iStock photo contributor application
It was starting to get a little depressing. I had tried unsuccessfully five times to apply as an iStock photo contributor. You know how it is, friends and family tell you they like your photos; eventually you begin to think that hey, that photo wasn’t bad.
At some point you want to release your creativity onto the world not necessarily to make money, for me it was more about validation. My boss told me that I should try and apply, so I did.
If I had all my photos rejected - you need three accepted samples to become approved - I may not have persevered such as I did. As it happened my first photo of the Roman Snail was accepted with no explanation, just ‘ok’. That was fine, a small note of encouragement was enough to spur me on.
I was initially a little worried about the licencing issues, since I am a big fan of thenoncommercial share and share alike type thing, which means anyone can do whatever they like to my photos so long as they do not make money out of it and that they attribute me and distribute their work in the same licence. iStock allows me to sell the commercial use of these photos.
The most common reasns for rejection were noise and compression, which when you have a point and shoot camera such as mine (good though the Canon is) is pretty hard to avoid, especially in low light levels. Compression I’ve since reduced by knocking up my camera to the highest quality and largest size photos, with artifacting I have been trying not to use my digital zoom or digital macro which are pretty dreadful for that sometimes.
The second photo accepted (once I rotated it and resubmitted it after it was rejected for being the wrong way up) was a photo I took a while ago on my old camera of my little sister’s lettuce seedlings coming up in spring.
I got a couple of ‘nice but show us something more interesting’ comments which were more encouraging, as well as unfortunately some ‘bad composition’ ones. I now permanently have grid lines turned on as a guide on my camera.
It is nice that with each rejection they supply the reason and a link to the article helping you overcome the problem. When you look through your photos to find something appropriate it’s amazing how many of them just are not big enough (1200 x 1600 minimum) or have something subtly wrong with them or that ‘just aren’t stock’. Simon has been helping me with phrases such as “what you have to think about is ‘what type of PowerPoint presentation could this photo be used in’”.
This weekend I was out exploring the Cotswolds with my family and I took this photo of a lone leaf which was the last photo of mine to be accepted by iStock.
Having tried and failed 5 times now (though it feels like much more!), it is so satisfying just to be accepted. I have noticed that for an application, a close up photo of something interesting seams to be the way to go.
Purely for your continued education (not as fuel to mock me with) here is a list of my rejections.
- Rust: Unfortunately this image contains undue artifacts when viewed at full size. Artifacts are most commonly caused by over-compression but may be a result of other factors. Be sure your camera is at its highest quality setting and remember to also save your JPEGs at the highest possible quality (level 12). For more information about over-compression or artifacting.
- Commute: Sorry, but we found the overall composition of this file lacking impact and therefore not suitable as stock, if you have anything else you can show us we would love to see it. For more information on composition and impact. For more information on Suitable Stock Photography
- Palm tree: Photo shows unacceptable levels of chromatic aberration, also referred to as ‘purple fringing’. For more information on this
- Leaves: Please show us something more interesting
- Window: Sorry, but we found the overall composition of this file lacking impact and therefore not suitable as stock, if you have anything a little more interesting you can show us we would love to see it. For more information on composition and impact. For more information on Suitable Stock Photography
- Flower: We’re not really accepting many more flower photographs right now. If you have anything else you can show us, We would love to see it.
- Thorns: We could not find a clear center focal point and found this image to be out of focus. Try using a tripod at slower shutter speeds, even intentional blurs or shallow DOF (depth of filed) should have a point of focus. For more information about focus
Truly fascinating. I’m almost inspired to try myself. I’d love to hear if you make enough money for the whole experience to be worth it (beyond the free freedback).
Daniel Talsky - November 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pmCongratulations!! Glad you finally got accepted. I think your photography is excellent and has just been coming on in leaps and bounds over the past few years :-)
Meri - November 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pmCongratulations! I really enjoyed reading your post. it also took me several attempts to get accepted, but it really was worth it. istock has such a wonderful and vibrant community, I am sure you will have lots of fun.
I do suggest you consider investing in a DSLR, maybe a used one? And learning to understand what “stock photography” is, took me quite a while.
Enjoy! And welcome to the addiction!
cobalt - December 27th, 2006 at 9:03 pmGreat post! I love the snail shot. I haven’t been accepted yet but I am going to keep trying, I keep getting, “We could not find a clear center focal point…” and now understand that they aren’t talking about composition but just being a bit out of focus. Thanks again and good luck!
Aaron - March 1st, 2007 at 12:05 amI got rejected for EXACTLY the same reason on my first submission. Maybe they do that to everyone on the first round. I have a Nikon D50 (which is 6.2 mp), shoot at the largest size and save on Photoshop in the largest size, so it just doesn’t seem reasonable.
Carrie - March 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pmThese photos are fantastic!
Scott
scott - June 28th, 2007 at 2:19 pmFort Myers Wedding Photographer http://www.leapyearphoto.com
It’s nice to not feel alone…
I’ve had 5 shots rejected now, and 2 approved. It’s made me question all my equipment and sadly my lenses were never sharp enough to get the focus they wanted, despite having a Canon 400D, Tameron 18 - 250mm and using a tripod! Time to spend some more $$ to make some cents…
Good on ya!
Rob - July 11th, 2007 at 9:43 ami think ur pix r great
Alan - July 14th, 2007 at 12:56 amCongratulations! I just sent three photos, but I’m not getting my hopes up. Your photos are great, and I hope that they turn out to be very profitable for you.
Zane - August 26th, 2007 at 8:13 pmDon’t take rejection too hard. My case is more pathetic. I have been a top-producing pro for 25 years; i have owned my own fine-art photography gallery for 12 years; I have sold stock for a decade including single image sales for $16,000 and $12,000, and $10,000; I submitted 3 images to iStockphoto, which have produced many thousands of dollars in my art gallery…. 2 of my 3 were rejected.
Oh, I also failed the on-line test.
I think that it is a great weeding out process which they put us through, and that it will make us submit only our best work in the future.
Aloha!
Randy - September 7th, 2007 at 8:39 pmJust googling istock rejections, found your page. Yeah, I sometimes get rather annoyed at the rejections. Not so much for being rejected as for not knowing WHY.
kurt - February 9th, 2008 at 1:58 amthe given replies sometimes seem formulaic ( i know, they’re busy) but I’d like to get a bit more feedback.
I have had 6 photos rejected now and considering I’m off to africa for 6mths in 3 weeks, is a bit frustrating. Ive got a Canon 400d and all my shoots are taken at the highest resolution yet they have rejected them due to quality which I find strange. My first 3 shoots were submited at 6pm UK time and by 8am monday morning they had been rejected. Do they keep these people up on a sunday night to review photos?
Al Bruce - April 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am