclusivity (>250 DLs). Therefore, all other sales, including through partner programs, are not taken into account?

Just got 4 images rejected for focus issues on SS.  Bogus review even by a software review--- software can show where the focus point-- right where it should be on all 4 and no, there was no movement and shutter speed was fast enough to catch it if there was.

Images accepted on all other stock sites. 

Accepted photos of same subject matter on their website are of very poor technical quality.....and boring content-wise.

Obviously my sales elsewhere are better.    It is getting to the point where I do not even want to bother with SS.    I hear their sales are great from you guys but hard to believe.

+1.

My first 150+ images since joining SS were accepted at around 80% acceptance rate (by feeling, as there's no formal acceptance counter on SS). Since then, after one or two bad submissions (I would rather agree that photos could be of lower quality than my average) my acceptance rate now is close to zero. To give you a feeling, after those 150+ accepted images, I have submitted in total around 100-150 more images. Accepted: 5 or 6. Usual reasons: soft/blurred image, poor lighting conditions and noise. It goes without saying that by using the same camera, my skills and experience (gained, inter alia, with SS over some time) could not produce such a poor quality of photos that they would objectively be rejected. The same goes to the content as it's mainly the relatively in demand quality landscapes (despite been over-saturated on market) and high-value industrial photos (world's largest sea ports, like Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp).

Despite the fact that SS so far provided me with most of the profits, I will try with one or two more photo sets to be uploaded (and then resubmitted, to see if the different reviewer makes a different decision), and if it goes the same way, I will stop with SS, and focus on other stocks, notwithstanding their poor sales. I might need to spend more time with them to improve those sales (and I still believe there is potential for me with places like iStock, FT, DT, 123RF).

The OP said nothing about wanting to get rich or to make money quickly. S/he simply wanted to know about whether a pattern of sales was normal or abnormal. To me, it's not normal, perhaps indicating a keywording or other problem. Rather than mentioning anything about getting rich or doing so quickly, s/he merely expressed curiosity about trying it out to see what the experience would be like.

That's precisely what I'm looking forward to clarify, thanks for being caring

Indeed, I'm not thinking of getting rich with this business, and I'm not even considering microstocks as a part-time job. I'm shooting anyways as it's my hobby. The only reason I decided to put some of my photos online is to reach two objectives:

1) put online those pictures which otherwise will stay lost and hidden somewhere on my HDD (i'm not printing a lot of photos, and not making photo books out of them), and

2) to earn something which I could invest in a new equipment, be it a new filter or, if I'm more successful, a new lens.

The second reason is more out of psychological principle, since my current full-time job allows me basically to buy a new lens each and every month, without significant impact on my family budget.

Now, turning to the possible reasons of low sales, I must say that I have been following the basic keywording rules. i.e. prioritizing where necessary (i.e. Fotolia), adding only the relevant ones (i.e. no spamming) and as many as allowed (normally within 50 keywords). Unless other microstocks also rely on prioritization of keywords (which I'm not aware of, at least based on their published rules), I don't expect to see a problem here. I might though review randomly some of the keywords to see if anything is still missing (following a note by Jo Ann Snover in this thread).

So, I guess the only and real problem is non-uniqueness of my mostly landscape photos, and oversaturation of the subject, correct?

Best,
Sergiy (male

Hi all,

Approximately two months ago I decided to give a try to microstocks, mainly out of curiosity, but also to see if my (mainly) landscape and architecture photos are worth anything. However, in about two months since I registered on top-6 microstocks, I have few to no sales on most of them:

Dreamstime: 0 sales
Fotolia: 3 sales
Depositphoto: 1 sale
iStockphoto: 5 sales
Shutterstock: 107 sales (yes, this is quite a contrast to above-mentioned sites)

All of the above portfolios contain +/- 250-300 assets at the moment.

My question is whether this is a normal state of things, taking into account the time lapsed and the number of photos online? Or does this look suspicious to you and there's something to be double-checked for ways to improve.

You can check the type and quality of photos I put online here: https://us.fotolia.com/p/205627109

Many thanks for your feedback!