I had a series of 60 really nice images of Grecian urns all rejected.....

...apparently they contained artifacting 

i thank you. 

well, i did intend my posting as a joke to take the edge off my rejection gloom, but i'm glad you posted smithore as i have been experiencing exactly the same.  70% acceptance down to 10% in last three weeks.  and the central focal point thing is just maddening.  also getting alot thrown out for inappropriate key words when similar images have exactly the same. 

not nice - especially if you are spending considerable time working on the images and hoping to make a living out of it.  that just aint right.  its a bit like having a 'normal' job, working hard consistently and out of the blue and without warning, your boss says that same standard isn't acceptable and he aint gonna pay you.  it does feel a bit like 'we just dont think your images cut it anymore, please stop uploading'.   i know, i know all you smuggies out there with your thousands of downloads  , deep breath and start again.......  just this little photographer's oxygen tank is getting close to empty.

I am on microstock sites since September 22 2007. Of all sites  Istock is most fair as to rejections for me. 

And...so? Things can change no? All change, everyday!!!
We talk about last 15 days, and yes things are not like yesterdays!!!

i can't speak for smithmore, but my point isn't one which can be explained by inspector off days.  i am talking about a consistent drop in acceptance rate over a 3/4 week period.  that's a trend not a blip and its either because my photography skills have deteriorated or there is a change in the inspection process.  if the former, fine.  if the latter then that's f***ing about with peoples livelihoods.  i have bounced back many times from rejections and accept that if my images are not good enough then fine.  i like to think i am grown up about it and indeed am delighted to have learnt a huge amount from my rejections.  however, what is so frustrating is that with each batch of rejections i have gone away and worked hard to improve.  i have also invested in better kit to get better results.  i truly believe that the images i have been submitting in the past 3/4 weeks are significantly better quality - both from a composition and technical point of view - than earlier submissions.  so, to find your acceptance rate go down significantly is disappointing.  i am not suggesting there is anything sinister going on.  it could simply be that the the inspectors have been told to raise the bar (entirely feasible and consistent with a new business strategy which has identified the death of macrostock and the need to push istock ahead of the crowd) and only accept exceptional images in certain categories (interestingly i do find images in some of the less marketable categories seem more readily accepted).  fine.  but at least at some of the other agencies they are honest about that and dont try to shoe-horn the rejection into a vague category that leaves you wondering what . you have to do to get it right, or thinking you need to go spend $12k on a camera and lens in order to avoid an artifacting or 'center point of focus' rejection...... (or else just use a 12MP point and shoot and avoid taking images which include sea or painted wood or .....)  if so, it would be nice to know for sure if this is a permanent bar raise because i can't afford to play games.  the only way my recently rejected images can be improved is with a step up to the next level of kit and i certainly can't take a chance on that level of investment when earnings are so low.  ok though if you are already established and already have that kit.  for example, if you currently contribute to getty......

There's a long thread of people experiencing the same thing on the Micropayment Yahoo group so you are not the only ones this is happening to. I think they're really starting to crack down on the non-exclusives

well....  I  hope that's not what it is all about.    We'll see what the next couple weeks brings.

I had a series of 60 really nice images of Grecian urns all rejected.....

...apparently they contained artifacting 

i thank you. 

HAHAHA   

That went completely over my head  - good one!

I've also had some rather strange rejections at IS. With a batch I send last week I have a 50% acceptance rate with some photos still pending. I send the same batch to the 7 other agencies where I submit, and with all the others I got 100% accepted. I don't have a problem with high standards, because that is what draws the buyers to an agency, but to me the reasons given doesn't make sense. They say artifacts at full view and I can resubmit after fixing the problem, but how can I fix the artifacts if I can't find it?

the artifacting rejection bothers me a bit.  frankly,  a lot of  my IS artifacting rejects...   I simply don't see at 100%.  when they send me a sample attachment...  I have to blow my file image up 200% or more to get the same sized image on my screen (in photoshop 7, elements or micrografx, all give me the same image at 100%)...   I wonder if  I'm doing something wrong when I view my images before selecting for upload.  any suggestions out there?  =tom

I don't have any idea where they get their standards.  If you look at the image of the week and zoom in using their tool, you will see a ton of 'noise' and artifacts.  Not sure why they allowed that particular image, even though the actual aesthetic qualities are appealing. (Submitter doesn't appear to be an exclusive, so what gives?)

i agree.  there are many truly awful images which have been recently accepted.  and the artifacting thing is maddening.  (it would be nice if the guidelines could give a true example of the level of artifacting that isn't acceptable!)  whilst on the subject of being realistic, please showcase images that actually sell.  the ones currently on are absolutely superb wihtout a doubt and would stand up in most galleries.  but some have 30k+ views and only a handful of downloads?  come on.

i read in another thread that microstock was great because it allowed those who didn't have the connections with the agencies a chance to get into the business purely on ability.  i think we may be beginning to see that door closing.  not just that, but the cost of kit to produce the quality required will reimpose the barriers to entry which used to exist pre micro.  looks like the tantrums from the macro boys have been pandered too.  of course it doesn't help when there is frequently no separation between contributor and reviewer.  i'm not saying that it definitely happens, but it would be naive to conclude that it couldn't be the case that a reviewer would find something wrong with an image to protect his/her -  or his/her buddy's - portfolio.   

thats life though.  happens everywhere.  those who have it, start building barriers to protect it.  an old aunt of mine remembers the day when you didn't have to go to college to become a lawyer, you took an apprenticeship.  not so now. and who imposed those requirements? 

just a bit galling that the door closes when you are struggling through with your new camera bag and tripod.....    of course, it seems at the moment to be just this particular door - for the timebeing at least.  cue the stampede to get through the others......

The "not suitable for stock" rejection is unnerving. I have nearly stopped to upload to istock- once in while I test the waters by submitting an image which was recently accepted and sells well on other sites. Got 100% rejection during the last weeks, nearly all "not stock". My impression is they are really and deliberately discouraging non-exclusives.

Jack,

You're exclusive with DT but submits rejections to other agencies? 

Regards,
Adelaide

I always woder to know what that was exactly mean "at full size". Do they crop differently by megapixel size. I guess they crop at 500%. It seem to be like this sometimes...However

I have to agree with AKA-Tom.

I had a recent rejection for artifacting along the edges of a certain Image (an image already accepted at three other agencies). Well sure enough, there were some 'jaggies' along the edges they mentioned, but they were NOT visable at 100%, I had to go to 200% to see and work on them.

I will use an analogy that I have first have experience with: Diamond Grading. An imperfection must be visable at 10X magnification to be called detrimental to the clarity grade of a diamond. Many diamond graders (just substitute the word inspectors here) look for imperfections at higher magnifications and then turn down the power of the microscope to see if they can 'call' the imperfection visable. As a last step, they are required to use a 10X hand loupe just to make certain.

Well in the interest of speed, many will skip this step.

I think much the same thing is happening a IS. These inspectors are in such a hurry to churn through so many submissions that they resort to looking for problems at 200% (maybe higher) so that they may quickly reject and get on to the next item.

After all, these are just human beings and they are under pressure to perform.

Add to the equation that this is a Getty organization, and you have a recipe for super strict inspection protocols.