Hi guys, A lot of you know I've been at this stock thing a very long time [1968] Is it just me and my horrible work or is it the fact Im not exclusive with them? I've been featured with Image of the week twice. I only send them the winners from other sites and my rejection rate is horrible. Is it because Im not, nor ever will be exclusive with them?? I have no clue. I need answers from those who went exclusive. There seems to be a Club there of high brow people. I've looked at there work.????? Im a long time reviewer. I didn't see much, Mostly people that got banned from SS. anyone else? I sell well But, Does that special club get better reviews than me? if so, I will publish a piece they wont like at all. Any comments? I know your out there. If ya got some balls, I wanna hear about it.This isin't Istk, They won't lock the thread.

I am non-exclusive but I think that they have a lot of buyers who are loyal to istock and will only buy the majority of their images from exclusives. This would explain why exclusives do so well there. Their rejections are about the same as DT for me.

It must be hard for the reviewers to be completely unbiased and I wouldn't be surprised if exclusives get an easier ride but I don't feel there is a big conspiracy.

What disappoints me with istock is the measly 20% commission non-exclusives get. They should raise commissions for everyone. I am sure there are people who wont sell their work for 20%.

__________________
istock-Shutterstock-Bigstock-Mostphotos-Dreamstime-Stockxpert

You've posed an interesting question Rinder and one which has the potential to get a lot of ports kicked even harder by this bunch of adolescent illustrators. On top of that you'd be forgiven for thinking every 2nd reviewer was a direct descendant of Edward Steichen himself.

In essence, your rejection rate has very little to do with the standard of your work and more to do with keeping photographer's hungry. I'd even go as far as to suggest they do this on purpose just to keep you in the loop. The more they reject the more of a challenge it becomes to get accepted and reviewer's like "Lise Gagme" [sic] and the like have made it almost impossible for the non-exclusive to gain any sort of foothold in her little girls club.

I am sorry, I am not exclusive, therefore my answer is not what you were looking for.

That said, I do agree that IS looks dodgy behind the scenes.

I also have the feeling that exclusives get on with crappy photos and us, non exclusives, get sometimes some completely out of this world rejections.

I really do not know whether this is to keep exclusives away from competition or , as stated above, to keep us hungry. I think it is a bit of both. So, yes, I think they are up to something. My photos rejected at IS sell usually on SS, sometimes are even my best sellers, so they are not crap.

That said, I remember when I was a technical writer/reporter had similar thoughts about magazines/newspapers and they were only partially true.

My acceptance rate at IS is currently around 59% and has been as high as sixtysomething, although in the last two weeks I am getting many more rejections. These are facts, I leave the conclusions to you all. Maybe we are just nutters and there is nothing wrong with IS. We certainly can not prove it, anyway.

Unfortunately iS suffers from some exclusives who have a massive ego problem and like in most walks of life this minority give the rest a bad name.

You only have to visit their forums to see the usual names who mock any comment from a non-exclusive as if they are inferior, when in actual fact as we all know being exclusive is something available to absolutely anybody.

Unfortunately this also transmits to the review process, I have no doubt whatsoever that some inspectors there will and do treat non-exclusives differently to exclusives, I'm also sure that some don't understand stock photography and only inspect photos based on a 'tick box' technical requirement that has been supplied to them, this shows a lack of photographic knowledge on their part.
But there are some fantastic inspectors who really understand this business, these are the one's I feel sorry for because they are lumped into the same category as their less educated peers.

There are good reasons for and against being exclusive, and very successful photographers on both sides of the fence, iS no doubt have their own reasons for the way the exclusive images are marketed and thats their choice, their business.

Personally I believe that the exclusives should have perks they get beyond that of the non-exclusives, they've made that commitment and should be rewarded but it should no way interfere with the acceptance standards. I'm stunned sometimes when I log in and see some of the 'newest uploads' that exclusives get through, and like most I'm equally stunned sometimes when I get a rejection which clearly shows the inspector has no idea what they are doing or what this business is all about.

It's a real shame that you can't pick your inspectors based on the quality of their own portfolio some are superb.

I personally think that iS should introduce an option for non-exclusives to upload exculsive images on a one by one basis that then get an increased commission, I know other agencies do this but iS would be the only agency where I would seriously consider using it, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

__________________
Richard

My istock acceptance rate is 73%, whereas my rate at all other sites is 97% or higher.

There definitely appears to be some bias towards accepting more exclusive images, and from a business perspective I can sort of understand it. I would also say that it is a flawed business idea that accepting more exclusive images is good, when you have guys like Yuri who are none exclusive and will sell a hell of a lot of images at a reduced royalty by being non-exclusive.

I think he's probably a good example of someone who has suffered at the hands of this non-exclusive policy. Sure the upload limits hurt him at istock, but he's only got 2000+ images there out of the, what, 8,000+ probably he sells by now elsewhere? That's not just upload limits holding him back. The numbers don't add up. I have to assume that the higher rejection rate factors in.

__________________
openpathdesign.com Microstock - A Crash Course

Frankly speaking, people photos and illustrations are not good examples. In illustrations you do not have to deal with light, noise and defects. With people, soft photos get accepted. I do mainly closeup and macro work. All possible defects show up. I also have to clean up lots of dust, both phisically by brush and by photoshop. Something neither you or Yuri does. You can't compare your numbers with mine. You are not a photographer, for a start.

I can't conclude from my work that non-exclusives like me get rejected more often there. And it doesn't bother me much that we get paid less.

What galls me though is the "best match" favoritism that penalizes us and buyers as well by not presenting non-exclusives' work. This is my conclusion based on my keyword searches on my best selling images. Only with "time" or "downloads" do my best sellers show up in their proper place. I believe that "best match" is now the default. If so it shortchanges all us non-exclusives and makes it harder for buyers to find the best images.

__________________
istockPhoto
Shutterstock
Dreamstime
Stockxpert
SnapVillage
Fotolia
BigStockP
FeaturePics
YayMicro
TheNextMicroWannaBe

First off, this is a discussion about exclusive vs. non-exclusive, so photog vs. illustrator doesn't apply. non-exclusive illustrators will face the same bias as non-exclusive photogs.

Second, Yuri goes through several phases of cleaning his photos, as stated in his workflow walkthrough on his website.

Lastly, not that it's relevant to this discussion, but your comments clearly show your lack of knowledge about illustration. You say that I don't have to deal with light, noise, and defects. True. Instead, I have to deal with sharp edges, open paths, multiple file compatibilities, application compatibility, flatening issues, and much longer image creation times. So save the "photogs do so much more work than illustrators" routine. It's false, and it's not even applicable to this discussion.

__________________
openpathdesign.com Microstock - A Crash Course

Yeah, the wait time for reviews for non-exclusive, the low limit of weekly uploads for non-exclusive, the end-of-the-queue for non-exclusive, the end-of-the-line search order for non-exclusive...

I too feel that they are rejecting more of non-exclusives - (I know this is way too overused) but images that are accepted and selling on other sites, rejected. (Again, it is their business, they can accept/deny anything they want). My accpentance rate there has dropped to less than 50% in the last few months, while my acceptance rate at others has climbed into the 90s. Not to mention that the sales for me has declined, even as I was able to get a few past the reviews and increase my portfolio.

I have almost completely stopped uploading to them, because of their upload interface and the non-exclusive 'penalties'.

Fine if they want to tilt the table in favor of exclusives, but it goes so far to almost be prohibitive to non-exclusives.

My opinion, it's their business...
Robert