iStock continued rejections getting ridiculous

[domencolja]

Hi to everybody (first of all)...

I thought of opening up a thread regarding the submission criteria on iStock. It could be me (I don't disqualify that option at all), but am I the only one that has a catastrophic acceptance ratio on that site?

I usually float around the 90% acceptance ratio on every other microstock site (SS, DT, LO, F, BSP, SX...), on some of them even more (and they get to 100% after I get rid of stupid minor faults of mine), but iStock is steadily on 35 to 40%. I usually get the overfiltered reasons (and some "too feathered/rough edges") and NONE of my PSed images get through at all. I mean it: NONE. On Shutterstock, for example, I started 4 weeks ago and I already constantly get from 40 to 50 DLs per day, on iStock almost three months have yielded a whopping 11 downloads. The portfolio on SS is reaching 300 pieces, on iStock around 60 (and they are probably my worst images - they seem to accept only those, don't know why).

Why am I writing this? I know for a fact that Shutterstock and iStock are the microstock market leaders out there and they seem to have (from what I've read) the most strict submission rules there are. But I find that they're not comparable at all: again - my 90% on SS and 40% on iS speaks for itself. And it does tell one exact thing: they don't accept my type of imagery.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing iStock for their choice of criteria. I'm just asking if this acceptance scheme has been detected from someone else. Or am I the only one with such differences between iStock and other sites?

p.s.: My SS portfolio: http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=135580
p.p.s.: My best selling image up there on Shutterstock that was on number 27 of the weekly Top 50, but rejected with a "no resubmit" sticker all over it on iStock:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-7703776-simple-beautiful-nature-background-with-green-grass-and-blue-vivid-sky-with-clouds.html

I'm posting the link and the image just to give you a "material" insight in the type of imagery I make (it does have a retouched feeling to it, I honestly admit it) and to hear from you if the same is happening to you when you submit creations like these to iStock.

p.s.: Ok, I am a bit personally hurt from all those rejections on iStock, that's true. It's a big letdown and I'm seriously thinking of dropping my account there. The uploading is way too slow compared to other sites (the new keywording system, oh my God, not to mention no model releases compository, no FTP, bad category selection, strange behaviour with Opera, etc, etc, etc) and I might be getting to emotional about the bad experience, but that's just how things are for me. And since I know that there are a lot of people out there that reckon iStock is the best microstock site out there, this feels even more depressing;)

Thanks for the replies, guys! And btw: happy holidays! (especially to you, Sybille - thanks for the invite and the wishes!;))

[DNF-Style]

Welcome and don't be hurt by these rejections. You are not alone even when you seem to get many.
Istock is very sweet to it's exclusives and very nasty to its regulars. That is simply breaking down all you said and what it comes to in the end.
We were very surprised to find ourselves in their hotspots mail two weeks ago and that kind of goes against I just said. But I still believe when you would have been exclusive at IS you would have much higher ratio's.
Just do not get angry at something you cannot change, leave it and move one since we believe it won't change.

Frenk and Danielle

[Elnur]

Welcome and don't be hurt by these rejections. You are not alone even when you seem to get many.
Istock is very sweet to it's exclusives and very nasty to its regulars.

I think the main problem is the conflict of interest - inspectors shouldn't be submitters !!!  I have received so many "overfiltered" rejections for images where there is little photoshop if any - I shoot isolated images mainly, there is not much you can "overfilter" there.... whatever... I promised to myself when  I started shooting stock, to never complain about specific rejections... and I never did 

[domencolja]

Thanks for the answers, Frenk/Danielle (btw, good luck with the sales, guys, I saw the thread with your stats and I was blown off - judging by the quality of your work I'd say that you are the top (and I mean TOP) portrait sellers there is) and Elnur.

I too was wondering if there was a certain rationale under the rejections I get on iStock. Well, this sounded like a book fantasia, but I even opted in the conspiracy option (because of some of my really, really unlucky posts in their forums: once I even attacked the whole site and its submitters and mainly inspectors/admins/staff for being part of an image-dumping industry). A few months have passed and I'm thinking this is not the case (even if it could well be it - my first submissions at iStock were all accepted (when I didn't even know was stock was, I admit), then the forum issue came and "bam", the rejections started coming. But I'm dropping this excuse and trying to focus ahead. I still will never believe "overfiltered" has anything to do with my works (judging by the approval ratios on other sites), but that's just how it is.

Someday the "virtual grudge" might wear off;)

p.s.: I'm totally realistic about my potentials. They're not extraordinary whatsoever, but I can critically say there's so much "bad" work left through (at least worse than mine) that gets sold that I'm at least frustrated and annoyed. Ehh...

[fred]

I'm at about 44% at IS but I have only been doing this for a year and at IS since May.  I'd like to have your acceptance rates elsewhere though.  I am about 60% across all five sites I submit to.  From 70% at SS and BSP to 50% at DT and FT.  I need to work harder I think!

c h e e r s
fred

[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 

[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

[domencolja]

Well, I got a illustrator application rejected just yesterday in less than half an hour. All reasons were "we don't need this right now", no technical issues. I was supposed to wait from a couple of days to one week and even two, but it got rejected immediatelly. And then I quickly checked their database just to find they accept much worse creations. Ahh...

p.s.: I'm really starting to think they hate me;))
p.p.s.: I've stopped uploading photos, you already know that, and thought that I'd try the vector path. No "luck" there neither.

Honestly, I think their customer relationship is disastrous (with some inspectors excluded: I've had a couple of reviews with polite explanations and that needs an applause).