Comments on: What Not to Submit

By: Lee Torrens

Lee Torrens — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:28:55 +0000

Hey Bob, thanks again for another great comment.

There’s no faulting the evidence you’ve cited. They are clear contradictions.

I would a few things though.

First, are those popular images old ones? That is, uploaded years ago? They may be successful due to the algorithm boost have a history of strong sales, plus appearing high in the ‘downloads’ sort order. This means these specific photos can sell a lot, even though the subject (pets, flowers, sunsets) doesn’t sell that much. This theory runs against the oversupply aspect, but may still be a factor.

Second, just because those photos sell well doesn’t mean iStock (or any other agency) doesn’t already have “too much” of them. They are notoriously the most common subjects because they’re easily available to almost everyone, and almost always free to shoot.

Third, saying they don’t want any can be a filter, effectively saying “this is common so only submit *exceptional* photos of these subjects”. Of course everyone things their own bugs-on-flowers shots are exceptions, so they would still submit. Saying “we don’t want any” probably means they get fewer.

Fourth, I know the reviewers get extremely bored of these topics. The agencies are paying reviewers to inspect thousands of sunset photos a day, and having to pay them more due to the boring nature of the job when reviewing sunsets, bugs-on-flowers and pet photos. You can understand their wanting to minimize the quantity of submissions of those subjects for both their bottom line (we’re all in it for the money) and the sanity of their reviewers.

So in summary, you’re absolutely correct that these are contradictions, but there’s solid logic behind it when you look deeper. Thanks for bringing this up.

-Lee

By: Bob Kane

Bob Kane — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 07:10:10 +0000

I see a few contradictions in your article compared to reality.
1) iStockphoto’s least needed image #1 is a dog or cat.
iStockphoto’s #11 highest rated photo (last three months) is someone’s pet cat.
2) iStockphoto’s least needed image #2 is flowers.
iStockphoto’s #6 & #15 most popular photos (last three months) are flowers.
3) iStockphoto’s least needed image #5 is computer equipment.
iStockphoto’s #4 most popular photo (last three months) is a computer.
4) iStockphoto’s least needed image #11 is Sunsets and clouds.
iStockphoto’s #4 most popular photo (last three months) is a sunset with clouds.

Of course, these are not your contradiction but rather iStockphoto saying they do not want something but then accepting it and having it do well.

By: Stefan Gustafsson

Stefan Gustafsson — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:17:47 +0000

Great article! Pretty much sums it all up. I liked the reviewer’s post aswell, being a reviewer myself i know how frustrating it can be sometimes.

By: crazy utuber

crazy utuber — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:36:58 +0000

You forgot to add “same shots from the same session”. Both sites will penalize you for sending 2 shots of the same session, with a rejection saying, “send only one”. But if you search a certain keyword,
you see their top sellers with tons of the same session and even repetitions in just slightly different viewpoint. it really depends on whether they are exclusive or not. or if they know the reviewer.
Mind you, it’s not just Istock and Shutterstock. One of my favourite sites too is guilty of double standards. Zymmetrical will reject a shot saying , “the lighting limits the sales potential”, or “fringe”, “off colour”. Yet look at the image they have on front page, a guy in the wrong lighting, fringe tinged and in the most absurb color . So really, it all depends if you know the reviewers.

By: ec

ec — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:17:36 +0000

i agree with lior that istock says one thing and show another. look at what is on their home page, a dog in black and white. been there for months. shutterstock is no better, check their all time best, and you see trees, and lots of silly girlie photos.
and zbynek is right about “shot during advertisement photo session or contract”, check out how many top sellers are using pseudonyms. if they are top sellers, why are they so afraid not to reveal their real names?

By: microstockphoto

microstockphoto — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:10:05 +0000

I totally agree with the “quality over quantity” approach.

But with the current trend in all microstock agencies (lower and lower prices + more and more pictures online) we are sometimes forced to pursue “quantity over quality” as a way to simply stay visible on micro stock photography sites, however absurd and sad.

By: Lior Iluz

Lior Iluz — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:24:40 +0000

sure will… your site has been very helpful for me with improving my sales

By: Lee Torrens

Lee Torrens — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:19:31 +0000

Yeah, the took the list of unwanted files off that page.

You’ll just have to trust my list.

-Lee

By: lior iluz

lior iluz — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:25:46 +0000

actually, you have a mistake there… the list you linked saying it’s iStockphoto unwantet photos is actually a list of photos they DO want. therefor, there is no common themes between the shutterstock’s list and the istockphoto’s list.

thank you for this great article.

By: Jackson Wallace

Jackson Wallace — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:06:09 +0000

I’ve tried two agencies. One is a microstock and has sold images for me, specialty images, and off of 5 sales, I’ve made a grand total of $4, which I don’t even to collect until my total reaches $100. I don’t even get to know where the imagery goes, though it is one use, as far as I know. This is iStockphoto, under Getty, and one of the most legitimate out there. I hate these people. They are destroying the careers of photographers. I spent a day taking these pictures, they were all from the same event, and some lazy designer gets to use them for essentially nothing. I was so appalled by this that I yanked most of my images, and went to another agency Photoshelter, which at least pays a decent amount, but doesn’t have the same draw. Bottom line is that as long as photographers from all over the world are willing to denigrate their work, then no one will get paid well. That said, you can get a few thousand downloads off of the right image, and therefore make 3-5k, so it can be done, but busting your butt across the spectrum in the hopes that one will hit in my mind is totally counterproductive. I’m better off making prints and selling them online or in person or cards. Anything pays better than these people. They pay $70 for a rights-unlimited deal. Some buyer can print a million posters from your image, and you make $70. They can go straight to h*ll and other photographers must treat them the same way if they ever hope to make any living off these guys. Then again, it is just a sideline, but it is no small amount of work, so no thanks.