IStockPhoto..

jackdaw

Anyone ever use this ?

I applied to upload photos and was accepted with the 3 sample pics
i sent in, (after having some rejected) ..

However I have since attempted to upload 3 photos for selling
puposes and they are refusing them on stupid reasons .. like
a photo of a landscape .. we find there is no central focal point in this photo !!! -- no **** , it's a landscape ..

An other photo they said it was underexposed when it clearly wasn't
if anything this photo was leaning towards being overexposed .. which it wasn't my point is that reason would be more understandable..

do they have people reviewing them you know about photography ?
or are they just monkeys working in a call centre who don't have a clue
and are following a textbook to reject photos ?

maybe they only want to accept photos from photographers with a name,
rather than good photos which seems to be the way it is ...
Anyway I'll try more ..

Oh yeah and 2 of the photos above rejected were the same 2 accepted
for application to be a contributor ..!!!

Underexposed pic
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2155/2346978626_de39843952_b.jpg
unbelievable...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1269/1032980380_b020084cb3_b.jpg

no central focal point on this one .. no **** shylock its a landscape..

slumped

those pix look fine to me!

Resubmit them again and see what happens

jackdaw

I know if they gave me reasons like .. The fence behind the Lion looks bad ..
fair enough ..

or the water in the foreground looks dirty in the other ...

but the reasons they give make me think they have a bunch of low
paid dopes working for them, who know nothing about photography and
are just following (wrongly!) rules to spot faults ....

:mad:

snellers

have you read clearly about the pics they currently want? I have found that there is usually a list on these sites that advise the subject matter they want and those they do not (as they simply have enough of that subject in their opinion). general landscapes are usually over subscribed and therefore only the very outstanding would even be considered......I found submitting pics in their list of 'needed' had a much greater hit rate of success

if the site has a forum they are generally great places to go to seek assistance also.....check it out if you can

best of luck

shepthedog

Is it really worth the hassle for the one or two dollars a year you are likely to gain in sales??
Has anyone any success in micro stock sites??? I dont see the value in it..

FreeAnd..

to be honest, the first one is pretty dark and who said Landscapes shouldnt have a central focal point? I think thats one the the main necessities in making a proper landscape shot thats not just another random shot of some place...any good landscape photographer worth their sal will tell you the same...

I can understand why these were rejected, nothing personal but I wouldnt pay for them or use them in a professional context for advertising or on a website or whatever. I would also be put off using a stock agency that simply accepted all entries and not on merit as should be the case..

PaulieC

several tips:

• don't be so defensive. Sitting there raving and calling the reviewers monkeys will get you nowhere. Look at the reasons they are rejecting the photos and try to see where you can improve
• Think like a buyer. Think about what kind of images people (designers, illustrators etc.) would want to buy. Shoot with that in mind
• Be open to criticism. Look t your work honestly and objectively and try to see where it can be improved.

In general, micorstock has a pretty bad name, but you can make a living out of it if you want to work hard, or you can make a few bob on the side as a hobby. I do the latter, whith several stock sites. You quickly get used to the requirements and get the 'stock' mindset.

Also, it's bloody wierd what some people buy - take this for example:


it's a close up image of a lampshade I have at home...pretty crappy, right? It's made me a bout 100 euros in the last two months selling on microstock sites...

Valentia

I'm inclined to agree with the reviewers. While the lion may not be underexposes his eyes are dead and he looks comatosed. The landscape, while quite colourful, is bland and doesn't have any point of interest. In fact it is half underexposed and half overexposed.

Have a root around. You surely have better than these to contribute, though shepthedog is right. These micro agencies are the only winners. The contributors only make a pittance if anything. And that's waving all rights on the image

jackdaw

Well, If they gave me those reasons i would have been happier ..

eg we have to much landscapes, the lions eyes look dead .. etc..


but saying it's underexposed is silly, and i don't mean to rant, i do take
criticism , as long as it's accurate..

RealEstateKing

to review them properly. They're probably going through thousands a day and selecting from a list of stock rejection answers.

PaulieC

yes, they have a list of stock rejection reasons, but they certainly do review them properly - particularly istockphoto. Everything is reviewed at 100%

For the two images posted as examples, I would say that the buildings on the right hand side of the lake are too dark and the lion's eyes are too a=dark and there is a great big fence in the background - people don't want to think if animals locked up in captivity when they could have this