pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I want to be good at this, but I'm just missing something. Advice, please.  (Read 33363 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 02, 2014, 07:42 »
0
Comment to the picture above:
So my advice to you, if you want to become good in stock:
Shoot icons. If you can even make your own new icon, you get en the several ciffers dls pr image.
Shoot keywords, and not artsy pictures.
Think customers, and forget about fancy lenses and techniques.

What do you mean by icons?


« Reply #76 on: August 02, 2014, 07:44 »
0
F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.

Sigh. Apparently that isn't a magic bullet either. I just had this one rejected even after downsizing to 25mp:
July 30 2014_21.jpg by Trevarthan, on Flickr

Reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2014, 08:46 »
0
This last one is genuinely grainy. I'm not going to fault the reviewers here. I think I might be able to solve the focus problems by tilting the lens and using f8 instead of f16. My only other option is to focus stack. Then, to remove the grain, I think I'd have to do an exposure bracket and blend in post. This would be challenging, as the light is constantly changing at that time of night, but I'm going to try it and see what I can accomplish.

« Reply #78 on: August 02, 2014, 12:01 »
+13
I am going contrary to most of the advice here. You, like me, are not in it to feed your family, but rather to get a return on an activity you enjoy and make a few bucks to further your expensive hobby. That's what I do. I've surpassed $18,000 all time on SS and a few dollars more on other sites. One went belly up recently, so I really only have SS and one other. That suits me just fine.

I shoot what I want and what interests me. If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work. For instance, I've never been interested in studio work, models with releases or 17,000 varieties of business people posing in front of a white background. There are plenty of folks who are good at that and ready to (over)supply the market.

Ever since my army career in public information (writer and photographer) I've been interested in photojournalism and that's mainly what I do, along with the usual grist for my amateur's mill. I'm happy. I get to afford excellent equipment. I roam my territory photographing as the mood strikes me.

I really think you should photograph what you love. Maybe examine those images of yours that DO sell critically see if there is a common denominator that made them interesting to buyers. Good luck!

« Reply #79 on: August 02, 2014, 12:18 »
0
I am going contrary to most of the advice here. You, like me, are not in it to feed your family, but rather to get a return on an activity you enjoy and make a few bucks to further your expensive hobby. That's what I do. I've surpassed $18,000 all time on SS and a few dollars more on other sites. One went belly up recently, so I really only have SS and one other. That suits me just fine.

I shoot what I want and what interests me. If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work. For instance, I've never been interested in studio work, models with releases or 17,000 varieties of business people posing in front of a white background. There are plenty of folks who are good at that and ready to (over)supply the market.

Ever since my army career in public information (writer and photographer) I've been interested in photojournalism and that's mainly what I do, along with the usual grist for my amateur's mill. I'm happy. I get to afford excellent equipment. I roam my territory photographing as the mood strikes me.

I really think you should photograph what you love. Maybe examine those images of yours that DO sell critically see if there is a common denominator that made them interesting to buyers. Good luck!

well said, sir !  i don't know how many stock photographers i met who have pretty much had it with all that has been going on with microstock ( mad rejection inconsistency at SS, dc at fotolia, istock everything that went belly up and arse forward, dreamstime the little engine that didn't ...to quote another knowledgeable regular here,... oh the list is endless), and the sad refrain is "i burn out and lost interest in photography".

this is tragic, because it is not photography that burnt you out, it is the total anal structure of the microstock and G culture.
then again, many started stock photography as a business, so like many who lost their drawers during the market crash, they throw in the towel before they reach stress level of dangerous BP , blocked arteries, etc.

i think the balance way as Who's Pete Townsend used to say, or Sting, or so many tennis greats say..."i do it for myself first... i master the game... and then let the money come by itself. i will do it even if there is one person in the spectator section"

good advice, although not everyone will agree. we make our bed...

« Reply #80 on: August 02, 2014, 12:35 »
+4
"If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work."

Lots of people are doing things they may not 'enjoy' and still do excellent work.  Just because your 'passion' is not necessarily served by shooting someone I a suit, you could (hopefully, as a professional) still produce work that feeds your family.  The whole 'enjoy' thing is a bit of a cop out.

« Reply #81 on: August 02, 2014, 12:51 »
+1
...Then something else: The waterfall is a fine artistic picture, but it is not a good stock photo. It is not iconic (visual representation of a concept) enough and the keywords that describe it are mixed: waterfall, wood, green, forest, river, rock and more.
Now imagine a picture with only these 2 keywords: waterfall, blue.
Not that there couldnt be other keywords, but imagine an image with a content of mostly blue and waterfall.
That would make the customer happy when he searched for exactly that.
The more mixed your content and keywords is in the file, the more searches it becomes irellevant for.

....

of course,  by concentrating on the blue waterfall, you miss fulfilling searches for "rock waterfall", "river rock", etc

so having an image with many relevant keywords gives you more chances. esp'ly with an oversupplied topic like 'waterfall' you want to give yourself as many chances as possible

« Reply #82 on: August 02, 2014, 12:57 »
+2
I think what it boils down to is that right now I'm most interested in landscapes, whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters. I'm either going to solve that problem (I'm trying a lot of new things right now), or I'm going to give up and decide to shoot something else.

I haven't given up on the landscapes yet, and I probably won't unless I decide that the only kind of landscape that makes it through the filter is the kind I'm not interested in shooting. I haven't seen that yet. I've just seen me botch a couple of landscapes, technically. I can do better, and will.

Feeding my family isn't an issue right now, thankfully. I'm gainfully employed as a software engineer. From a high level, this is about the pursuit of happiness and (hopefully) retirement. It's about getting paid to do something I enjoy. It's about solving a single problem (because that's what I do best), then using what I learned to solve other problems.

I may find a nice niche market for my landscapes within microstock sites. I may not. I can't know the answer to that question without figuring out how to elevate my work to a level that passes the review filters. So, while I appreciate the feedback to focus on other things and listen to the market, let's keep the discussion technical for now, because that's where I think I need to improve the most.

« Reply #83 on: August 02, 2014, 13:07 »
0
whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters.

which review filters? there are so many sites to the right of Tyler's forum. just because we make money mostly with SStock does not mean you cannot make money with other sites. we have other ppl here who say they make more with the single digit sites .
the competition is stiff for sure with SStock,as with the need to be business only to know what SS sells. but it does not mean other sites will not sell for you.

you market your niche for the site that sells those type of work you make.
or you can ebay it yourself, as i know a few who have quit microstock to market their own "waterfalls, scenics,..." and they told me they will "never" come back to microstock .
obviously, they are finding better $ there , or else they would not have remove their portfolio from the top ten sites that were paying the rent for them .

write your own story.   we come here to learn the legalities,etc.. but the rest of it,
depends on our own making.

« Reply #84 on: August 02, 2014, 13:25 »
0
whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters.

which review filters? there are so many sites to the right of Tyler's forum. just because we make money mostly with SStock does not mean you cannot make money with other sites. we have other ppl here who say they make more with the single digit sites .
the competition is stiff for sure with SStock,as with the need to be business only to know what SS sells. but it does not mean other sites will not sell for you.

I don't understand your logic here. If SStock sells best for the majority, it makes sense to learn how to pass their review filters.

In particular, I enjoy their turn around time. istock takes weeks to reply sometimes. SStock only takes 24 hours. That's a much better learn -> change -> resubmit cycle.

« Reply #85 on: August 02, 2014, 14:05 »
0
SStock do not always take 24 hours. You are in the low season and during this time, I used to get approval within the hour.
The approval time varies dependant on the period . My logic is that other sites may make as much money for you . Lifestyle makes a lot more than waterfalls.
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?keyword_search=1&searchterm=waterfall&search_group=images%2C&prev_sort_method=popular&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=undiscovered&sort_method=relevance2&page=1
you can measure if you can cut it with your own by looking at the sellers here.

I make 90% of my sales with Shutterstock, but I don't shoot waterfalls. And with Shutterstock, if you do not record sales within a week or that month with your new images, you can forget about it being a regular earner for you. The ones on page one, do just that upon approval.

Just based on my own portfolio and other consensus.

« Reply #86 on: August 02, 2014, 15:35 »
0
F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.

Sigh. Apparently that isn't a magic bullet either. I just had this one rejected even after downsizing to 25mp:
July 30 2014_21.jpg by Trevarthan, on Flickr

Reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

+ robhainer
even with the best lenses, there is no evidence that f16 is the sweet spot. and most often it isn't.
thus explaining the softness due to defraction,etc.
it would be better to use ND filter to allow one to use the sweet spot , as opposed to just stopping down to f 16.

« Reply #87 on: August 02, 2014, 15:42 »
0
I don't understand your logic here. If SStock sells best for the majority, it makes sense to learn how to pass their review filters.

In particular, I enjoy their turn around time. istock takes weeks to reply sometimes. SStock only takes 24 hours. That's a much better learn -> change -> resubmit cycle.

i repeat the 2nd comment on first page by Mr. Locke for my logic...
"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."

Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell.
[/b]

Mark Windom Photography

« Reply #88 on: August 02, 2014, 15:45 »
0
F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.

Sigh. Apparently that isn't a magic bullet either. I just had this one rejected even after downsizing to 25mp:
July 30 2014_21.jpg by Trevarthan, on Flickr

Reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

I see this was shot at f16 so diffraction probably caused the supposed softness particularly if the rest of your technique was solid.  And at ISO 400 with a 30 sec exposure noise would've been a factor as well....did you run it through a noise reduction program, either that in LR or something else?
I don't have any experience with the D810 (yet) but I do know that with my D800 at ISO 400 and a long exposure noise would have been a problem.
Hang in there.  You obviously have good compositional skills; a few minor tweaks here and there and you'll be sailing through the inspection process.  BTW, we all get rejections for one reason or another.   ;) 
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 15:48 by Mark Windom Photography »

« Reply #89 on: August 02, 2014, 16:04 »
0
another factor which may not be indicated is the grafitti. it would be better to clone them off, as some sites will consider graffiti as a reason to rejection.  even in editorials, it still, i am sure, nicer to have this bridge clean as no one would want to perpetuate that grafitti. not unless you are the one who placed it there.
as for denoise . perharps u remove noise generally, as one frame. it might have been better if u just reduced noise locally with marquee, leaving the rest unaffected to cause the softness due to pixel movement.

another tuppence worth of my idea to help, hopefully.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 16:08 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #90 on: August 02, 2014, 17:17 »
0
I see this was shot at f16 so diffraction probably caused the supposed softness particularly if the rest of your technique was solid.  And at ISO 400 with a 30 sec exposure noise would've been a factor as well....did you run it through a noise reduction program, either that in LR or something else?
I don't have any experience with the D810 (yet) but I do know that with my D800 at ISO 400 and a long exposure noise would have been a problem.

Yup. Lots of noise. I was quite surprised. I could have shot ISO 64 if I calculated the exposure length properly and manually shot longer than 30 seconds with my shutter release cable. I didn't have a chart for that on hand though and can't do the math in my head yet.

I think the best solution for noise would have been an exposure blended shot, in this case.

As for f16... I'm going to try to shoot this scene using tilt at f8. We'll see if I can manage to make that look ok or not.

« Reply #91 on: August 03, 2014, 12:42 »
+1
whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters.
...you market your niche for the site that sells those type of work you make.
or you can ebay it yourself, as i know a few who have quit microstock to market their own "waterfalls, scenics,..." and they told me they will "never" come back to microstock .
obviously, they are finding better $ there , or else they would not have remove their portfolio from the top ten sites that were paying the rent for them .
.....


if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely

you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices


« Reply #92 on: August 03, 2014, 12:49 »
0
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely

you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices

good point.
no cascoly, not dls, they are selling framed-prints of their own work.

« Reply #93 on: August 04, 2014, 18:53 »
0
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely

you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices

good point.
no cascoly, not dls, they are selling framed-prints of their own work.

ok, that's a much tougher sell, -- good to hear someone's making a go of it.  before they prohibited it, digital sales thru ebay were a small but steady income source.  a few  people were scamming the system to inflate feedback, so they took their usual sledgehammer approach and banned everyone rather than just hitting the tricksters

« Reply #94 on: August 06, 2014, 03:25 »
0
...

if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely

you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
So selling digital images in ebay is not allowed? I just read about this here newbielink:http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html [nonactive] and also found some vendors in ebay who sell digital images and when you buy them the vendor sends the file attached in e-mail.

« Reply #95 on: August 06, 2014, 12:21 »
0
SStock do not always take 24 hours. You are in the low season and during this time, I used to get approval within the hour.
The approval time varies dependant on the period .


I didn't intend that statement to mean that shutterstock ALWAYS reviews within 24 hours. I meant that for me, the average was within 24 hours, which is way better than the multi-week istockphoto average review time.

Officially, shutterstock aims to review within 10 days: http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#How long does it take for content to be reviewed?

« Reply #96 on: August 06, 2014, 14:05 »
0
SStock do not always take 24 hours. You are in the low season and during this time, I used to get approval within the hour.
The approval time varies dependant on the period .


I didn't intend that statement to mean that shutterstock ALWAYS reviews within 24 hours. I meant that for me, the average was within 24 hours, which is way better than the multi-week istockphoto average review time.

Officially, shutterstock aims to review within 10 days: http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#How long does it take for content to be reviewed?


not to worry, matey... it wasn't meant to correct anything u said, just a general statement
to say the review can take anything from within the hour to days, depending on the traffic.

« Reply #97 on: August 06, 2014, 16:12 »
+2
Shutterstock accepted this one today, graffiti and all:


Latest Iteration by Trevarthan, on Flickr

I don't like the colors as much as the one I posted earlier, but it's definitely a sharper image. Taken at f8, with the bridge girders in sharp focus all the way down the path. I took a little time to learn the math behind my tilt shift lenses, making this cool chart in the process:


Nikon Tilt in Degrees for Distance (web) by Trevarthan, on Flickr

Then I used a 1 degree tilt on my 24mm PC-e to take the shot.

I may retake the photo sometime using focus stacking. We'll see. Glad to have it approved though. Now I can move on to some other scene. I'm hoping this means I'm starting to get a grip on the technical side of things and understand where the "bar" is.

f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 16:15 by trevarthan »

« Reply #98 on: August 06, 2014, 16:44 »
0
f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.

f8 sounds pretty possible to be the sweet spot. most lenses stop down 2, 21/2 , 3, for that.
and in my case, with most of my working lenses, i found f8 to be the sweet spot.
congrats on both approval of this image and finding f8.

Goofy

« Reply #99 on: August 06, 2014, 22:23 »
0
"If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work."

Lots of people are doing things they may not 'enjoy' and still do excellent work.  Just because your 'passion' is not necessarily served by shooting someone I a suit, you could (hopefully, as a professional) still produce work that feeds your family.  The whole 'enjoy' thing is a bit of a cop out.

I hear on this one! I hate my daytime job with passion! But it pays 10 times more than my earnings in this business thus I am stuck until I can officially retire (4 more years) and get a full retirement.  The MS world gives me a break from my day job and more satisfaction hands down.  8)



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
9700 Views
Last post February 04, 2008, 13:00
by strikerx98
Missing Funds

Started by Phillip Minnis « 1 2  All » Veer

34 Replies
8332 Views
Last post March 17, 2012, 14:54
by bittersweet
1 Replies
2042 Views
Last post March 31, 2012, 13:54
by S.
6 Replies
3928 Views
Last post April 11, 2012, 17:01
by pancaketom
12 Replies
2233 Views
Last post August 07, 2013, 12:20
by Anita Potter

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors