MicrostockGroup

I won't bother you with the specifics, but more so in the subject matter part of the rejection reason.

Nature photographers , as they say , are  a dime a dozen.
Even if you succeeded on technicalities and composition, you have to have something outstanding that brings you away from the horde of nature shots.
Perharps if you had something or in some location that is not so available,
or something that is difficult to capture.

To cut things short, I would say, peruse IS and see how many "nature" images they already have. It's easy to shoot nature images of just about anything that green.
But as one nature photographer I know, and yes, he sells loads of stock images,
told me, "it's not that nature photos are crap. it's that they are so many. so if you want to sell , make sure it's something incredible".

or else, try branching out and shoot other categories that are available in your location, but are not so common. I am sure there are lots of things you can find, that others don't have the access to photographing them.

Go beyond your comfort zone, because this comfort zone you are in, is like full of others doing the same thing.
Hope this helps.  Above all, spend more time at IS to get a complete grasp of what you can branch off into, or look at the successful nature photographers and see why they are successful.

Lastly, don't let ego come into play. Leave them at your door,  even your subjectivity. many times, my favourites are the last thing that anyone will buy.
I don't submit them, if ever.

As one of our auspicious best sellers here pointed out in one of the thread,
"stock photography is not about  xxx....  it's a business".

and good luck.

I just looked at one, and could not fault it. I'd say the noise reduction is high - giving it a bit of a painterly appearance - which many people will like.

This image has a subtle sort of appeal and I would say that microtocks aren't into subtlety.

What dp you mean by "pixel distortion" in this case?  

I take issue with the "blown out" critique.  The sun is starting to come through the clouds and hit the water in the background, it would appear "blown out" to your eyes as well as to the camera, but to me that's a part of the photo.

I do see the slight purple fringe.

Thanks for the input, everyone, and keep it coming! I'd like to address some of the comments and questions so far.

"Did they suggest you try again or they just said no thanks?"  They did say to wait 3 days and try again. We might do that.

"I'd say the noise reduction is high...", "they're heavily processed..." There is very little NR or processing on the first two (the birches in fog and the winding road), the dock picture is HDR, otherwise it would be completely blown highlights and black silhouettes. We used just enough processing to make them pop and not look like dull RAW captures.

The cameras used were Canon DSLRs. Rebel on the windy road, 20d on the others. "L" lenses were used for all of them.

I'll take into account the technical issues brought up, but keep in mind IS referenced "composition of your photography or subject matter", not tech issues.
Keep the critiques coming, we really appreciate the time you are putting into it.

A 20D with L glass shouldn't be producing those results. Somthing in your workflow is pulling the detail out.

Regarding thier rejection for subject matter they are known for giving one reason at a time. So it's highly likely that if you find three acceptable subjects you'll get rejected the next time for technical issues like "overfiltered" and "lighting".

Keep in mind nature is a pretty well covered category so even if you do get some stuff accepted chances are good they'll be buried and sales may be slim. But you never know.

Yap, and it's easy to solve. (sample at 200%).


The blowout is easy to cure too, even from JPG if necessary (top is my quickedit):

I think your problem is that you supplied three landscape shots.

The purpose of the iStock application is to prove you have the ability to make commercially viable imagery. Are your images good enough to be accepted once you've been approved at iStock? Yes, they probably are. But as a group they clearly aren't good enough to prove you've got the muster to be a commercial photographer. And that's what this industry is all about: making commercial imagery. That you can make pretty pictures like the ones you provided is just a bonus.

Here's what I'd do:
I like the winding road shot - it's got a lot going for it, but you might want to clean it up a little (overhead wire, truck in the background, missing white line, stray leaves, ...) and punch up the fall colour a bit. Ditch the other two shots in favour of something completely different - something that isn't nature-related at all. Your 'potter's afternoon', 'sailboat', 'The Iverson House' might be good candidates.

The technical comments listed earlier are, in my opinion, not entirely valid for the iStock application process. The application process is completely separate from the image submission process, and if the application inspectors found technical problems with your images they would have likely informed you. Or maybe they didn't get to looking that closely - who's to say.


Make your next application wisely, and good luck!

Yes, I agree, but right now his challenge is in fact getting accepted.

The points you and others brought up may very well be valid, but they're not the thing that's currently holding him back. Just take a second to read why iStock rejected his application: "...we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto." Nothing at all was said about technical flaws, which is why I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Err, my remarks were exactly the same as yours ;-)
His shots are noisy (the road), blown out (sky, sea, above trees), fringed (the sea). Sometimes you have to be nice. The times of landscapes are over. What the world needs now is more girls with headsets. ;-)

I could be wrong, but I believe the Istock language of "overall composition of your photography" includes the lighting composition.

I love the first one...lol.. why . couldn't they have made that road straight. This = a great concept

good points too, ShadySue. but I need to explain my "unusual". I don't mean strange or odd subject.
by that I mean, many nature photographers seem to take the generic images which as Paulie and everyone else from IS have mentioned 1) there's too many already (2) they don't sell even if you're approved.

nature is not simply taking what is there in front of you.
there are lots of excellent nature shots, but we need to make them more generic, other than just a nice nature shot.
i think many times ppl like paulie , sharply_done, etc.. have suggested including other inanimate  point of interest , .. i recall something s_d said a long time ago...
this is nice, but if you had maybe a man in an overcoat with an umbrella,
an oldsmobile, etc..

that's what i mean but "unusual". it brings your "ah, not another nature shot" to something conceptual.
this also increases the possibility of selling that "nature" shot.

that's what i mean by "unusual".  it's not impossible to creative conceptual shots from "found" nature
shots. you just need to bring in something or shoot it from a different perspective.

and once again, it isn't the technicality at this stage. it's to find out if you can indeed produce sellable images. thus, again as already pointed out , IS wants to see that variety, not just 3 of your favourite shots... but 3 of what you can do other than just a nice shot.

after you passed that stage, then you can bring in all those same old same old.
however, that still doesn't guarantee you that IS will approve them.

many times, others have had their initial entries accepted to be contributors,
but the same shots were then rejected on the other criteria .
which is why you have to give them 3 different genres and 3 of the very best.
it's only 3, not 10.

that being said, I feel it's no longer enough to just submit work to get approved.
It has to be something more ambitious. You're not just going to be shooting the same old same old, and expect to get to Vetta.
Look at Vetta, it's no just the same old same old.
I think any newbie, or even the old and experienced has to see the long view
instead of just making that blase "generic" micro stock photo.