Thanks guys - of your rejections - have you seen a pattern of refusals for certain images?

Am I wrong in assuming that they are harder to get into than other sites?

I'm currently approved on - SS, DT, FT, CAN, 123RF, GL, BS - but these are not that hard to get into, or so I hear.

My best so far was 7 in the first week I was up with 19 images.  Since then 4 has been my best with about 38 images - which is not great, but my port is slowly growing...

Oh, and SS is the ONLY site, out of 8 that I'm with, that I have ANY sales - so that's not great either!

Hi RT - yeah, it's faded on purpose to add to the dimension - where the 'light' is coming from.  The stroke is colored with a linear gradient to fade up on the left.

They've now put it back up, so I guess my email convinced them.  But they have still rejected what I thought was a very nice file for poor execution.

Anyways, I'm over it. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to gripe though - always nice to have a place for that, when you need it.

i wrote them an email about it - they don't want these things discussed on the forums - so we'll see... 

I know it's just a rejection - get over it - but they've rejected majority of stuff I've submitted and as you all know these files take precious time to make.  Also, if DT is one of those sites that doesn't earn you money until you have a large port - how am I ever going to make it with all of these rejections?

for all the "high standards" and all, my port get among the lowest views there...

Is it worth it to "bother" the reviewers to tell them that an image they just rejected is actually more accurate then the version they approved only 1 month ago?  They rejected it for "poor execution" which bothers me too - the other one was almost exactly the same - all of a sudden it's badly done?

This is the new one (changed to make the character look more like a bird, fixed her eye-shadow - it was not aligned properly - and got rid of pink background to make editing easier for designers - it was getting views, but no downloads anywhere) - btw it was approved on SS - old one deleted, and it sold within a day already:



This is the old one:



It's a jpg, so none of the eps reasons for poor execution go with it.  Another file that I submitted at the same time was also rejected for the same reason - of course it was approved everywhere else.  I wonder if they just hit whatever button they seem to be nearest during review-time.

(The only thing that I can possibly see is that in the new one I didn't stroke the "nails" on her feet - as in the other image - could that be it?!)

DT seems to have the highest rejection rate for me so far.  I know that I'm not some genius at this - I only started to do digital stuff 2 months ago, but I can't be that bad when everyone else is approving my stuff.

Is it just me?  It's been over a week for a couple of images - no other site I'm with takes that long...

If that's the norm then fine - just wondering what your experience is.

Thanks CD

So, I wanted to make some keyword changes and I see that on their history page it says "when you edit your keywords the image goes back to 'pending' " which to me implies that you CAN edit them, but when you go to their FAQ page it says you can't edit keywords once they are downloaded.

Has anyone been able to email them and have them change some keywords on accepted images?

Thanks all.

cd123 - I haven't read that info anywhere - is there a thread or two on these forums where I can read about that further - the server/search "thing"?

The reason that it was bothering me, is that I'm with several sites and this one takes the longest to post approved images in my port - so I thought there was a problem.

Could what you said also be the reason why I have zero views on a couple of sites where images have been up for only a couple of weeks?

Hi, where do you go to see your image views at 123rf?  Is that even a feature they have?

Also, my approved images are taking like days - to a week - to show up in my port, what is up?  (this happened with my first upload - I had to email them to see what the problem was then too.)

Thanks - that pretty much explains it.  The alias and username seem redundant though, and what's the point of using an alias when the copyright holder's name is on the photo anyways?

Oh, and artist - yes,.........showgirl - no.  LOL 

"lola" is just a name I like. 

Thinking to self........."I wonder if showgirls would want to waste their time doing stock, for pennies a day - hey, wait! - 'pennies a day' - doesn't some charity have that slogan?" 

Thank you for your quick and totally accurate reply - I just checked

I've never seen that before on other sites even when I'm logged in.

Consider this thread closed.