Which may be more than you would make at a RM stock house if you could even get in.

Thomas_EyeDesign
istock Photographer

Here is a sample rejection notice I just recieved today:
———————————————-

We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Ripples in the sand for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons: This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is commonly created by the quality settings in-camera or in post-processing.

For more information about iStock Standards, please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.3_noise.php

Resubmit *ONLY* if you have a clean, artifact-free copy.

—————————————————–

This is thier most common complaint “contains artifacting” and the most annoying to me.

The photo in question is of a sand dune out here in the desert with cool “ripples” in the sand.

It was taken with a Canon 30D, a 24-70mm L Series f/2.8 lens, at a distance of about 10-15 feet (to center of focus), at ISO 100, and almost zero post processing.

What really bug me is that this picture is a pretty damn nice photo that looks good at any size. It seems that what the photo inspectors do right away is zoom in to 100% (large poster size) and look for “artifacting”. …and yes they do find it sometimes. My problem with that is that I would guess that 90% or more of the photos purchased at iStockPhoto are used in magazine ads, websites, brochures, etc and not printed at 100% size … therefore the minor artifacting they see would never be seen by anyone unless they purchased the largest size AND printed it full sized AND stood an inch away and looked the print.

I’m not questioning the inspector’s determination (they have actually found some mistakes in my images that I’ve learned from), I’m just questioning if such a high degree of pickiness is waranted for photos that earn $0.20 - $1.00 per download to the creator. If these images were selling for $100 or more each I would say, yes, they need to be absolutely perfect.

I can’t wait to hear your interview with the main iStock dude.

http://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/podcasts.php?dt=sa&ep=007#Ep007

Julian

Rob, I can’t ask your question to our interviewee because I’ve already taped the interview.

Allen- I am surprised to hear that iStock’s standards are that tough that a good photographer like you would be getting so many rejections. Is there a common reason they give you for their rejections? And how detailed is their critique? Is it helpful?

Rob, I just read your comment above and you’ve got me thinking. First off, I too am a serious photo enthusiast and part time pro but I am practicing my craft and positioning myself to go pro full-time someday.

I admit that I’m an “iStock’er”, I’m relitively new to iStockPhoto with less than 20 images on thier site so far. I have to admit that I’m a little less than impressed with the results I’ve gotten on iStock… on average I’ve made less than $1 per image. Many of my images cost more than that to get even if you only count my gas money to get to the location (not to mention my time and effort).

I’ve also found that iStock’s quality standards and rejection ratios are amazingly high. While I agree with many of their comments when they do reject an image, but it raises the question of “is it worth all this hastle for $0.20 per download?”

So, I’m already thinking about alternatives to iStock.

Rob, I would love to hear more about your experiences with other agencies and if you don’t mind would you share with me (us) what agency you are using.

Thanks Rob, I look forward to you follow-up comments.

—————-
Scott and Michael,

I too read that article about the lady making about $150.00 per week selling 600 images … I’m starting to wonder if it would be better to sell one image per week and make the same amount of money (or more).

Something to consider.

I think this issue, “microstock” is really important issue to those of us that would like to make a living or at least supliment our income taking pictures. Hopefully more of the listeners will join in this discussion.

Allen Rockwell
http://www.allenrockwellphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allenrockwell

istockphoto.com is cashing in on the egos of all those people who are willing to basically give away the rights to their own work just so their picture will be in some magazine or web site, without even a credit. Guys, serious photographers like us who care about photography and are willing to put in the time can sell photos, to real clients who will pay real money. And you keep your copyright, to sell the photo again to someone else.

Why is the woman in the article not selling through a real stock agency? I have no idea. I can only assume it’s because she’s being suckered, or the whole story is a sham perpetrated by the company marketing department. Maybe you can ask the guy if you interview him.

I am not a professional, I’m a dedicated enthusiast like yourselves. I looked at istockphoto in the past, and after reading about it decided against submitting anything to them. With my first photo sale I made more than I could have made from thousands of downloads on istockphoto.

If you do some searching on some of the enthusiast message boards, you’ll find some very well thought out arguments against joining a royalty free site.