Author Topic: Approval of new photographer´s applications (Read 10568 times)

franky242 · « **on:** March 20, 2010, 07:16 »

After numerous disapprovals of my initial 10 images application with photos that are accepted elsewhere (IS, FT, DT,...) I am wondering if anyone managed lately to get approved as a contributor lately with SS? Any motivating feedback is highly appreciated, other is also welcome since it might save me some time!

Thanks...

FD · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2010, 07:23 »

Quote from: franky242 on March 20, 2010, 07:16

After numerous disapprovals of my initial 10 images application with photos that are accepted elsewhere (IS, FT, DT,...) I am wondering if anyone managed lately to get approved as a contributor lately with SS? Any motivating feedback is highly appreciated, other is also welcome since it might save me some time! Thanks...

To say anything sensible, you should present your rejects full size (watermarked).

Magnum · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2010, 10:34 »

Quality should be ok if Istock approved them. Could be "no commercial" or something like that. What was it?

franky242 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:28 »

Quote from: Magnum on March 20, 2010, 10:34

Quality should be ok if Istock approved them. Could be "no commercial" or something like that. What was it?

One out of the 10 was okay, the others were not approved with more or less strange reasons but none of them was "no commercial", for example:

Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition. For those images:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12001874
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12076785
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12289347 - I would have loved to shoot the whole Alps, unfortunately however I forgot to bring my helicopter :-)
http://www.fotolia.com/id/21041282

Or Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect. for that one:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12174129 - that one was approved with ALL major stock sites...

Whilst those photos are definitely not the world best stock photos, they successfully passed eagle eyed inspectors nevertheless hence the rejection of my application came as a kind of surprise to me. That's why I am interested if anybody successfully passed their application process in the last weeks or if the are a bit "strict" at the moment as rumour says for iStock as well?

Thanks, Best, Frank

donding · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2010, 12:31 »

A few years back I had submitted my 10 three times before I was approved. One time they would ok a image then the next time around they would reject the same image. I ended up e-mailing support and telling them these same images were on iStock and were good sellers...after that they accepted them. Don't really know if my e-mail had anything to do with it or not.

cascoly · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2010, 13:23 »

Quote from: franky242 on March 20, 2010, 12:28

Quote from: Magnum on March 20, 2010, 10:34
Quality should be ok if Istock approved them. Could be "no commercial" or something like that. What was it?

One out of the 10 was okay, the others were not approved with more or less strange reasons but none of them was "no commercial", for example:

Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition. For those images:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12001874
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12076785
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12289347 - I would have loved to shoot the whole Alps, unfortunately however I forgot to bring my helicopter :-)
http://www.fotolia.com/id/21041282

Or Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect. for that one:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12174129 - that one was approved with ALL major stock sites...

Whilst those photos are definitely not the world best stock photos, they successfully passed eagle eyed inspectors nevertheless hence the rejection of my application came as a kind of surprise to me. That's why I am interested if anybody successfully passed their application process in the last weeks or if the are a bit "strict" at the moment as rumour says for iStock as well?

Thanks, Best, Frank

those are the 2 current favorite rejection buttons at ss

keep trying - you'll make it eventually [took me 3 times]

s

Artemis · « **Reply #6 on:** March 20, 2010, 15:58 »

I got accepted the 3rd time as well and truly had the feeling they made me jump through hoops to make it there.
Don't give up, as soon as you're in they're a whole lot more lenient imho.

franky242 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 20, 2010, 18:10 »

Thanks for all your motivating feedback, seems as if I just need to try harder and apply again with improved photography. Will keep you posted.

donding · « **Reply #8 on:** March 20, 2010, 20:34 »

good luck...if you at first you don't succeed...then try try again..

stockastic · « **Reply #9 on:** March 21, 2010, 11:57 »

They're all trying to raise their standards, but that's not as simple (or cheap) as it sounds, and they're trying to do it in a rush. So the numbers of goofy, inconsistent rejections are shooting up. Somehow we need to get to a point where rejections are consistent and the reasons are made clear to the contributor. Style and content are up to the individual agency, but standards for things like noise, "artifacts", white balance, focus and isolation could and should, I think, be roughly same everywhere. That's a long ways off I think.

franky242 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2010, 12:56 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 21, 2010, 11:57

They're all trying to raise their standards, but that's not as simple (or cheap) as it sounds, and they're trying to do it in a rush. So the numbers of goofy, inconsistent rejections are shooting up. Somehow we need to get to a point where rejections are consistent and the reasons are made clear to the contributor. Style and content are up to the individual agency, but standards for things like noise, "artifacts", white balance, focus and isolation could and should, I think, be roughly same everywhere. That's a long ways off I think.

Very good summary, Stockastic! I guess this covers the recent situation of approvals/rejections quite well and hopefulle, the standards will be there one day - better sooner than later!

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2010, 13:09 »

I agree with you that the photos you submitted are not the best stock examples, but I have seen WAY worse get accepted. Maybe try for really good stock images for your initial submissions and save those to submit after you have been approved.

Lighting on the ski lift photo...yeah, could be brighter.

They say no commercial value, and yet I envisioned a use for each and every one of your images right off the bat.

I agree with stockastic, too. There is nothing wrong with sites trying to improve their standards, but new submitters are now going to have to be on their game to get approved.

jcpjr · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2010, 13:29 »

I joined SS in Dec. 2005. My first batch was rejected and I had to wait 90 days to retry. (That's the way it was back then) Got in on the second go-around. Since then I've seen the acceptance standard slowly rise.

It seems that every time I mention that I shoot MS and get paid, friends/family want to jump on with their P&S and phone camera images. I'm sure the sites get a huge amount of this kind of stuff and this has a lot to do with weeding out the less serious photographers.

If you're serious, and I'm sure you are, keep trying. It's not all about the money. I get a really good feeling every time my stuff gets accepted even now after 5 years...very gratifying....jp

franky242 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2010, 16:18 »

Thanks again everyone for their feedback. In the meantime I got accepted (only 2 weeks ago) and already had a considerable amount of sales - hence it was worth trying!

lefty · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2010, 16:27 »

Congratylation to you. The application is the easy part for Shutterstock.
The challenge is to keep making pictures with selling potential because for Shutterstock you must be always on your toes.
But, like jcpjr say, you must now show you are serious. Then all will be ok.

cathyslife · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2010, 17:29 »

Quote from: franky242 on July 30, 2010, 16:18

Thanks again everyone for their feedback. In the meantime I got accepted (only 2 weeks ago) and already had a considerable amount of sales - hence it was worth trying!

That is good news and especially the sales part! Congrats.

robggs · « **Reply #16 on:** August 09, 2010, 07:03 »

I have been trying for several months now. If the response to half of my 10 images that are submitted is simply "Not Approved:" with no further detail, but the other half do have reasons such as "Compositon" or "Commercial Value" are the former accepted at first but rejected because I've had less than 7 in the batch approved?

fljac · « **Reply #17 on:** August 09, 2010, 10:51 »

Quote from: robggs on August 09, 2010, 07:03

I have been trying for several months now. If the response to half of my 10 images that are submitted is simply "Not Approved:" with no further detail, but the other half do have reasons such as "Compositon" or "Commercial Value" are the former accepted at first but rejected because I've had less than 7 in the batch approved?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, this is what counts:

You need 7 out of ten approved.

Read the comments... Those of the images WITH comments - are actually "rejected" - IF there's more than 3 images rejected for a solid reason, the rest with no comments, might be sort of approved, but since the number of Real REJECTIONS IS MORE THAN 3, the whole batch is rejected.

Hope you understand the writing as English is not my first language... But anyway, this is how I understand it :-)

Blufish · « **Reply #18 on:** August 09, 2010, 11:48 »

That's the way mine have been. They write comments of rejection on 7 then nothing for 3. My first batch had rejection on all 10. Gearing up to try again! Good luck.

robggs · « **Reply #19 on:** August 09, 2010, 11:53 »

fljac your english is fine, understood and thanks for your help. Good luck Blufish and others!

robggs · « **Reply #20 on:** August 12, 2010, 09:51 »

Yesterday I had 8 rejected out of 10 from my 6th submitted batch. 8 out of 10 of the images had been accepted in previous batches so I emailed support out of fraustration and got a helpfull response. They reset my account to 'review' status and asked me to submit 10 files that had been accepted before. Today I was finally accepted! Its worth asking if you find yourself in the same situation.

donding · « **Reply #21 on:** August 12, 2010, 09:59 »

Quote from: robggs on August 12, 2010, 09:51

Yesterday I had 8 rejected out of 10 from my 6th submitted batch. 8 out of 10 of the images had been accepted in previous batches so I emailed support out of fraustration and got a helpfull response. They reset my account to 'review' status and asked me to submit 10 files that had been accepted before. Today I was finally accepted! Its worth asking if you find yourself in the same situation.

That only goes to show you the difference in inspectors...kinda sad...all the more reason to resubmit rejects that you know are good at a later date.

rubyroo · « **Reply #22 on:** August 12, 2010, 10:07 »

Congrats robggs!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Approval of new photographer´s applications (Read 10568 times)

franky242

FD

Magnum

franky242

donding

cascoly

Artemis

franky242

donding

stockastic

franky242

cathyslife

jcpjr

franky242

lefty

cathyslife

robggs

fljac

Blufish

robggs

robggs

donding

rubyroo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors