forum > General discussion
iStock continued rejections getting ridiculous
Syates:
Short reply from somebody suffering a similar fate, Domen. Half my portfolio consists of fractals and abstracts which account for more then half of my microstock earnings. Guess how many I have approved on IStock, just one lonely abstract. And I guess that got only approved because it is quite photo-realistic. I heard a rumour that your chances are getting better if your not only approved as a photographer, but also as a illustrator. But I will not start to dive into vectors only to achieve that, sorry my jpg illustrations do very well on other sites, thank you very much. So the recipe is: Only upload the boring stuff to IStock! SY
domencolja:
That makes us two then, Sybille. Sounds bad to say, but I'm happy about it;) At least I know who's to blame;)
As an illustrator? You've seen some of my "hybrid" works on LO probably. I was doing simple "plot printing"-friendly illustrations for apparel some months a couple of years ago and I never went deeper (cause the printing limitations demanded I stayed very slick, uncomplex, with a very strict final output scheme I had to comply with), but some "knowledge" of that time remained. I even uploaded some of these simple vector graphics to Shutterstock and they're doing, well, "solidly". Let's say I earned maybe 5 to 10 bucks off of them. So going back to my point: some of my "designer" works have an "illustrated" feel to them, I picked a bunch, "derasterized" them and submitted them to SS (as I said) and "in parallel" to iStock as well. But: all rejected on iStock with the "we don't need this alalala" response. I will try again and again until I get in there (at least to throw the hat off and say to myself "I did it, damn them"). The best selling illustrations often are very simple designs with killer "appeal". And I'm convinced I could reproduce that style if I push harder (after all buyers tend to be pretty uniform about what they want - the "MTV" feel of all the illustrations is a winner).
As far as iStock is concerned (if I go a few steps back), they've left a black spot on my opinion about their inspections and acceptable-or-not preconceptions, but I respect that if it's a prejudice about some "artistic" category they deem to be of low marketable value. If it is not and it is the inspectors that are playing tricks (I highly doubt it because of their market-leader reputation), than the whole story gets a lot more dimmer. I've only started in the "business" and time will tell if it was a good decision to ignore them altogether and just "throw in" my works.
p.s.: If I happen to do that anyways. Their uploading system sure is a pain in the ass. Especially with such acceptance rate;) But to say the truth I'm growing colder and cynical about it: when I get those oh-so-warm "notice" mails I just smile and push the delete button. Smells like retribution;)
---
This is a rant: only half of it is politically correct;)
domencolja:
Ahh... just had a superfast batch reviewed with a 80% approval rate. The rejections were all very nicely argumented and I can agree with them (minor banding issues, a borderline copyright...). I stumbled on a reviewer that actually stopped by my images and critically looked for flaws. I enormously respect that.
p.s.: A counterbalance post this is. I have to speak honestly when there's reasons to do so.
GeorgeD:
By now I have only 42 images in my iStock gallery, and my approval rate is ~62%. And quite a few of rejected images need only slight adjustment to be resubmitted.
iStock reviewers seem to be even more loyal than those on Shutterstock. Well this is how I feel.
They are not so crazy about noise and "not in focus" rejections, to my mind. It does not mean that they take noisy and blurred pics, but they don't have paranoia about it. IMHO.
I got only a couple of rejections which I do not understand.
Well, maybe I just shoot boring stuff...
I hope I will not summon the fury of iStock gods by this post :-X
Syates:
A few days ago I got a batch of stained glass windows reviewed 50% of them got approved the other 50% got rejected for possible copyright infringement, despite me having stated in the description that the artist is since more then 70 years dead etc etc etc. The joke, or not so much a joke, is that it was the SAME window (just different detail shoots that got approved/ rejected. Consistence? I don't know! SY
Навигация
Перейти к полной версии