iStock "Exclusive prestige - No more keyword rejections‏"

Travis Manley · #1 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 11:56 PM

Just got this email along with a bunch of rejects for bad keywords.

Grumble...grumble...

I hate to complain about iStock because its really becoming one of my top earners, but the whole push to get everyone to go exclusive with them is getting a little frustrating.

I cant imagine what anyone would want to go exclusive unless they just didnt have the time to submit to multiple sites.

I would have been cool with them not rejecting exclusive members images for keywords, but the fact that they are going out of their way to reject non-exclusive members images for bad keywords is pretty lame. It seems pointless too because there is nothing to stop you from adding a bunch of irrelevant keywords once your image is accepted.

Karimala · #2 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 05:07 PM

IS also rejects more images from non-exclusives period.

A few months ago I calculated how much money the 80% I've paid IS to represent my work was worth, and about freaked out. Then I realized a good portion of that money is being spent on privileges for exclusives! Even though IS is one of my two favorite sites (beyond just the earnings), it nevertheless left a bad taste in my mouth and has left me wondering whether I should eventually go exclusive myself or pull out all together. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of paying for others to receive benefits that I'll never qualify to receive.

orchidpoet · #3 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 05:27 PM

Even without keyword problems, I have been experiencing mass rejections from IS in the past two weeks. Most rejections are due to lack of centre focal point or artefacts in full size.

Since I just bought this new Xsi, I wonder if my camera is of poor quality. However, I don't see any obvious difference in rejection/acceptance change from other stock photo agencies. It seems, with most IS key people in Malta, I cannot get anything accepted.

I have written to IS to ask for a second look. I will give IS the benefit of doubts for now. If any of you have experienced problems with Xsi, I'd appreciate some comments.

Travis Manley · #4 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karimala

IS also rejects more images from non-exclusives period.

I was curious about that. IS rejects more of my photos than any other site and its too bad if they are rejecting my photos based on me not being exclusive.

I mean, I think its great that they are so good to their exclusive photographers, but im starting to feel like they really dont give a damn about everybody else. Now its starting to feel like not only do the exclusive members get treated better, you are getting penalized for not being exclusive.

helix7 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 06:25 PM

I have a love-hate relationship with istock. I love the earnings, I hate the royalty percentages. And I have a hard time getting my head around the decisions they make with the exclusivity program. It could be so much better, so much more appealing, and really with the right set of benefits and a modest investment by istock to raise the percentages, they could bring in far more exclusive artists then they do now, and do some serious damage to the competition. Instead, they opt to offer these worthless incentives, much to the disappointment of both exclusive and non-exclusive contributors alike.

Given the choice, I think most exclusives would trade the business cards, lypses, faster review times, upload limits, EL bonuses, all of it, for a single percentage point increase. Too bad istock has no clue that the key to more exclusive artists is not to be found in cheesy contests and worthless giveaways.

GWB · #6 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 07:06 PM

Yeah, I've had the have a love-hate relationship from day one with iStock. They at least offer the best sales for me. Like one of the other posters here, lately, I've been having rejects because of too much alleged artifacts. I shoot in RAW, output to 16-bit TIFF and save out to jpeg at 100%. I don't know what else I can do. I never see the artifacting they are talking about and I do view the images at 100%. I have taken to submitting more rejects to Scout. If anything, those higher on the food chain can see what their inspectors are doing.

None of the so-called incentives have inspired me to go exclusive.

Travis Manley · #7 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWB

I've been having rejects because of too much alleged artifacts. I shoot in RAW, output to 16-bit TIFF and save out to jpeg at 100%.

Yup, my work flow is the same and I have been getting lots of "artifact" rejects as well.

Karimala · #8 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helix7

I have a love-hate relationship with istock. I love the earnings, I hate the royalty percentages. And I have a hard time getting my head around the decisions they make with the exclusivity program. It could be so much better, so much more appealing, and really with the right set of benefits and a modest investment by istock to raise the percentages, they could bring in far more exclusive artists then they do now, and do some serious damage to the competition. Instead, they opt to offer these worthless incentives, much to the disappointment of both exclusive and non-exclusive contributors alike.

Given the choice, I think most exclusives would trade the business cards, lypses, faster review times, upload limits, EL bonuses, all of it, for a single percentage point increase. Too bad istock has no clue that the key to more exclusive artists is not to be found in cheesy contests and worthless giveaways.

Agreed. Most of what they offer exclusives doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things...except the increased upload limits and higher acceptance rates.

I would probably go exclusive, if they could just guarantee I wouldn't lose any income right out of the gate. It's just so hard to tell if exclusivity would be worth it when I currently can't get a solid representation of my work uploaded. A real incentive would be to provide non-exclusives a trial week or two of exclusive-like status so we can judge whether or not it would be the right decision for our businesses. I'm not about to risk pulling my photos from other sites only to find out later my decision cost me revenue.

orchidpoet · #9 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 08:50 PM

I also shoot RAW and view my images at 100%. Some of my photos were shot at foggy coastline so I wonder if the inspectors didn't feel comfortable with foggy conditions. They could perceive the foggy effects as artefacts or lack of focus. But I am not sure.

Even though I can accept that they are more generous to exclusives, iStock has been considered as a "fair agency" by many photographers, including myself. I hope they don't start this mass rejection to non-exclusives without considering the true merits of our work.

I hope IS management will review this and keep its good reputation.

Travis Manley · #10 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karimala

I would probably go exclusive, if they could just guarantee I wouldn't lose any income right out of the gate.

I just cant imagine ever going exclusive anywhere. It would sure make things easier, but I think I would lose too much sleep over all the sales I might be missing out on with other sites. You just never know what site might take off at any given time and you would have to upload all your photos again.