I applied to join Stockfresh around last June.  I was finally accepted around last October.

Due to work committments, I  have not had the time to upload around 1700 of my images.  However, in the last few days, I uploaded them all, and then started moving over 25 per day, which is the maximum permitted in each 24-hour period.

Within a few hours of moving them across, they were inspected.  To my great disappointment, out of the first batch of images, 28 were rejected, and 21 were accepted...one didn't upload properly, so I deleted it.  So far, that's less than a 50% acceptance rate.....way below every other of the 13 sites that I upload to.  I expected some rejections...each site has different requirements and standards, but not this many!

One of the images rejected is my best seller on iStock.  See here: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5642037-air-conditioning-ducts.php  The image has sold 297 times on the site, and earned me around $300.00US.  It's also a good seller on some other sites.  If that wasn't enough, another of the rejections has sold 42 times on iStock.

Are other people having the same experience?

I don't intend to waste my time moving any more across, if this is how it's going to be, and I wrote and told Peter that.

admin edit: changed the subject to be more descriptive.

Every site has their own quirks.  I've had a bunch of images rejected for "bad background" when in fact they are pure white isolations.  I believe that some of their inspectors are inexperienced.  Other rejected for "needs property release" when the image was shot CLEARLY from a distance in public domain.  So it's taking a bit to adjust to their way of doing business.  Now, here's how I have dealt with them on high rejections. If you disagree with a rejection, fill out their "contact us" form and itemize each rejected image and why you think the rejection is unfair.  The owner (I forget his name) is very fair about this.  He sends them to another inspector who reads your notes and makes a final decision.  I have had heavy moving images rejected on Stockfresh and point that out to them.  Most (but not all) have been overturned.  It's more of a pain in the ass to do it this way but if you believe that Stockfresh will eventually evolve into a decent ROI microsite then it's best to spend the time to maximize your port.  They are new and will surly improve as them grow (we hope they'll grow anyway). 

Also, I get 50 images per day, not 25.  Maybe they've changed the rules.  Out of about 1900 images I have more than 200 to go....so it's been months since I've started uploading.  I upload based on open time only.

So as a whole the owner gets it if you're willing to work their system they way it currently stands.

I have some good feelings about Stockfresh!  I've had my share of questionable rejections but they've re-reviewed my submittions and have proven to me that they are thorough with reviews.  The reviewers explained the issues my rejects had and this made me realize that I have a calibration issue with my monitor and I didn't see the flaws in those rejects.

Once Stockfresh starts their marketing campaign I believe it will be a winning situation for all involved!

Oh, well, it's all now too late!

I sent the site an e-mail after the first 25 were inspected, and protested about the number of rejections, and then yesterday, when the same pattern occurred with the second batch, which included my best seller on iStock, I asked them to close my account.  I could not be bothered with so many rejections on a new site, when I'm so well and truly established on 13 sites, and have been on most of them for nearly four years.   

I've just tried to log in to my account.......it's been closed!

Strange, really, as I didn't receive a reply to my first e-mail,in which I protested about the number of rejections, but my second e-mail, which I sent some 30 hours after the original one, was read, and acted upon within a couple of hours.  It's a pity that someone from the site didn't reply to either of my e-mails, before acting so swiftly on my request to close my account. 

I can't remember the exact words that I used to them in the site-mail, but I expressed my dismay at some of the rejections, particularly, the two images that are amongst my best sellers in iStock.  Because of this, I could not see the point in having my images on the site, if some of my best sellers were rejected.  That is what I used as the justification to ask for my account to be closed.

As I said, after the first inspection, I sent them an e-mail to express my frustration that my Eiffel Tower image had been rejected.  It is my best seller on Shutterstock....it's sold 131 times!  I received no reply to my e-mail, but when I sent the second e-mail, some 30 hours later, asking for my account to be closed, for the aforementioned reasons, it was closed within two hours of me sending the e-mail.

I can't understand that I wasn't sent an e-mail to address my frustration, before my account was closed.

I certainly wouldn't treat any of my suppliers this way in business.

huh you asked for your account to be closed and they did it as requested so now your upset ?

well what do you want them to say?  I agree to the extent that perhaps they should have at least sent something to acknowledge that they had responded to your request to close your account.  But you asked for them to close it so they did.  If you were looking to have a dialog to discuss why your images were rejected, then asking to have your account closed seems to me to end that dialog. 

Perhaps you could have instead waited to get a response if you were interested in finding out why the rejection rate was so high.  It is a new site and yes, I've had a few questionable rejections myself, but I just move on as the rejected images are still for sale elsewhere.  I am assuming they are putting most of their efforts into the building and marketing of the site.

Still amazes me that everyone wants StockFresh to be different, to stand out in microstock and maybe become a major contender, and yet they expect the company to also operate in exactly the same way as other companies.

I'm one of the folks on the SF bandwagon, hoping that they become a major player in microstock because I think they offer the buyers a refreshing, simple, no B.S. way to buy images, while the competition is going the other way with overly complicated and bug-ridden search engines, increasing prices, and wildly varied price points.

That said, I don't expect SF to ever make a dent in this business if they were to do things exactly like every other company. If that means that they are a little more demanding with image reviews, more likely to reject stuff, take a bit longer to review applications, reject more applications, etc., then I'm fine with that.

If SF just did everything the same way the other companies do, there would be folks in here whining about how SF looks just like every other microstock company.

I say SF should just keep doing what they're doing. Have at it, Peter. I think you should reject more images, mine included. I don't expect you to accept some of the older stuff that I've managed to slide past reviewers elsewhere. I'd rather see SF have 1 million really strong images than 7 million of the exact same stuff other companies already have. Especially when it comes to older stuff. Anything from 2009 and earlier should be rejected.

I applied to join them last August and my application is still under review.

I applied last June, still waiting! I can take a hint.

Still amazes me that everyone wants StockFresh to be different, to stand out in microstock and maybe become a major contender, and yet they expect the company to also operate in exactly the same way as other companies.

I'm one of the folks on the SF bandwagon, hoping that they become a major player in microstock because I think they offer the buyers a refreshing, simple, no B.S. way to buy images, while the competition is going the other way with overly complicated and bug-ridden search engines, increasing prices, and wildly varied price points.

That said, I don't expect SF to ever make a dent in this business if they were to do things exactly like every other company. If that means that they are a little more demanding with image reviews, more likely to reject stuff, take a bit longer to review applications, reject more applications, etc., then I'm fine with that.

If SF just did everything the same way the other companies do, there would be folks in here whining about how SF looks just like every other microstock company.

I say SF should just keep doing what they're doing. Have at it, Peter. I think you should reject more images, mine included. I don't expect you to accept some of the older stuff that I've managed to slide past reviewers elsewhere. I'd rather see SF have 1 million really strong images than 7 million of the exact same stuff other companies already have. Especially when it comes to older stuff. Anything from 2009 and earlier should be rejected.

This is where I stand.  I think they have a chance to become a moderate player to maybe even become the BIG 5 (as opposed to the big four).  Time. Learn their system.  Work with them on your images rejections, but first remember to zoom in at 100 percent.  I had some old images rejected for out of focus and when I opened up the image they were slightly soft.  In the old days that was acceptable.  Today it's not.  So image you have that sell will today may be older images that aren't perfect, so they will get rejected by today's standards.  I didn't bother re-uploading those rejected images.