Why I'm signed up with different sites

lroberg · #1 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 04:14 PM

Over the last few weeks, I have to laugh at the different rejections at the different sites. Some pictures get accepted at one site and turned down elsewhere. A little sample of four different pictures:

Picture 1:
Dreamstime: Distorted pixels due to poor sensor performance, image was interpolated, poorly scanned, upsampled or JPG was not saved at the highest quality.
Shutterstock: Accepted

=========
Picture 2:
Shutterstock: Not Approved: Poor framing, cropping, composition or snapshot
Dreamstime: Accepted

=======
Picture 3:
Shutterstock: Not Approved: Noise, artifacts or hazing at full size
Istock: Accepted

==========
Picture 4:
Bigstock: (Rejected) General low interest subject, not enough demand / selling potential for this photo, hope you understand, thanks.
Istock: 7 downloads

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=1726572

===========

Just goes to show, you never know.

Larry

CJPHoto · #2 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 04:50 PM

your last one is interesting (ie 7dl of a "low interest shot") A can you paste a link so we can give our view.

It always pays to submit to all even if you get a reject somewhere as you never know. I actually resubmitted some to fotolia as I thought they had been overly harsh and was getting DL at other sites with the photos. All of these got accepted (I only resubmitted ones that actually sold, not ones that just got accepted).

thesupe87 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 06:11 PM

You've got that right man. Resubmitt those pics in 3 months and you'll probably get totally different photo reviewers - I've done that and got at least 50 extra "re"-accepted right now, after they were rejected the first time. It's such bullcrap, really. If the approver is feeling especially bitchy that day, they could screw you over after you spent 1-2 hours keywording and touching up those photos.

GWB · #4 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 06:35 PM

Yes, or they may be so backlogged that they just rush through the submissions.

I've resubmitted one once, that IS wanted corrections on. I saw nothing wrong and never corrected it. Just uploaded again and it went right through!

G~

thesupe87 · #5 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 08:32 PM

atta boy.

tyke · #6 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 10:23 PM

All praise the reviewers :roll:

tugmistress · #7 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 10:06 AM

I know what you mean, at DT an image of mine made editors choice whereas at BSP it got rejected because of Artifacts/Graininess/Noise :shock: :?:

eendicott · #8 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 06:15 PM

I think the big thing is many of the sites market to different business segments. I've noticed that a lot of sales at Big Stock are to web template designers. Images of lower quality of mine have gotten accepted there mostly because they know they will be used as a smaller size. Shutterstock, I never got to figure out - they are leanient one minute and then bam from one day to the next, they reject everything. If you try to re-submit, they'll lock up your account after a couple warnings (when they catch you).

At DT I've noticed they are much more liberal in accepting more creative shots. They've accepted stuff of mine that I would consider more artwork than stock and it has sold. If you get a rejection and you don't agree, reply to the email explaining your position, or fix the problem and resubmit. I had a rejection once for "Distorted pixels due to poor sensor performance, image was interpolated, poorly scanned, upsampled or JPG was not saved at the highest quality" on an image I had downsized from 8.2mp to 7.7mp because I straightened a horizon. I replied to the refusal message and attached a copy of the original image, and it was accepted. I suspect it was rejected because it wasn't a standard image size. I had another image that was declined for poor lighting - I adjusted the original, resubmitted, and it got accepted. No big deal.

iStock seems to like the editorial type stuff without getting into that market explicitly. If you orient your image more towards an editorial pose or focus, they tend to sell really well. If they refuse your image, you have the option of going through Scout. I've found scout reviews to be pretty reasonable.

I would advise against two things:
I wouldn't make it a habit (or obvious) resubmitting stuff that has been rejected that wasn't fixed. Continuosly doing this can cause you to be banned from the site (I know of instances at DT and SS where this has happened).
Second, and I've made comments like this before that have been looked down upon here, but I would really discourage anyone from posting stuff about how you get around a reviewer's decision in a public forum. Not because the "FBI" is watching or anything but because reviewers are people like anyone else, and they do frequent public forums. Feelings get hurt on both sides and If you make comments like this, it may influence their decisions which could be to your disadvantage.

tugmistress · #9 (**permalink**) 08-01-2006, 07:31 PM

i tend not to resubmit any that have been rejected, usually because i can't work out how to fix it lol. i must admit though it is very rare for an image to be rejected at all of the sites i submit to, so i am happy they are up there anyway

CJPHoto · #10 (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 09:21 AM

NOte for any revieweers who are reading this - I have only resubmitted a few photos and only where they have sales at more than one site (not just acceptances). IN one case, one of my best selling photos was rejected. After resubmitting, it is receiving good downloads.