Looks to me like you might be a fit at Stocksy. You might consider applying there when the next call for artists takes place - likely in the fall.

I would say Stocksy too. You work is leaning toward fine art, so you can also consider Trevillion or Arcangel.

Shutterstock said no??? How about trying Offset?

Yes, Shutterstock said not 3 times. I will visit Offset sure. Thank you!

Gabriela, your work has Stocksy written all over it so I suggest you apply there if you only want to work with few agencies, which is a good thing btw. Offset seems to prefer more contrast with different styling and not the faded vintage look.
If you still want to get involved with microstock, good luck! 

Gabriela, your work has Stocksy written all over it

Has fantastic lifestyle stock written all over it. Any stock agency would be bonkers to reject this photographer.

They'll be rejecting because of the narrow tonal range,  her black point is way off what they want, giving the misty effect which is the hallmark of her photos.

Would they not make exceptions to those old fashioned rules today - especially when the style is obviously well executed and appropriate to the type of images ? This is clearly solid and saleable work.

Apparently not as she's had three rejections.

Maybe she has been dealing with some sort of automated process - or something which has been outsouced and is list based. Maybe there is a way to contact someone there who knows pictures.

Gabriela, maybe this is a good advice, maybe not�
(Other forum's users will confirm or not)

When you apply for Shutterstock it is better to give them what they consider as "normal" images, I mean images with very standard exposure, very standard white balance, very standard tonality, very standard etc� (and no noise at all) - Give them what they want�

Seeing your photos it is understandable that you can produce good images as they want.

So, my advice is: let your style aside for the photos you will submit to the Shutterstock exam.
Then, once accepted (and you will be), they will probably accept your "styled" images without problem.
And, if you put a note to the inspector explaining that the photos are "effected" you will get an higher rate of acceptance I think - it works for me and other, so it should work for you too

Edit: Oops, i just see now that mystock wrote a similar post to mine�

I don't have much to add to the above advice, but I wanted to say how lovely your images are.

I'm not at all surprised that SS turned you down (I think they're daft, but I don't set their photo editing guidelines), but I'm fairly sure that you could process a subset of your images slightly differently to get the cleaner look SS reviewers will want to see and get yourself accepted.

I also agree that applying at Stocksy - which, if you're accepted, means image exclusivity - is a good idea. You could then take an approach similar to Sean Locke's, where some of your work goes to Stocksy (I think all his new shoots, but perhaps he can comment) and the rest goes to a number of other micros - and Shutterstock is the big earner. In Sean's case he has several years of earlier stock work that is at SS and other agencies, as well as selling direct.

With a dual approach you won't tear your hair out trying to deal with getting SS to accept your lovelier work but you can process things you think will be a fit for them in a way that you know will have a high chance of passing inspection. Some photographers have said good things about Westend61 as a macro agency that might also be a fit for your work.

Nice images, they fit to Stocksy style.

I will apply there sure, thank you!

Gabriela, maybe this is a good advice, maybe not�
(Other forum's users will confirm or not)

When you apply for Shutterstock it is better to give them what they consider as "normal" images, I mean images with very standard exposure, very standard white balance, very standard tonality, very standard etc� (and no noise at all) - Give them what they want�

Seeing your photos it is understandable that you can produce good images as they want.

So, my advice is: let your style aside for the photos you will submit to the Shutterstock exam.
Then, once accepted (and you will be), they will probably accept your "styled" images without problem.
And, if you put a note to the inspector explaining that the photos are "effected" you will get an higher rate of acceptance I think - it works for me and other, so it should work for you too

Edit: Oops, i just see now that mystock wrote a similar post to mine�

Thank you so much for your advise! I'm conscious my photos are not suitable for everyone and less to all agencies. I have to present definitely standard images if I want to get accepted. I have a question for you, what means "effected" for them?

I don't have much to add to the above advice, but I wanted to say how lovely your images are.

I'm not at all surprised that SS turned you down (I think they're daft, but I don't set their photo editing guidelines), but I'm fairly sure that you could process a subset of your images slightly differently to get the cleaner look SS reviewers will want to see and get yourself accepted.

I also agree that applying at Stocksy - which, if you're accepted, means image exclusivity - is a good idea. You could then take an approach similar to Sean Locke's, where some of your work goes to Stocksy (I think all his new shoots, but perhaps he can comment) and the rest goes to a number of other micros - and Shutterstock is the big earner. In Sean's case he has several years of earlier stock work that is at SS and other agencies, as well as selling direct.

With a dual approach you won't tear your hair out trying to deal with getting SS to accept your lovelier work but you can process things you think will be a fit for them in a way that you know will have a high chance of passing inspection. Some photographers have said good things about Westend61 as a macro agency that might also be a fit for your work.

Thank you so much for words about my photos Jo Ann! I didn't know the other agency, I will look at it. I will write below for everyone. Thank you for your advice!