Quote from: lisafx link=topic=4430.msg47570#msg47570

Was it a duplicate of one of YOUR blue flaming images, or someone else's? 

That's not so important...

It is important, they usually don't accept duplicates. I think this is a GOOD thing!

Quote from: lisafx on May 20, 2008, 08:10

After defending istock's reviewers as the best in the business, I just had an entire series rejected for poor isolation.  ...
Looks like Atilla the Reviewer does visit istock after all.   

Once you're not as ticked off at them, it might be worth a note to contributor relations - that new department they have to "manage" us. It's more than likely there's a new reviewer who needs some assistance, and if you keep quiet about it, they'll just keep on truckin'.

I know it's hard to feel any community spirit when they've just dumped on you, but it'd probably help them out to complain so they can fix the problem. I know everyone makes mistakes, but when it's a diamond who complains, it's much more likely to get a serious second look than if it's some newbie who's likely to be taken as a whiner.

I referred them to Scout, which I very rarely do.  So if there is a problem then Scout will presumably handle it.  If the problem is on my end at least they can explain what I am failing to see. 

I referred them to Scout, which I very rarely do.  So if there is a problem then Scout will presumably handle it.  If the problem is on my end at least they can explain what I am failing to see. 

We'll take up a collection for some glasses for you

Perhaps the newest site member here, rogermexico, is IS's great communicator of the same name, come to see what's up in the unregulated wilds of the microstockgroup?

re: 3 wise men

That looks exactly like kim58(?)'s work.  I feel no pity.  Sorry.

Oh yeah, would you like to post a link and tell me who you're referring to because I have huge difficulty with anyone accusing me of plagiarism?

Perhaps the newest site member here, rogermexico, is IS's great communicator of the same name, come to see what's up in the unregulated wilds of the microstockgroup?

Boy, a guy's name sure hangs around in that top corner there for quite a while. Somebody else hurry up and join already.

I also remember the file I think Sean is referring to. Kim did have a very similar one at one time, and this one reminds me of it. Of course that does not mean you copied it. That being said, UG is one of the biggest copycats at istock, so probably not the best example to use.

Try a search for camel and there are 10 or 15 other versions as well.

Like I said, every time I start to think exclusivity may be a viable option IS does something to remind me why I am happy to be independent....

I share exactly the same sentiment, Lisa. I have seen your isolations...you have been doing them forever and I'm fairly certain that you know how to do them by now.

I stopped uploading to a couple of the long-term commitment sites because I am very close to 10,000 downloads at istock and was pondering the exclusivity.

Two days ago this was rejected for:

We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock
 collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all
 submissions.

Here's the file:



in case the above doesn't work:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-12476971-a-pair-of-eyes-a-fingerprint-concept-idea-for-identity-theft-composite-photo.html

I, too, figured it came close to something the reviewer has in his/her port. I've tried the Scout route before and it takes forever, not worth my time.

Lisa, something to think about...your photography must be right on and has threatened somebody, hence the rejections. Doesn't help with sales, but you should be proud!

sean you're so funny   

Istock isn't for everyone's taste. The rejects brought up in this thread (apart from Lisa's which we can't see!) don't surprise me. The vector is a bit quick and dirty. And derivative. I wouldn't have expected it to get knocked back, but it wouldn't have suprised me either. And Cathy's knockback is the sort of straightforward composite concept shot that just doesn't fly at istock. If you want to do that sort of stuff, you definitely don't want to be exclusive at istock, for whatever reasons they just don't seem to accept it. Or at least only if you get lucky.

 I don't do composites in PS (for stock), and my vectors tend to be handrawn arty stuff (which doesn't sell much but get accepted most of the time! ). So istock exclusivity currently suits me. But the ups and downs in sales with changes in best match/changes in the wind direction are annoying - if I was in this for anything other than a hobby, and putting enough time into it I'd be spreading my stuff out across sites a bit. But I think I'd be doing very different images for istock and say shutterstock, from what I've seen accepted and rejected at the two sites. It's not worth banging your head against a wall trying to upload stuff that just isn't going to work at a particular site. You need to work out what istock will take. At least they are (usually) consistent enough in their policies, whether you agree with them or not, that it's possible to get a very high acceptance rate if you play along with their foibles.

I could see that wise men image getting rejected. It's not as good as the one you compared it to, Contakt. Seems sloppy, has a nasty lens flare for a star, and an unnecessary brown foreground (in a backlit scene). Is it bad? Of course not. But it also does have some flaws that istock is becoming known for rejecting.

I don't think most people would have given that image more than a 50/50 shot of getting approved.

Yep, I think I see what you mean now. Mine is extremely sloppy, the blue one below belonging to Generic's is a much more detailed including his Llama's or Camel's should I say, I can't work out what they are? But you've got a great eye for detail Helix, no doubt about that 

Helix 7, your original post as usual was spot on!

Ha haaaa, the microarse licking fraternity are coming out hot and heavy now.   . C'mon now Microbius, you're going to have to get all that brown stuff off your nose now.

lol, do I know you? Have I ever posted a post like this before to make me part of a fraternity? In case you thought that my post had anything to do with your pathetic bitter whining I was referring to Helix's original well thought out post about IS exclusivity.

My apologies, I stand corrected. But as for your disparaging comments, let me be absolutely clear about something here, I don't particularly like unsupported accusations of plagiarism. And I don't take kindly to being called names either when I have an issue with that.

What I'm dealing with here is one or two of the usual suspects who at the first opportunity will be in on a post like a bunch of cackling hyenas. Bittersweet and sjlocke are typical of the breed and at first glance it appears I mistakenly added you to the list. Or did I?

I would be curious if there is anyone out there that has gone exclusive and then opted back out at Istock.  It seems that anyone that goes exclusive stays exclusive, which seems to speak for itself.

I went exclusive and then opted out.  Exclusivity wasn't for me, at that time.

Things are changing though.  Shutterstock is seriously losing footing for me at the moment - my main competition to iStock.  Also hopefully in September I will be heading off into the forces, so I'll be looking to just stay with one or two sites, and I'm seriously considering the possibility of going exclusive to istock just to keep my current portfolio earning, but focusing entirely on uploading RM to the big boys.

I too wish there was an option for image exclusivity.  And no, the business cards aren't worth it.  I'm so ashamed of mine, the crop was done badly.