It's all coming back to me now!

When I first started with microstock last fall, I went on to Yuri Arcurs' site, where he listed the stock agencies. I signed up for all of them. Recently I started to use isyndica, and Crestock was one of the channels listed, so i started to upload new files, and was surprised when i went to the Crestock site and found my portfolio empty. Then i remembered what a nightmare it is to deal with you people, and how arbitrary the rejections are. When i look at what is accepted, i really don't see proof of the statement that you only take the best. Do a search for "doctor" as an example, and you get a page of images that all look the same. Blond nordic people on a blown out white background all wearing the same stethoscope, mugging for the camera. The odd thing is that there are many different contributors shooting the same shot- or is that what your selection process ends up with? There is so much unhappiness and bad vibes on these forums that it is really sad. I have about 200 images on 6 other sites, and since last november, these files have had more than 6000 downloads. I've been making a living at photography since 1978. I've seen many changes in this business. Microstock is truly an innovative and exciting way to market images. It does, however, have to make sense for the contributors. You can't just reject 95% of a contributors images and expect to be supplied with new content that continues to be relevent. You need to broaden your aesthetic sense to make room for more than your own narrow prejudices. You are like the art student who only took one course in art appreciation, and only likes what was popular with your classmates that semester. I have a particular style that suits me, but i would never presume to reject other ways of seeing. You are wrong to do so. I suppose there is some sort of business model you are following, and maybe it all makes sense to you, but I really don't see how you can build a relevent usable website with such bad relations with your contributors. Sooner or later everything all looks the same. Like everything else in the photography business, change is happening. You can't stand still and wish it was 2 years ago. This whole microstock business is quickly shaking out into a few players. If you owned the content, maybe you would have something to sell, but since your images can walk out the door in a matter of days, again, I really don't see where this is going. Someday you guys will make a great business school study.

Hi Neil-

   I agree that the site is easy to use, with good functionality. The prices are as cheap as you are likely to find. The big problem is the extremely homogenized look to the selection. As a designer, I'm sure you don't want all your work to look the same. If you take the same approach to every solution, after a while, your work will be very stale. In the same way, a stock agency has to have variety, not only in subject, but in style. Back in the late 90's, everyone was shooting out of focus, blue and orange shadows all over the place. When it was new, it caught your eye because it was different. Likewise when all the male models had a 3 day growth of beard, this was cutting edge. Now all this stuff is so tired it's invisible. It does not do the job of making someone look, because you've seen it already. That's whats happening here. It seems to be an intentional decision to reject many, if not most, saleable images,, but really that level of editing should go to you, the designer, not the gatekeeper. As I said in my original post, the only way the microstock model can work is if the contributors want it to work. There are half a dozen dying microstock sites out there now competing with 5 really well run companies. Crestock is on the edge, and unfortunately, they are driving away the only ones who can make the difference. I would like to point out that I would love to see this site prosper and become more relevent, but the burden can't only be on the contributors.