I'm finally learning first hand, what I've been reading here since the first day. The different sites, appear to like or dislike, different styles and photos. The reasons for rejection can be informative or mystic. Most are helpful for improving the quality and not wasting my time or theirs by submitting marginal photos or junk.

Since I'm a small time player, I only have seven sites active right now, but one photo that's been accepted at most, just got rejected at my newest addition. "too light or too dark" :-D OK what is it?

Another one with good acceptance until now came back as heavy shadows.

Meanwhile the above site accepted two photos that were rejected at two other sites because of noise or not being sharp enough.

In every case, I can see why the reviewer was justified in their reasoning. But it's still amusing that what does get accepted, varies so much.

I'd expect that photo "A" which is potentially not stock material at one site, would also be the same at the rest. But it's accepted at all but one. Another photo that's not accepted at all the rest, is accepted at that one site.

I attribute the assorted rejection reasons, to a choice of flaws, and that reviewer decided that whatever they clicked, stood out as the most glaring flaw, while the image may have had others that could have applied.

Rejections are educational! I finally picked up on viewing everything full size, (right after my first batch of rejections at LO in July, and people drumming it into my head here) and looking for artifacts. Oh look at that spot, where I did some spot sharpening or removed a speck in the background. Yikes, it looks like crap! Looks fine printed, looks fine on the screen, but full size, it's horrible.

Tidbit that amused me. One site, the first photo of the 14, uploaded on Sunday, was accepted at 7pm last night. The second photo was accepted at 11am this morning. It makes me wonder how the work flow is handled by reviewers there. It can't be by order of submission, or by artist, with a 16 hour gap?

All the rest of the sites, came through in one email, done in a batch.

Probably the best feedback that I can learn from, is when 3 images are universally accepted at all the sites they were submitted to. Instead of looking at the negative, or disparity, I need to look at why these are meeting the criteria better than the rest. What makes these "good" and keep doing some more of that.

__________________

It's a crazy, subjective business, that's for sure! LOL The most difficult thing about it is trying to figure out the different sites' tolerance levels on the various flaws.

SS is notorious for being Noise Nazis. IS has a problem with over-filtering or using noise reduction software. When you're just starting out, it takes a lot of practice in-camera and with software to create images that please both companies. SXP won't accept isolations with a hint of shadow. FT just has a standard rejection letter without any feedback whatsoever. DT is extremely cautious about potential copyrights and trademarks. Some sites wouldn't recognize creative lighting if it hit them upside the head, while others will be lenient on flaws if the overall image is great. ImageVortex rejects images for not conforming to their style without any explanation anywhere about what their style is. FP accepts everything, no questions asked. It's enough to make your head spin!

After a while though, you figure out the general rules, refine your techniques, and forget about the craziness. That's all any of us can do. :-)

__________________
Photography by Karin Lau | SmugMug Pro Account | Shutterstock | Mostphotos | StockXPert | Dreamstime | iStock | 123RF | BigStock

I would add iStock to the copyright nazis.

To me Shutterstock is the one with the highest acceptance rate. Of course since I am no longer uploading to the minor sites like 123rf and the likes.

And the same image, can be accepted on the same site by a different inspector, anyway.

Yup, and what everyone here has been writing since the first day I logged in here. Not that I didn't believe you all, but it's funny when I look at the variety of photos I submitted.

Now I understand the copyright answer that Patrick gave me. Back of the head, may of may not need a model release, depending on which site. :-D

SnapVillage just finished their review last night. Changed names, and adjusted key words, which is helpful. Speaking of sites that accept the most photos... not a one was rejected. :shock: Now I see why I need to re-shoot some and then remove the first versions from SV myself. I'm embarrassed that I missed a soft focus on the edge of one close up. I don't want it in my portfolio!

Continued thanks to everyone here for keeping me encouraged and on track to learning the nuances of micro stock.

Can someone explain why all the photos I just uploaded to BigStock say 14 licenses available? Did I do something wrong? And do I have to click all the boxes confirming that "I Agree" every dang time I login to "upload" on my account? Or is that something with Mozilla, not their site?

__________________

The 14 licenses at BSP are a variety of extended licenses and third party seller agreements. Somewhere in your profile or account you can set it to where the boxes are auto checked every time.

__________________
Photography by Karin Lau | SmugMug Pro Account | Shutterstock | Mostphotos | StockXPert | Dreamstime | iStock | 123RF | BigStock

I recently did a firework photo which I had put together from a whole load of shots, with a view to making a sort of huge "sky full of fireworks" picture.

Absolutely everybody refused it, for a wide variety of reasons. Noise, artifacts, focus, you name it. Everybody except...


... iStockphoto. And somebody immediately gave it a 5/5.

Unpredictable business.

__________________
JK

www.microstockphotography.info

This is a really good summary and I agree with it all for the sites I know. I was surprised though to read that FP accepts everything. This was not my experience earlier this year. They were rejecting images after they'd been accepted. I think I had edited keywords or something which caused them to be reviewed again (I'm not sure though - I don't remember the circumstances). When I questioned the rejections, I got a very snotty reply so I dumped them. Maybe it's time to go back and give them another look.

__________________
ShutterStock
Dreamstime
iStockPhoto
Albumo
Fotolia

With the due respect, questioning rejections is a silly thing to do. If you go for a job interview and you're not hired, do you e-mail them asking why? Or if you submit a photo to a competition and you don't win, do you ask them why they didn't pick you?

Like it was said here, it's a subjective process and they are under no obligation to accept anything from you. They know what's best for their site much better than you (sorry but it's true). Learn from what they are telling you instead of getting defensive. You didn't dump THEM, you dumped all YOUR future potential on that site.

Piece.

Don't tell me about it. Same photo, accepted by SS and IS, rejected by DT. Not only it was taken from behind, I did ask for permission as well, although I did not ask to sign a release form, being a photo from behind. Still, DT refused it. Not once, but twice, since I had two photos of the same subject. Other times I had photos of cakes rejected by IS, because there was baking paper, saying "for food" (in Italian). Very serious copyright issue, I know. In the end, who cares? I sold the same photos on SS. Despite these "severe legal issues". Yeah, right.

These images were rejected AFTER they had been accepted. Like I said I don't remember the scenario, but I think I updated keywords or something and so they went through the review process again. I have never questioned rejections on any other site, but since these had been accepted at FP and later rejected on FP I wanted to know why. I don't know why that's such a crazy idea. And no, I didn't dump all my future potential on that site because I can always go back. Back then they were a very new site. Maybe they (as have I) have learned a few things over the past year.

Actually I've never been turned down for a job for which I've applied, so I've never had to ask why. :-D

__________________
ShutterStock
Dreamstime
iStockPhoto
Albumo
Fotolia