Please critque my pictures - thank you

[ArenaCreative]

My 100% honest truth critique, no bull. 

You have some nice shots you might share on instagram or facebook here, but the majority of what I'm seeing isn't stock.  The quality is sub-par, and you will need to work on these images a ton in post processing to pass inspection just on a technical standpoint.  Work on getting more proper exposure within the limits of your camera's settings, and shoot ISO 100 or nothing else.  If you don't have enough light, too bad.  Higher ISO's on pro-sumer cameras (if that is what you are using) are mostly worthless, as the grain produced outweighs the amount of time you'll need to spend in post-processing to remove it.  Churches, insects, sunsets... are all a photo reviewer's worst nightmare.   Even if it gets through, it's not going to make you "fast money".  Work on better subject matter, and push the limits of your equipment so you can make a few dollars before investing more into better quality glass/camera body.

I commend you on your endeavors, but stock isn't as easy to make a living at, as it seems.  Even if you're an advanced amateur, or professional right out of the gate.  I recently referred my friend's wife as a shutterstock contributor (I sold my old DSLR camera body to her, and gave her some instruction) and she is shooting amazing food images.  She earns 5-10 subscription downloads per day, on a good day.   What is that, about $25-30 per month (before taxes)  This isn't "fast money".  She has about 300 images approved already, in the past 3 months.  And I have to say, her food images are outstanding, for a noob.  Borderline cooking-magazine-worthy.  Stock imagery is much more competitive today.  Now, monthly earnings per image is 1/4th to 1/5th of what it used to be.  It is a struggle, and if you live week-to-week with your finances, you will fail miserably in this business even before you've started. 

Keep shooting, and best wishes.  Practice makes perfect.  You won't learn what really sells and what will get approved, until you start uploading.  Work on recognizing commercial value, even before you put the camera to your face.

[Difydave]

My 100% honest truth critique, no bull. 

You have some nice shots you might share on instagram or facebook here, but the majority of what I'm seeing isn't stock.  The quality is sub-par, and you will need to work on these images a ton in post processing to pass inspection just on a technical standpoint.  Churches, insects, sunsets... all a photo reviewer's worst nightmare.   Even if it gets through, it's not going to make you "fast money".  Work on better subject matter, and push the limits of your equipment so you can make a few dollars before investing more into better quality glass/camera body.

I commend you on your endeavors, but stock isn't as easy to make a living at, as it seems.  Even if you're an advanced amateur, or professional right out of the gate.  I recently referred my friend's wife as a shutterstock contributor (I sold my old DSLR camera body to her, and gave her some instruction) and she is shooting amazing food images.  She earns 5-10 subscription downloads per day, on a good day.   What is that, about $25-30 per month (before taxes)   This isn't "fast money".  She has about 300 images approved already, in the past 3 months.  And I have to say, her food images are outstanding, for a noob.  Borderline cooking-magazine-worthy.  Stock imagery is much more competitive today.  Now, monthly earnings per image is 1/4th to 1/5th of what it used to be.  It is a struggle, and if you live week-to-week with your finances, you will fail miserably in this business even before you've started. 

Keep shooting, and best wishes.  Practice makes perfect.  You won't learn what really sells and what will get approved, until you start uploading.  Work on recognizing commercial value, even before you put the camera to your face.

Which is almost exactly the same as my opinion.
With the greatest respect, you are not at present "a photographer". 
You are technically way off. You need to study lighting, and/or use of natural light, understand aperture and depth of field. Composition. Post processing. The list is endless. Then you start on stock. What might sell (there is no definite there) seeing trends, finding niche subjects.
And shoot, shoot, shoot. . .
You are very quickly going to find the limitations of your equipment. The shots you have put up here are full of noise, purple fringing and Chromatic aberration.
Again, good luck with this. I honestly think that you need to go away and learn about the basics of good photography before joining the race that this business is. Plenty of books and online tutorials are available. 
 

[Hermitlog]

No troll here, if you don't value the small you don't deserve the big.

It seems I have a larger task before me than I have anticipated at first, but I will try.

Do you think making 3D models or icons for shutterstock would sell for me better?

Maybe I post some of my work tomorrow.

[mojaric]

.

[Shelma1]

No troll here, if you don't value the small you don't deserve the big.

It seems I have a larger task before me than I have anticipated at first, but I will try.

Do you think making 3D models or icons for shutterstock would sell for me better?

Maybe I post some of my work tomorrow.

I think things are somewhat easier for illustrators, but it sounds like you don't have the right software. (Do you have Illustrator?) Also, icons are very thoroughly covered on all the sites. I don't do 3D so can't advise you on that.

The same advice applies to illustration as to photography�you have to draw with the end consumer in mind, find niches that aren't done to death, and develop a style or at least a strategic approach to what you draw. There's a lot of competition out there and it's tough. However, it is doable. And you might be able to make some money by uploading simpler stuff that will help support you a little financially as you learn and improve. Take the "entrance exam" on iStock to learn all the rules you'll have to follow to apply to the stock sites.

Whether you do photography or illustration, there's a learning curve. We've all been through it.

[ArenaCreative]

No troll here, if you don't value the small you don't deserve the big.

It seems I have a larger task before me than I have anticipated at first, but I will try.

Do you think making 3D models or icons for shutterstock would sell for me better?

Maybe I post some of my work tomorrow.

Do you have any graphic design experience?  Experience with Photoshop / Illustrator / or 3D software?  If you don't, you will have a long journey ahead going the "digital illustration for stock" route as well.  Do what you love, get even better at it, and you'll love what you do.  At the end of the day, everything is hard work, hunger, persistence, and quality execution.  There are no shortcuts.  Even if you follow all of the tutorials that you can find online about "how to make a glossy icon" or "vector background tutorial" you will still be competing with the masses, who have already done the same things.  Work smarter, not harder.  Some things are just not worth the time or efforts put forth.  Pissing in the wind is only enjoyable if you just got stuck on the leg by a jellyfish. 

Personally, if I had to talk to myself... and I were in a new position to go full time with microstock, RIGHT now.... today... I would say, dude - honestly?  Don't waste your time.  This business is nowhere nearly as lucrative as it was 10 years ago.  If all I wanted to do was pull in some side money for a rainy day, then that would be a different story.

[Semmick Photo]

Personally, if I had to talk to myself... and I were in a new position to go full time with microstock, RIGHT now.... today... I would say, dude - honestly?  Don't waste your time.  This business is nowhere nearly as lucrative as it was 10 years ago.  If all I wanted to do was pull in some side money for a rainy day, then that would be a different story.

He made $400 in a good month in his day job. Stock photography could still be lucrative to him. Consider different cultures than yours when giving advice.

[Shelma1]

I agree...it's totally doable to work up to $400/month even now. Just takes time, talent, strategy and perseverance.

[ArenaCreative]

Personally, if I had to talk to myself... and I were in a new position to go full time with microstock, RIGHT now.... today... I would say, dude - honestly?  Don't waste your time.  This business is nowhere nearly as lucrative as it was 10 years ago.  If all I wanted to do was pull in some side money for a rainy day, then that would be a different story.

He made $400 in a good month in his day job. Stock photography could still be lucrative to him. Consider different cultures than yours when giving advice.

Okay, so $400/month - big deal... how does that change the advice?  With images like the OP posted, he would need a lot of them to pull in $400/month.  I'd estimate 15,000-25,000 at least... and factoring in that at least 50% would be rejected by the image inspectors.  Add in some developed skill, some creative and technical improvement, and things will begin to change.  You go ahead and try to get even 5000 quality images approved on Shutterstock, over the next 12 months.  Have fun finding time to eat, sleep, and spend time with your family.  The OP is looking for fast money, something he can jump right into and start making a decent living, with growth potential. 

I'm not here to argue, or to discourage anyone from trying their hand at microstock.  I wish this guy the best, just like anyone else who wants to put in the hard work.  It takes a lot of hard work, but sometimes even that isn't enough. 


 

[Difydave]

I agree...it's totally doable to work up to $400/month even now. Just takes time, talent, strategy and perseverance.

I agree, but a wise strategy IMO would be to diversify with something else out of stock entirely. Too volatile to be relied on alone. The OP seems ready to learn, and that may give him some income out of this in the longer term, but if I were him I'd want another income stream as well. He mentions woodwork for instance.   

[Semmick Photo]

Personally, if I had to talk to myself... and I were in a new position to go full time with microstock, RIGHT now.... today... I would say, dude - honestly?  Don't waste your time. This business is nowhere nearly as lucrative as it was 10 years ago.  If all I wanted to do was pull in some side money for a rainy day, then that would be a different story.

He made $400 in a good month in his day job. Stock photography could still be lucrative to him. Consider different cultures than yours when giving advice.

Okay, so $400/month - big deal... how does that change the advice?  With images like the OP posted, he would need a lot of them to pull in $400/month.  I'd estimate 15,000-25,000 at least... and factoring in that at least 50% would be rejected by the image inspectors.  Add in some developed skill, some creative and technical improvement, and things will begin to change.  You go ahead and try to get even 5000 quality images approved on Shutterstock, over the next 12 months.  Have fun finding time to eat, sleep, and spend time with your family.  The OP is looking for fast money, something he can jump right into and start making a decent living, with growth potential. 

I'm not here to argue, or to discourage anyone from trying their hand at microstock.  I wish this guy the best, just like anyone else who wants to put in the hard work.  It takes a lot of hard work, but sometimes even that isn't enough. 


 

You said dont waste your time. I made $400 with 1200 images back in 2013, 18 months after  started from being a complete amateur without a clue. It wont suffice to support me, but it does him. Thats why I said consider different cultures.

I am not here to argue either, I Just wouldnt advice him not to go for it. I think your advice is poor, thats my opinion.

[topol]

This is waaay below any standard you need for stock. Actually these would hardly qualify even for tourist snap shots.

also I don't really understand why ppl come to any forum asking what you need for stock photography. Go to shutterstock.com, type a few basic keywords / combinations, like "beautiful woman" "smiling woman" "beautiful brunette" "food" "fitness" "relaxed female" "female thinking" and see what comes in the first few rows - that's what you need to do, and large amounts of it... by the hundreds at least, but more like by the thousands.

If you can do it, go ahead. If not, don't bother.

[Tryingmybest]

Fast, probably not�unless you have 30,000 people shots with signed model releases (or illustrations with reference images). It will take many years of sacrifice and starvation. But if you stay focused, it can happen.

Sorry, I cant take a risk on downloading a zip of files.

Hello!

I want to start stock photography, because I became unemployed and I need to make a living fast.

But first I need to know, if my pictures contain at least 10 that worth a try. I would like to join Shutterstock.

If you have the time, could you please mark the pictures that are good for submission, or if not, what are the errors.

Thank you very much.

P.S. Pictures are in a zip file. I wont post the pictures to shutterstock with the copyright mark.

http://www.2shared.com/file/V9E3tMaK/kldeni.html

[ArenaCreative]

I did actually say that would be the advice I'd give MYSELF.  I did offer an example of what a portfolio of 300 newly uploaded food images was returning, for my friend.  I can't personally live on $400/month; but that might pay for my groceries, my prepaid cell phone, and a tank of gas.  I wish I lived in a country where money went further.  If I weren't tied down, and wanted to live a little bit more adventurously, I'd do so. 

There is no such thing as a standard R.P.I. Semmick.  If it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.  You can't assume that Hermitlog is already at the same skill level you are; or that he will be able to hit the right subjects that you hit, when you submitted your first 1200 images.  Artist A can submit 100 images and earn $50/month from them, while Artist B uploads 100 and only earns just $5/month.   

[Semmick Photo]

Sorry, but you are putting a lot of words in my mouth and I did even mention I was an amateur like him. Its like you didnt even read my comment. Anyhoo, no worries.

[EmberMike]

... I made $400 with 1200 images back in 2013, 18 months after I started from being a complete amateur without a clue. It wont suffice to support me, but it does him...

It will support him if he can reach the same sort of level you did in 18 months. Can he do it faster? Who knows, but from what he's showing, he's got a long way to go.

The point being, he lost his job and needs to make money soon. I don't get the feeling he has the luxury of a year or more to wait to ramp up to $300-400 per month. So the answers he's getting about not wasting his time, well, I think they're fair answers. Unless he's got enough money socked away somewhere to wait over a year to build up a microstock portfolio that can earn a few hundred per month, he would indeed be wasting his time, especially in the short-term when he really needs to be doing something that has more immediate returns.

[EmberMike]

...Do you think making 3D models or icons for shutterstock would sell for me better?...

No. At least not with icons. That's a highly saturated image type. I've put up a few sets of icons recently on SS and they don't sell at all.

[Jo Ann Snover]

I think that a bigger problem than your lack of technical skill (which definitely is a problem) is that you appear not to know that what you're looking at is not good - not good composition or lighting and generally without any clear subject. Without that basic eye for design and story telling you will have a hard time with illustration, 3D modeling, photography or anything visual.

You certainly have some determination to your credit. Sometimes people know their images aren't any good - not even nice snapshots - but they don't know how to make them better. That can be fixed by learning technical skills.

If you honestly thought these were pleasing images (forget even being good stock) then you need to wait to learn techniques until you have some notion of light, shadow, composition and telling a story visually.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think it helps to sugar coat things.

And if you knew these images were awful, what made you think they might work as stock? Do some searches on Shutterstock or Stocksy and look at the images there. That's your competition.

Good luck

[No Free Lunch]

2011, I started without any photography background whatsoever- didn't even take any art courses while in high school. I hooked up with a mentor (stock reviewer) and she had me do homework assignments for her (mostly lighting). Than I worked with other microstockers (much higher end than me) to continue to up my game. This business is rough to try to learn on your own- get with someone that has the photo skills and quickly learn the business side- there are books available that show you the basics that really helped me initially. 

Yes, you still can make money in this business but remember this, "There is no free lunch anymore"...

[Rage]

I think you should try a reshoot. You live in a place that most of us seem to have no experience with. So capture things like local festivals (or objects related to them), local people doing everyday things (get friends and family to pose for you and get a model release), local landmarks etc.

Photos that sell are photos that others can use, perhaps a site outlining a trip to your city, maybe a blog covering great places to visit, maybe just an ad agency wanting to build a local advertising campaign. Think what they would want, how they can use the image you are making.

Go to SS, iS and all the rest, search about your county and what people have already put up. Learn from that and fill in the gaps. Head to the most popular sections, see if you can build something there. Read read read about stock, about cameras, about the market, about photography etc

[Sebastian Radu]

No troll here, if you don't value the small you don't deserve the big.

It seems I have a larger task before me than I have anticipated at first, but I will try.

Do you think making 3D models or icons for shutterstock would sell for me better?

Maybe I post some of my work tomorrow.

My opinion is to do what you love because you love it, not to earn those 400$. When you do what you love time is running out differently and you realize that you do great sacrifices to continuously improve your technique without feeling as you get tired.

First you have to make good photos, not money !

I wish you success and make decisions with heart 

[Difydave]

I think that a bigger problem than your lack of technical skill (which definitely is a problem) is that you appear not to know that what you're looking at is not good - not good composition or lighting and generally without any clear subject. Without that basic eye for design and story telling you will have a hard time with illustration, 3D modeling, photography or anything visual.

You certainly have some determination to your credit. Sometimes people know their images aren't any good - not even nice snapshots - but they don't know how to make them better. That can be fixed by learning technical skills.

If you honestly thought these were pleasing images (forget even being good stock) then you need to wait to learn techniques until you have some notion of light, shadow, composition and telling a story visually.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think it helps to sugar coat things.

And if you knew these images were awful, what made you think they might work as stock? Do some searches on Shutterstock or Stocksy and look at the images there. That's your competition.

Good luck

Perhaps we should actually start these threads by asking the OP what they think of their own work.
Possibly the hardest thing to learn is the artistic skill of how to turn what is seen with the eye into an interesting, (and hopefully "sellable as stock") photograph. To actually look at what is in the viewfinder. Technical skills are relatively easy.
Someone said here (I think) ages ago that they knew a skilled photographer who could take shots of the most mundane subjects and make money out of them.

[60D]

I think that a bigger problem than your lack of technical skill (which definitely is a problem) is that you appear not to know that what you're looking at is not good - not good composition or lighting and generally without any clear subject. Without that basic eye for design and story telling you will have a hard time with illustration, 3D modeling, photography or anything visual.

You certainly have some determination to your credit. Sometimes people know their images aren't any good - not even nice snapshots - but they don't know how to make them better. That can be fixed by learning technical skills.

If you honestly thought these were pleasing images (forget even being good stock) then you need to wait to learn techniques until you have some notion of light, shadow, composition and telling a story visually.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think it helps to sugar coat things.

And if you knew these images were awful, what made you think they might work as stock? Do some searches on Shutterstock or Stocksy and look at the images there. That's your competition.

Good luck

Perhaps we should actually start these threads by asking the OP what they think of their own work.
Possibly the hardest thing to learn is the artistic skill of how to turn what is seen with the eye into an interesting, (and hopefully "sellable as stock") photograph. To actually look at what is in the viewfinder. Technical skills are relatively easy.
Someone said here (I think) ages ago that they knew a skilled photographer who could take shots of the most mundane subjects and make money out of them.

"Beauty can be seen in all things, seeing and composing the beauty is what separates the snapshot from the photograph." - Matt Hardy

[cathyslife]

Compositionally, I see some potential in a few, but as mentioned earlier, technically they are not good. Take, for instance, the image of the house sitting in the trees with the lake and mountains in the background. There is no detail at all in the shadows where the house is. Those trees should be green instead of almost black. And with the closeup of the spider that is yellow and black...the highlights have been blown out on a good portion of the spider. Not sure if you used a tripod, but on macro shots, you must, or you will get blur.

I notice on some them there are harsh shadows, meaning there wasn't enough light and/or your flash didn't fire. Lighting will be a big challenge.

There are articles online about people who shoot with point-and-shoot cameras such as yours, and they get beautiful, stock-worthy results. Maybe you could search for some tips on how to get more out of what you have to work with.

I really like the mood of the image of the sunset in the marshes. You got some lens flare from shooting into the sun and there are other technical issues, but if the technical issues were fixed, I can see how it might be used commercially. As well as with a few others you posted.

I would suggest doing a lot of research to learn what makes a good image, and then do a lot of shooting. We ALL started out where you did, and some of us have some beginner shots still in our portfolios, especially those of us who started 10 or more years ago in microstock.

[Semmick Photo]

Its a quick mock up but it gives you an idea of where to take it. Skies with clouds are ten times better. If you loose color because of shooting into the sun, or on a overcast day, you can always try black and white. You can also use photoshop to create some interesting compositions.