Author Topic: Rejections in StockFresh (Read 13031 times)

madelaide · « **on:** January 09, 2011, 11:53 »

I am slowly uiploading to SF, trying images in a series, then sending the others when the first get approved.

Yesterday's uploads were however a disappointment. Many of the continuations in a series were rejected for "please upload better quality images" or "lack of detail".

Has anyone tried yet to contact support for rejections?

This is one of the "lack of detail" rejections, in this case the first in the series:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1358644-chocolate-chip-cookie-on-white-background.php

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2011, 04:51 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 09, 2011, 11:53

I am slowly uiploading to SF, trying images in a series, then sending the others when the first get approved.

Yesterday's uploads were however a disappointment. Many of the continuations in a series were rejected for "please upload better quality images" or "lack of detail".

Has anyone tried yet to contact support for rejections?

This is one of the "lack of detail" rejections, in this case the first in the series:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1358644-chocolate-chip-cookie-on-white-background.php

I can see the image as being regarded as "lack of detail". If the contrast was upped a fraction or the exposure lowered a fraction, it might work better. But to be honest they are clutching at straws as the image in my opinion, is of more than enough quality. It doesn't make sense for me to upload to sites which don't yet have good earnings, if they have a high reject rate. I like StockFresh and they will probably be a big site one day. I think I have something like 17 images there, but I'm hardly motivated to keep uploading to them as they reject so much of what I send them.

Perry · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:30 »

The lighting is quite frankly, dull. For example this http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11055494-homemade-cookie-on-white-overhead-xxxl.php
has color, texture and contrast.

Xalanx · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2011, 05:37 »

Yes I had experience with rejections on Stockfresh. First one was solved by them accepting the images were rejected by mistake (something with a MR). But then, they are really paranoid about copyright infringements. They even rejected a whole series with a kid, studio shots, because they spotted a small barely seen embroidery on boy's t-shirt, somewhere (not readable or some logo). Needless to say that I never noticed it - all the other stock sites have this series. They must have missed it too.

Ad that to the fact that I'm at $18.50 with them since a VERY long time now and it's kinda clear - no more uploading.

In your case I'm afraid, I have to say the rejection was completely fair. I would have rejected that too.

qwerty · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2011, 06:33 »

my experience with rejections at stockfresh is reseasonable. Approval rate is about the same as approval rate at Dreamstime. The odd one goes through that others haven't accepted and the odd one is rejected.

madelaide · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2011, 09:00 »

Thanks for yor replies. They don't complain about lighting in any of the rejected images in this latest batch (they did in others, but I don't complain about that, even if they are sellable images). The lighting in my cookie may not be the best, but it's ok, and I don't see the "lack of detail". $:-\$

hofhoek · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2011, 10:46 »

I experience weird rejections for images which are in my top ten earners at for instance Istock and shutterstock. It has to do mainly with isolations which are presumably not good in their opinion. Well their loss. I will not upload those there again and I wonder if uploading there makes any sense at all. Anyone selling there lately? I have had two sales there for 50cts each in total...

Allsa · « **Reply #7 on:** January 10, 2011, 12:53 »

I was recently accepted and have just started uploading, so I can't say anything about sales or rejections. But then I was under the impression that the site hasn't been opened to the public yet. Is that true? Because if it's true, how can we make a judgment on earnings potential when the public hasn't seen it yet? Or am I missing something here?

disorderly · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2011, 13:39 »

My assumption is that it is open, but that no marketing has been done yet. I've had a few sales, so clearly somebody is able to make purchases.

Xalanx · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2011, 13:41 »

Yes it's open and I started to have almost regular sales some time ago (maybe not every day, but several per week). Then everything stopped completely, apart from over-zealous editors. I have 3771 files with them, thanks to the very good uploading system.

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2011, 15:30 »

Either I am unlucky, or they are getting very picky now. One of my best-sellers, the top at IS, was rejected for "dust". I suppose they mean a few stray pixels in the white area, next to the non-white ares, normal when you save at JPEG. Geez....

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5040660

rubyroo · « **Reply #11 on:** January 10, 2011, 17:12 »

I have to say.... sorry Madelaide... I can see a lot of dust on the stethoscope at 100%.

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** January 10, 2011, 18:02 »

What you may be seeing are scratches from use - this was not a new stethoscope. But is that really relevant to the image? Do we need images produced in a sterilized lab now?

rubyroo · « **Reply #13 on:** January 10, 2011, 18:13 »

Ah they're scratches. Some of them look like little hairs. Each to his own, and obviously iStock accepted it, so it must have been OK with them, but I would have cloned out every imperfection (just because I really hate getting rejections - so I tend to be ultra-cautious to the point of neurosis).

luissantos84 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 10, 2011, 19:01 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 10, 2011, 18:02

What you may be seeing are scratches from use - this was not a new stethoscope. But is that really relevant to the image? Do we need images produced in a sterilized lab now?

LOL I agree with you but I tend to clean everything before shooting, if I were you I would open it and clean it or maybe not lol

if you were approved they wanted to keep you no?.. still waiting from June, hope it gets to June!

kaycee · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2011, 20:11 »

I don't think I wil upload to them again...
After a waiting period for 5 month (or longer) approvement of the initial images I was sending an e-mail to support and guess what after just a few hours after sending the complaining e-mail for the long waiting period all my images were rejected for several reasons.
I have enough selling stocksites I don't need another one who is pickier than all the rest.

I really liked Stockxpert with a very high approvement rate and sales.

tdoes · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2011, 08:55 »

Stockfresh is pickier than the other sites I submit to. They are pickier than Istock (When I was submitting images there!) I'm not against pickyness but I believe some of the rejections being handed out is overkill considering this is Microstock and that a majority of the images will most likely be used in electronic media. Print media is even more forgiving in regards to a images quality usage than alot of the rejection reasons currently given. I just started submitting my catalog to them but I have a feeling that a majority of my images won't pass their bar! $:-\$

peter_stockfresh · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2011, 12:32 »

@kaycee
I'm sorry about the rejection of your application. I'm sure sometimes people think we are evil or crazy but the truth is that it's often difficult to decide based on five high res sample images whether the applicant will be a good addition to the site. We have limited resources (hence the long queue) so this selection process is crucial, and we can only work with the info we get.

@tdoes
We're trying to find the middle ground and I believe some of your photos are indeed acceptable for the same reasons you explained. I don't think we are pickier than Istock. We might be pickier than Istock 3-4 years ago but I'm sure they are also pickier than they used to be since the industry is evolving so quickly. It is true though that we pay more attention to details than some of our competitors and that can be annoying, but we must also build customer trust.

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2011, 15:12 »

Well, Peter, I have a list of images that I will submit to the support for a second opinion. Some rejections I totally understand, some can indeed be improved (like the ones with a undiscernible windows logo), but some, quite frankly, I don't agree.

mantonino · « **Reply #19 on:** February 01, 2011, 10:18 »

I just assume that even though it's SF and not StockXpert, they review almost identically. That means hard property rejections, very few isolated on white and all the same rejects we used to get from StockXpert. As long as I can get caught up there ever, I'll know what not to sub at least. Anything StockXpert would have chucked out, SF will too.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rejections in StockFresh (Read 13031 times)

madelaide

Microstock Posts

Perry

Xalanx

qwerty

madelaide

hofhoek

Allsa

disorderly

Xalanx

madelaide

rubyroo

madelaide

rubyroo

luissantos84

kaycee

tdoes

peter_stockfresh

madelaide

mantonino

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors