Anyways, I joined istockphoto a few weeks ago hoping to try this out. I filled out the application, took the short online course, passed the quiz at the end, uploaded documentation, and read the super long user agreement. After all of this you have to upload 3 sample images for them to go over. I uploaded three decent shots (not my best stuff) just to see how picky they are. I've heard of sites like this being picky about sharpness, noise, and composition, even while zoomed in to 200%. I ensured these pictures were sharp, had no visible logos, were very low noise, and would be relevant to businesses looking to buy these images. I received word back many days later that the pictures were rejected because they "did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be your best work. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd."
Ok, that's understandable. I read the training materials and articles (which were actually pretty well written!), and submitted some of my best work, including some that have been published in national calendars and books. I hear back just a few hours later that they were rejected for the same reason. Ok, now I was getting a little upset. These pictures were totally different in composition from the first ones and were also very sharp, and low noise. How could they have rejected them for the same reason? I know they have been useful to businesses in the past because they have been used as advertisements before. I also checked istockphoto to make sure there wasn't a totally identical photo already submited; nope there wasn't. I just didn't understand why they were getting rejected. So I waited a week and decided to try one last time to submit some photos. This time I even picked some of my best people images to submit (stock photo sites love people pictures because most advertizements are aimed at them). Got rejected, same cookie-cutter reason.
I don't mind being rejected, criticized, or laught a lesson. As long as you give me a good reason, or way to get better in the future, I don't have a problem with it. It's how I get better! iStockPhoto didn't give any of this. They simply gave me the same cookie cutter answer every time I submitted sample photos, even though they were all drastically different every time. I just don't get it! How can they accept a picture like this or this! and then reject my stock steak!
Maybe I'm blind but I would love for someone to tell me how a picture of a tree branch in front of a bland looking lake is going to help a business more than a nice sharp picture of a juicy sirloin! Oh well, maybe the istockphoto editors woke up with a stick up their arse that morning. I know I'm far from being the best photographer in the world, but I do like to think that I'm relatively decent at it after 5 years and almost 100,000 frames. Regardless their failure to communicate their issues with my pictures has lost me as a potential customer.
How could you say no!
I was never really a huge fan of stock photography in the first place. It emphasizes a lot of what doesn't matter in photography. Does it really matter if your image is ultra sharp when blown up to 200%? Does it matter if it has no semblance of noise or grain? I guarantee if you you printed an image at anything less than billboard size these things wouldn't even be visible. Sometimes the best images aren't perfectly sharp, and some of them even have grain in them! Even some of Ansel Adam's pictures have this "unacceptable" grain in them, and, according to their composition articles, would not meet the "minimum level of standard for iStockphoto."
No comments:
Post a Comment