pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stocksy rejection: Portfolio critique please  (Read 11249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 03, 2013, 05:28 »
+4
Hi,

Following my application for Stocksy to look at my folio. they sent me this email:

"Dear Pete,

First, let us express our apologies for the wait, we really appreciate your interest in becoming a Stocksy Artist. Unfortunately we did not feel your portfolio was right for the collection at this time. We invite you to reapply in October and hope that you'll stay in touch!"

Ive been a contributor to Getty for years and recently started submitting images to the various microstock sites. I have always felt that my work I produce for Getty is not the kind of photography I love doing, and I think this will be the same with the other microstock sites, so I was really excited when I saw what's going on at Stocksy. So I would love to start producing work for them.

This is my folio:
http://www.petesherrardphotography.com/

I would love some general feedback, with regards to what people think that stocksy is looking for. Its all very well asking me to reapply in October, but I dont know what to put into the folio to make them interested. Should it be more stock orientated? Or less? Or is it just not good enough?

Any feedback will be very helpful.

Thanks vey much.


Ron

« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2013, 05:48 »
+4
Dude, you have some brilliant work. Love it. I Stocksy missed out by rejecting you.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2013, 05:54 »
-1
I would love some general feedback, with regards to what people think that stocksy is looking for.

They don't tell  you, and looking at the work already on there gives no clue.
As I live in Scotland, I searched on Scotland for clues, but I get no idea from that search about what they're looking for:
http://www.stocksy.com/search?src=home&text=Scotland
Many of them were, actually, taken in Scotland - though perhaps 'highlands' maps to Scotland, which would explain some anomalies; but other than that, I can't work out what they particularly want in style and content.

Me


« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2013, 06:02 »
+1
Got to agree with Ron - I think they made a mistake rejecting you.

I think they maybe don't know what they want as much as anyone else doesn't know what they want!


« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2013, 06:04 »
0
Amazing work! I have no clue as to why they didn't want you, dang...

« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2013, 06:09 »
+2
Now, this is just my opinion of course. 

Your portraits section appears overly filtered for the kind of image I think they are wanting.  Lots of grain, heavy contrast, color manipulation.  I'm not saying it isn't interesting, but it isn't what they clearly promo in their weekly mail outs, for instance. 

The landscape section is nice, I especially like: http://www.petesherrardphotography.com/Portfolio/Landscapes/20876662_WFmF2f#!i=1657604413&k=VTtrGJS .  Perhaps it is not extensive or iconic enough in it's representation of the world.

The people in places doesn't show a lot of variety - there are several of the same person running through a dark area.  They are mostly far shots/anonymous. 

You do have some great animal shots.  Some better than others.

At this point, maybe it is because you seem to be concentrating on the kind of thing in your people section, but that isn't really the style they are looking for.

Me


« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2013, 06:20 »
+1
Now, this is just my opinion of course. 

Your portraits section appears overly filtered for the kind of image I think they are wanting.  Lots of grain, heavy contrast, color manipulation.  I'm not saying it isn't interesting, but it isn't what they clearly promo in their weekly mail outs, for instance. 

The landscape section is nice, I especially like: http://www.petesherrardphotography.com/Portfolio/Landscapes/20876662_WFmF2f#!i=1657604413&k=VTtrGJS .  Perhaps it is not extensive or iconic enough in it's representation of the world.

The people in places doesn't show a lot of variety - there are several of the same person running through a dark area.  They are mostly far shots/anonymous. 

You do have some great animal shots.  Some better than others.

At this point, maybe it is because you seem to be concentrating on the kind of thing in your people section, but that isn't really the style they are looking for.


So what style are they looking for? If you know what they don't want, I assume you know what they do want?

« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2013, 06:31 »
+2
So what style are they looking for? If you know what they don't want, I assume you know what they do want?


Sorry, I think my thoughts were pretty clear.

Here's this week's mail out gallery.  See if you think the OP's people section would mesh with this: http://www.stocksy.com/stock-photos?g=2035&p=LBDAY&utm_source=Newsletter130903&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

Me


« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2013, 06:40 »
0
So what style are they looking for? If you know what they don't want, I assume you know what they do want?


Sorry, I think my thoughts were pretty clear.

Here's this week's mail out gallery.  See if you think the OP's people section would mesh with this: http://www.stocksy.com/stock-photos?g=2035&p=LBDAY&utm_source=Newsletter130903&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter


I was not referring specifically to the OP style but in general. By stating they do not want that style, you implied that you would know what style they do want. I was also not referring to one specific week's mail out - I assume the content and style in these mail outs changes each week? The OP style could well suit the mail out in a week, ten weeks, or 100 weeks.

Why do you avoid answering a direct question?

What style do they want? You implied that you knew. If you don't, then say so, don't guess - that's what everyone else is doing and it appears to be causing a lot of frustration and perhaps unnecessary rejections.

« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2013, 06:47 »
+1
"I assume the content and style in these mail outs changes each week?"

You don't have to assume.  You can go look at the Facebook page for previous mail outs.  The look is pretty consistent across the weeks.

Sorry, my thoughts are from looking at the images on the site, what they are promoting, and the Pinterest board.  All publicly available so you can draw your own thoughts.

« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2013, 06:56 »
0
Here's this week's mail out gallery.  See if you think the OP's people section would mesh with this: http://www.stocksy.com/stock-photos?g=2035&p=LBDAY&utm_source=Newsletter130903&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter


That Alpha Romeo 2000 is beautiful.

Me


« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2013, 07:00 »
-2
"I assume the content and style in these mail outs changes each week?"

You don't have to assume.  You can go look at the Facebook page for previous mail outs.  The look is pretty consistent across the weeks.

Sorry, my thoughts are from looking at the images on the site, what they are promoting, and the Pinterest board.  All publicly available so you can draw your own thoughts.

Many thanks for answering Sean. At least now we know you are open to drawing the same conclusions as everyone else regarding style and you are not just witholding information.  ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2013, 07:20 »
+1
rry, I think my thoughts were pretty clear.

Here's this week's mail out gallery.  See if you think the OP's people section would mesh with this: http://www.stocksy.com/stock-photos?g=2035&p=LBDAY&utm_source=Newsletter130903&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter


These look and feel very different from the ones in the 'Scotland' search.
I'd say the OP's landscapes are much more like these Newsletter ones than the Scotland photos which are already 'in'.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 08:54 by ShadySue »

« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2013, 07:52 »
+6
Dude, you have some brilliant work. Love it. I Stocksy missed out by rejecting you.

indeed, their loss

thinking a little further, advantage for somebody else ???
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 07:55 by luissantos84 »

travelwitness

« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2013, 08:00 »
0
Pete I think you might need a bigger selection to show them, looking at your web site gives the impression you may only be able to supply them with 20 images or so.

If they could see that you could supply 100+ commercial images that should up your chances. When I applied I created a dedicated gallery on my Photoshelter site with a couple of hundred images, I tried to make the application process as easy for them as I could.

Your photography is fine, there is some nice work in your portfolio - I would just lose the grain, go easy on the post processing and build a tighter gallery for them.

Good luck in October if you decide to reapply.

« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2013, 11:32 »
+2
Thanks everyone for the replies.

Travelwitness and Sean, I think I didn't realise how specific they would be when viewing the website. I do have a lot of similar things there, and some very post processed and grainy stuff. But these where shot for clients who were looking for a certain style. The images I have on IS for example are not grainy and of very varied subject matter.

Do you think I should upload a selection of the IS images onto my website to show more variety and possibly remove a lot of things that are too grainy etc. (A client was looking for silhouettes of a man running so I posted a lot of those and havent removed them yet!) The website is for a whole range of clients and I would never have used it to show my suitability for working with a stock library. I just gave them the link to that as that is what they seemed to be asking for. I even wonder if just giving them the link to my IS portfolio might be a better idea?

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/10337057#b2e1437

I didn't change anything on my website to fine-tune what Stocksy saw. I just showed them the whole thing as it was. Maybe I should have made a gallery just for them with the best stock-suitable work and linked to that instead and not show them the normal website? (the portfolio does need a lot of editing now I'm looking at it anyway.)   :-\

Thanks again.

« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2013, 11:37 »
+3
Just to add to what I just wrote-

Its a bit confusing as I kind of thought that they wouldn't be interested in imagery that looks like stock photography, so the stuff I have on IS and on Getty does look very much like stock photography, (Theres a lot of the silhouette guy running too... )I thought they were looking for things that didnt look like stock...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2013, 11:52 »
+4
Just to add to what I just wrote-

Its a bit confusing as I kind of thought that they wouldn't be interested in imagery that looks like stock photography, so the stuff I have on IS and on Getty does look very much like stock photography, (Theres a lot of the silhouette guy running too... )I thought they were looking for things that didnt look like stock...
No wonder  you're confused.
A lot of stuff on their front page is standard stocky imagery.

« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2013, 17:07 »
+1
Quote
If you're interested in being a contributing artist, please reply to this email with a link to your portfolio (500px, flickr, etc) and we might send you an invitation.

When I got the email from them, I interpreted it to mean I could use an existing portfolio, that I didn't need to curate something specific for them. I think if they would have been a lot more specific, lots more of us could have gone through our work, created a specific stocksy portfolio, and chosen the best of the best for the submission. Not that that necessarily would have made a difference.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2013, 17:08 »
0
That Alpha Romeo 2000 is beautiful.

Ahem, Alfa

« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2013, 17:14 »
0
That Alpha Romeo 2000 is beautiful.

Ahem, Alfa

oh man indeed! my father had one but the 1600, the wood steering wheel was gorgeous, don't know if he still has it though ;D

« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2013, 18:40 »
+4
I have no clue what stocksy really wants but just had to chime in here and say your stuff is gorgeous. The animals are particularly fine and would seem IMHO to fit their style in terms of being well-crafted for stock without feeling so stocky. Difficult to explain but the animals have the kind of feel I get from looking at the site.

Lots of your other stuff has that same feel - I'd say make a gallery with the stuff you think they'd like - you have a sense of what they're looking for I'm sure - trust your instincts - and send them that link in October. Good luck. Their loss if they say no again - really fine work.

« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2013, 04:16 »
0
Thanks so much for the kind words wordplanet.
That means a lot, sitting, staring at this screen, wondering what its all for...

:)

« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2013, 04:57 »
+13
I have no clue what stocksy really wants but just had to chime in here and say your stuff is gorgeous. The animals are particularly fine and would seem IMHO to fit their style in terms of being well-crafted for stock without feeling so stocky. Difficult to explain but the animals have the kind of feel I get from looking at the site.

Lots of your other stuff has that same feel - I'd say make a gallery with the stuff you think they'd like - you have a sense of what they're looking for I'm sure - trust your instincts - and send them that link in October. Good luck. Their loss if they say no again - really fine work.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

I'm confused too. I'd have thought Pete's work was spot-on for Stocksy. I struggle to accept Sean's theory of Stocksy's 'look' being so ultra-defined. It seems to me that if you happen to be an ex-Istock exclusive 'good old boy' you can get plenty of weak rubbish accepted that in no way conveys the precious 'look'.

I'm staggered that Stocksy appear to be so far up their own arse that they turn down outstanding portfolios like Pete's. It's not as if Pete is demanding his entire portfolio be accepted ... Stocksy won't even accept him as an artist. Ridiculous.

Me


« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2013, 05:18 »
+4
I have no clue what stocksy really wants but just had to chime in here and say your stuff is gorgeous. The animals are particularly fine and would seem IMHO to fit their style in terms of being well-crafted for stock without feeling so stocky. Difficult to explain but the animals have the kind of feel I get from looking at the site.

Lots of your other stuff has that same feel - I'd say make a gallery with the stuff you think they'd like - you have a sense of what they're looking for I'm sure - trust your instincts - and send them that link in October. Good luck. Their loss if they say no again - really fine work.

Well said, I couldn't agree more.

I'm confused too. I'd have thought Pete's work was spot-on for Stocksy. I struggle to accept Sean's theory of Stocksy's 'look' being so ultra-defined. It seems to me that if you happen to be an ex-Istock exclusive 'good old boy' you can get plenty of weak rubbish accepted that in no way conveys the precious 'look'.

I'm staggered that Stocksy appear to be so far up their own arse that they turn down outstanding portfolios like Pete's. It's not as if Pete is demanding his entire portfolio be accepted ... Stocksy won't even accept him as an artist. Ridiculous.

One of the most honest posts I have seen here! I do wonder if Sean would be at Stocksy at all if he had not been booted from IS, let alone being so sycophantic about it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1417 Views
Last post March 26, 2013, 08:42
by BrianM
101 Replies
11398 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 13:17
by AYA
11 Replies
5101 Views
Last post February 18, 2014, 11:55
by HUEphotography
13 Replies
6005 Views
Last post May 12, 2014, 16:10
by miladin14
7 Replies
2355 Views
Last post July 30, 2014, 03:11
by mojaric

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors