iStock Rejection Reasons

[SCC123]

I recently started uploading my photos to different microstock sites as a way to gauge their image quality relative to an established standard. My personal goal is to get each photo accepted/published by at least one site and re-edit those that are accepted by none.

Shutterstock/Adobe Stock/Dreamstime have rejected a few on the basis of things like technical issues, noise, distorted pixels, etc., but only iStock has never rejected on the basis of technical issues (though they have rejected for things like problematic location, etc.).

In your experience, does iStock reject for technical reasons, or do they not hold their published photos to a technical standard? If it's the latter, I might re-edit some that had only been accepted by iStock and resubmit them to one of the other sites.

 

[Space Face]

I don't use any of them but it'll be interesting to see the opinions and why.

 

[Mike Drone]

I did not want to bring this here but after Shutterstock pulled their little stunt, I have removed all photos from microstock.

 

[RacePhoto]

I recently started uploading my photos to different microstock sites as a way to gauge their image quality relative to an established standard. My personal goal is to get each photo accepted/published by at least one site and re-edit those that are accepted by none.

Shutterstock/Adobe Stock/Dreamstime have rejected a few on the basis of things like technical issues, noise, distorted pixels, etc., but only iStock has never rejected on the basis of technical issues (though they have rejected for things like problematic location, etc.).

In your experience, does iStock reject for technical reasons, or do they not hold their published photos to a technical standard? If it's the latter, I might re-edit some that had only been accepted by iStock and resubmit them to one of the other sites.

I wouldn't use Microstock as a way to evaluate photos. Each site has different standards. iStock used to uphold higher standards and so did Shutterstock. Now I believe they are just interested in more images and pay us less. Shutterstock has always had computer assisted review, now (as of last year) it seems the computers do fast AI or more right Machine Learning reviews.

DT of late has accepted nearly anything I upload. I think they are hungry to get back into the market. Nice people, nice site, but not the most difficult for passing review.

Adobe which used to be Fotolia, has gone the other direction. Every image is viewed and analyzed by an individual. If you want critical reviews that are fair and honest, I suggest you go to Adobe Stock. Problem is, the rejection reasons are often broad and not specific. So seeing what you have attempted, you might learn from the various reviews, and learn as a collective review of your works.

Here's what I'd suggest for learning. Post questions here 100% crops of potential problem, and the rejection reasons. Then people can read and possibly tell you, why the image was rejected. Upload to Adobe, Shutterstock and Dreamstime, collect that and bring it here. If you are passing at IS but being refused at the other three, you learn nothing from iStock uploads?

You might also ask more here about your equipment? Are the lenses so troubled that they will lead to purple fringing, softness and rejections? Are you good at getting the right exposures. Is your camera suitable and "good enough", or are you trying to use an older phone.

Good luck. Here's an easy upload place, maybe make some money, no promises. Microstock is not good as a business anymore, just side hobby and fun, maybe spare change. The only thing worse is people who upload to free sites for "exposure" and recognition. But that's an option if you don't want reviews and don't want to be paid for your work.

(spammy parts removed)

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

I did not want to bring this here but after Shutterstock pulled their little stunt, I have removed all photos from microstock.

What did Shutterstock do?

 

[Jeff15]

Another very old thread ...

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

Another very old thread ...

Perhaps new and informative to others. Allow others to seek knowledge, wherever it may be.

 

[limr]

Perhaps new and informative to others. Allow others to seek knowledge, wherever it may be.

The OP hasn't been around since 2020 and the person whose post you replied to hasn't checked in for over 6 months. This thread has served its usefulness.