MicrostockGroup

I just wanted to start off and say thank you to the many members contributing in these forms.  I've been lurking for a month or so and reading most of the newer posts and it's definitely helped me understand microstock better.  I saw my friend selling 5-20 pics a day on shutterstock so I thought I would give a try at it.  I am an amateur photographer and have shot about 2k shots with my D80.  Most of the content I used for submission was from a trip to Hawaii and I was just learning how to use the camera (should have taken a tripod for the trip).

Here are the 17 pics I submitted to Fotolia and dreamstime (Recommended by my friend as starter sites before trying shutterstock/istockphoto) http://www.flickr.com/photos/residentg2k6/sets/72157624112189387/detail/

Fotolia wasn't particularly helpful in giving me feedback with rejections.  They accepted DSC_0080 (dragonfly), DSC_0816 (black cow) , DSC_0819 (brown cows) and DSC_0924 (radiotelescope)

Dreamstime accepted DSC_0148 (duck), DSC_0819 (brown cows), DSC_0928 (sunset), DSC_0929 (Keck observatories), DSC_0930 (Gemini North)

The only overlap between the two sites was they both like the brown cows pic (which I didn't think was that great to begin with).  I understand now that these pics probably won't sell a lot like the vectors and pics of business people that are the top sellers at most sites.  I'd like some feedback as to how I could improve on what I have shot so when I consider shooting similar material it would have a better (read more marketable use) and also any pointers to improve my crappy skills as a photographer Tongue   I'll go with Dreamstime's reasons since they seem to be more helpful:

DSC_0040 (butterfly) - This image does not yet meet our present requirements in terms of technical quality, composition, lighting setup, color, or overall attention to detail.
QUESTION - This image to me appears to be technically OK.  I know ISO 100-200 is optimal.  I don't think there's much noise (was shot handheld on Nikkor 18-200mm at 200mm with DX crop of the D80) and  I cropped it somewhat in CS5 to get rid of wasted fill of leaves in background.  Would this be considered blurry since I didn't use tripod or is it sharp enough to be decent?  I know it's not a full-res version - any place I can upload those? Anything wrong with butterfly being off center?  Colors off?  I didn't do any work in CS5 since I just got the program and still figuring out very basics.

DSC_0159 (yellow tree) - This image does not yet meet our present requirements in terms of technical quality, composition, lighting setup, color, or overall attention to detail.
QUESTION - I didn't notice the overexposed sky at the top until I was cropping it.  Guess the higher ISO (450) and blown out sky are killing it's chances.  Any way to fix/salvage this pic?  Probably if I used a tripod I could have dropped the ISO and lowered the +1/3 EV I added (again I am a noobie and was just learning the camera so please forgive me)

DSC_0160/168 (hydrangeas) - This image does not yet meet our present requirements in terms of technical quality, composition, lighting setup, color, or overall attention to detail.
QUESTION - Now I looked at the other hydrangea pics available on shutterstock and I must say mine is more colorful and has the image centered better than most pics.  But now I see the ISO at 640.  Other than using a tripod/external lighting was there any thing else I should have done?  Any way to salvage/repair this pic for resubmission?

DSC_0176 (spider) - The image contains a large amount of noise artifacts. Please fix this issue using noise-removal software and resubmit. You can also check this thread: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_109
QUESTION - I'm surprised they even asked me to resubmit this.  Again this was at full zoom on the 18-200mm (not the sharpest lens) and handheld with no flash (didn't take my SB800 with me since this was shot on a trip to Seattle) so the ISO is 720.  I did think it has nice bokeh with the blurred out green in back.  Would running it through CS5 Noise filter do it or would I need a better noise program like the ones posted in other threads?  Or is this a hopeless pic Tongue

DSC_0176 (spider) - Lack of composition. Please visit the Stock Photo Utilities section of our site or the message boards for more information on how to produce stock-oriented images.
- Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure.
QUESTION - This was a bird in the hotel lobby of the Hilton.  Even if I used the SB800 flash and tried to bounce it off the ceiling (40-50ft ceiling) I think I would have has crappy lighting.  I probably would have needed to take the flash off the hotshoe with a cable right?  Or maybe a diffuser would have done the trick?  I was thinking of cutting around the bird and changing to background to white (a tedious task I guess because I didn't see more than a couple head-on macaw pics on white background)?  Is it worth the effort?  Is this pic repairable?

DSC_0701 (green beach) - Poor color: this image has a low color profile and needs improvement in order to increase its sales potential. You can process your image with color enhancement software, such as Photoshop, giving it the appeal it needs. - Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure.
QUESTION - Off the bat I can see the white waves may be blown out.  I had a UV filter on the lens but no polarizer - would that have helped?  They suggest improving color profile - I guess making it pop?  Any easy ways to do that?

DSC_0878 (mountain/clouds) - There are visible dust, stains, and/or scratches from the scanning process, or abnormal spots on your image generated by dust on the camera sensor and/or stains/dust on the camera lens. Please fix the problem and resubmit.
QUESTION - I'm not seeing what they're seeing.  I did use CS5 Content Aware to get rid of a vertical sun flare on right along the left margin (clouds show a little distortion there if zoomed in) but I'm not sure where's they're seeing the dust/stains.

DSC_0931 (triangular shadow) - Lack of composition. Please visit the Stock Photo Utilities section of our site or the message boards for more information on how to produce stock-oriented images.
- Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure.
QUESTION - I personally thought this was a nice picture (reminds me of the pyramid shadow scene from 5th Element).  I'm not sure how I could have used any lighting here.  Guess I could have messed around with the exposure.  Any suggestions?

Any general suggestions/criticisms are also welcome.  I got a 6month only baby girl that ends up being most of my photo subjects lately but would love to be able to take better stock photos once she's running around rose gardens and stuff Smiley  Equipment so far is a Nikon D80, Nikkor 18-200 VR, Nikkor 12-24, SB800 Speedflash and just got a cheapie Dynex tripod a few days ago.  Will get a Bogen or something like that when I see a sale and probably a monopod for traveling.  I want to also try macro shots so I'm looking for a white table and trying to figure out how to light the object with 2 or 3 devices.  Will probably also be buying a macro lens and maybe D3 or successor when it comes out (if wife allows me lol).

You have more questions than I have time to answer so I'll give some general observations. And the images aren't full size so it's difficult to see technical issues.

I had a D80 and it's capable of good image quality. I've never had a 18-200 but there are gazillions of threads saying it's a soft lens. Given all of your technical issues that may be a cause. Not sure about the 12-24.

I doubt these subjects will sell much or at all so you're right in thinking of different subjects. A lot of people, myself included, submitted sunsets and flowers when we first started but everything that's easy to shoot has already been well covered.

The top 6 images seem dull and lacking contrast. You may want to give them a little more pop in PS5.

I'm going to pretty much say LCV on all the shots except for the two of Mauna Kea because they are interesting. These are the things that have been shot a million times over.

I'll just note some very brief observations

Spider - Why was it even submitted? Plain bad.

Hydrangeas - poor composition, overworked subject

Cows - flat light DSC0816 even looks like there are some focus problems.

DSC0701 the green sand beach - little aesthetic value and flat light.

Just a note: your post is pretty longwinded. Try asking for critique on just one or two images next time and you will get more help with specific questions.

cclapper, I think it is L-ow C-ommerce V-alue. Or like some reviewer give No Stock Potnetial.
But I think this is subjkective because some of my selling pictures are in my opinion LCV,
and the one I shoot specific with HCV do not sell.
But this is microstock , so no wonder it's a mystery, ha!ha!

Sorry - LCV Low Commercial Value is a common SS rejection. I think it's a businesslike way of saying "We don't like it" 

As just about everyone here knows, you have to rise above the common and mundane those days. Strangely, IS accepts all of my flower shots, while DT bounces them. I don't flood them with florals, but I do send at least a few a month.

I must be catching on, I liked the brown cows shot...

Are we collecting non-informative rejections again?

SS is home of LCV: "Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition." (fair enough?)

Here's the Fotolia version: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." 

Dreamstime: "Our agency applies a pre-established set of criteria, against which each image is checked. In order to maximize your sales we maintain the right to select all images included in the database." (Also - Reason: This is a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific.)

Bigstock: "Low interest subject:  Probably little demand/selling potential for this image. Try for more marketable shots. thanks."

I don't want to leave out IS, this is the best I could do:

"We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:

-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance"

I don't really get LCV rejections from IS? I'd guess the important word in the above example is Composition.

The shots rejected with this have been without flash, black and white points set using levels, no blown out highlights or lens flare, positively not flat or dull colors! Which leaves? We didn't like the lighting so we sent a shopping list of irrelevant reasons. They may be right, but the rejection had nothing to do with the reasons listed.

In the end, they are all saying the same thing. Maybe a nice shot, but we don't need it. Dreamstime has it right, not that the others have any problems doing the same, with their right to select all images. Some of us forget that they are the agency and nothing says they have to accept us or anything we submit. Bigstock is kind enough to say "probably" and leave it at that.

Real short, FT and DT decided that the same images that sell best for me on IS and SS, "don't sell well". They started wholesale rejections by type of image, regardless of content or quality. That's their right. I exercised my free will and closed my accounts. No big deal. Everyone is happy.

Glad to help. 

We're sorry, but we did not find this file suitable as stock. With the rapid growth of the iStock collection, we give valuable consideration to each file but unfortunately cannot accept all submissions.

I haven't had many, but the rejection reason does exist.

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions.  I especially got a kick out of all the post with the collection of rejections (I look forward to seeing all of them shortly).

Things I saw posted that I understand:
- 18-200mm while easy to use is not clean as a prime or macro.  Yeah I got this lens to just learn how to use the camera and for vacations as a walkaround.  The 12-24 (the predecessor to the current 14-24) set me back about $1k and I know that is pretty sharp but has limited uses.  I'm looking for a decent beginner macro lens (knowing I'll probably be going to full frame soon) and a decent prime (I hear everybody talking about the Canon/Sigma 50mm 1.4 and 1.8s but no recs for Nikons - suggestions?)
- High ISO is bad.  Yeah I didn't even know what ISO the camera was using when I took some of those (since the camera was still new to me).  Lot of shots were done at night or under cloudy conditions in Seattle so I guess I need to just force the ISO lower and use a tripod/monopod and faster glass.  Anybody have a link to a thread about how to set up better studio lighting than using the one SB800 Speedflash I have on the camera's hotshoe? 
- The pics submitted have LCV.  Yeah I saw all the posts in the newbie area.  Sunsets, while they look cool, are a dime a dozen.  I've looked through Shutterstock and Dreamstime top sellers and can see all those business pics and vectors.  I don't think I have the skills/time to do vectors or 3D.  I'll pick up tabletop isolated shots - if nothing other than to improve my skills and wow myself.  Nothing like a close-up macro of strawberry glistening to wow the wife haha.

I guess I need to learn how to use CS5.  I have no idea how to even begin to improve the colors on the green sands beach pic.  I personally believe that is a nice pic (even if not done correctly) - where else on earth do you see green sand?

As for the hydrangeas - well I know everybody says all the easy ones have been done already.  Well the few hydrangea ones that sell a lot on Shutterstock are altered wallpapers.  The most popular realistic blue or white hydrangeas pics look worse than my pics (or at least to my untrained eye).  I figured mine were better.   I've seen several people say if you see an image you know you can shoot better or change creatively go for it.  So that was my thinking with the hydrangeas.

I live in Los Angeles so there's enough stuff for me to shoot - I just need to find the time (and money) to shoot it

drgogineni.....as for the ISO...you need to set the camera to that ISO. When you first get you camera everything is set on automatic so the camera sets the ISO automatically. You need to get your owners manual and find the section on how to set the ISO under your menus. Also Nikon makes a 50mm that you can pick up fairly cheep.
Here's a good link to Nikon lens reviews
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview#nikon_aps

here's a link to a good cheep lens dealer
www.keh.com

I picked up a 50mm 1.8 fairly new for 115. here

Second the motion for 50 1.8. And one of your best and cheapest options for macro with Nikon is to get a BR2A reversing ring. Works great with the 50 1.8. Also visit the macro forum over at FredMiranda.com - it's a good group there. You don;t have to spend gobs of money on a $500 (or more) macro lens.

Lighting - start by looking here

http://neilvn.com/tangents/

Read his entire blog - I'm not kidding here. Get the book too. Neil does not talk a lot about landscapes on the blog, but he knows how to craft light. Be sure to see the post on the Black Foamie Thing 

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/11/21/the-black-foamie-thing/

Green sands pic - there's just about no rescue on that because you didn't account for the proper light when you shot it. Also the composition on it is poor. I know it's tough to schedule these things into a vacation or business trip, but when you want a particular shot, you need to make proper accommodations for it. If the light sucks, you go back when it good.

Actually, the black sand beach images are better sellers because they hold more mystery. Travel agents love them.