pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stocksy submission critique please  (Read 12016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #75 on: November 30, 2013, 10:51 »
0
Interesting, Snufkin.
I'd assumed that Stocksy really wanted lifestyle, but might 'tolerate' other stuff.
I wonder if they didn't accept Mantis because they already 'have' an underwater photographer. That happened in some trad agencies in the old days. Once they had someone with a 'niche' or in a location, they didn't take on rivals.


« Reply #76 on: November 30, 2013, 11:16 »
+1
t.

Check out this guy:
http://www.stocksy.com/ShaneGross

A true master in his niche, he brings something completely new to the table.
Awesome pictures.

  Mantis does that too. Is underwater photography new?


The Stocksy ones are very strong compositions. And the use of light is outstanding.

That is not to say that other people do not also make fantastic underwater pictures - but typically underwater pictures tend to look like they belong in a science book - where as many of the Stocksy ones look to me like they belong on a cinema screen. Look at the scale and ambition of them. Wow. Impossible not to be impressed.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #77 on: November 30, 2013, 11:21 »
+1
t.

Check out this guy:
http://www.stocksy.com/ShaneGross

A true master in his niche, he brings something completely new to the table.
Awesome pictures.

  Mantis does that too. Is underwater photography new?


The Stocksy ones are very strong compositions. And the use of light is outstanding.

That is not to say that other people do not also make fantastic underwater pictures - but typically underwater pictures tend to look like they belong in a science book - where as many of the Stocksy ones look to me like they belong on a cinema screen. Look at the scale and ambition of them. Wow. Impossible not to be impressed.


Indeed, but Stocksy say they want 'natural'.
Again, what they say and what they choose don't necessarily correspond.

« Reply #78 on: November 30, 2013, 11:29 »
0
I'm very surprised, I think that Julie has very good images. May be they want to see more photos in portfolio? I don't understand this rejection.  I'm very confused now because I just finished my portfolio for next submission in December and now I'm not sure if I know what they want to see  :-\  I asked for opinion here two months ago but after that I added more photos to my Flickr portfolio so I will be very thankful for your critique again. I prepared also my website on portfoliobox where I focused on my favorite subjects  - nature macro and children.
If you want to take a look I will be very thankful. I hoped that I have better portfolio than last time but when I see that they didn't accept Julie, I'm in doubt about it now :-(
My portfolio:
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/102259734@N04/
Portfoliobox: http://www.magdalenakucova.com


Hi Magdalena, we have very different style but in a way I think Stocksy is almost a more natural fit for you, your images are candid, soft and in my opinion, close to a lot of things Stocksy select. My one suggestion would be to edit your flickr page and keep a maximum of 50 images. For exemple, I like your first horse images that are muted and backlit but I'm not crazy about the one with the blue sky.  I also really like most of you kids picture; they look spontaneous and dreamy.

I liked some of your images in your Flickr page, I hope it helps and don't be too hard on yourself, I get the feeling your Style would match Stocksy quite well ( but again, Stocksy works in mysterious ways  ;) )

good luck!



Yes, "Stocksy works in mysterious way" -  that's very apt! :D

Thanks for taking a look at my portfolio and your comment. Probably I will review my images in my Flickr page once more.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 11:34 by Magdalena »

« Reply #79 on: November 30, 2013, 11:34 »
+1
Indeed, but Stocksy say they want 'natural'.

I do not know but maybe you are being too literal.

I am not part of it and cannot imagine either applying or being accepted. But I think they are building a very strong collection. It's good to admire what other sites do when they do something really well - and they clearly have very good editors.

« Reply #80 on: November 30, 2013, 12:40 »
0
t.

Check out this guy:
http://www.stocksy.com/ShaneGross

A true master in his niche, he brings something completely new to the table.
Awesome pictures.

  Mantis does that too. Is underwater photography new?


The Stocksy ones are very strong compositions. And the use of light is outstanding.

That is not to say that other people do not also make fantastic underwater pictures - but typically underwater pictures tend to look like they belong in a science book - where as many of the Stocksy ones look to me like they belong on a cinema screen. Look at the scale and ambition of them. Wow. Impossible not to be impressed.

That's an interesting point, Bunhill. I had nat geo and science channel use two images that foot the bill of science, as opposed to cinema.  Still very strong images, and one very rare. The ones below, however, we're more "natural" I suppose, but lit with a strobe. While they do account for balanced ambient light, you could never get these without artificial lighting. Natural lighting can be powerful, too, like some of the images in the link. Maybe even these don't fit the bill of stocky goods.  Who knows. But it's not going to change my style as that has won me many international competitions, gotten me speaking engagements, produced a book, published dozens of magazine articles, etc. So for me personally, my style has gotten me somewhere, at least within the UW photo industry. I am okay if my work does not meet the needs of stocky, and I still wish them great success.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 12:54 by Mantis »

Ron

« Reply #81 on: November 30, 2013, 12:49 »
0
Thats what I mean, you shouldnt have been rejected. Its nonsense. If the crop of the cream cant get accepted... all there is left to do is forget about Stocksy. Actually all reasons I wanted to be part of Stocksy are gone. Not that I was going to make it in, in the first place.

AYA

« Reply #82 on: November 30, 2013, 13:12 »
+8
I think what makes Stocksy a really great collection is that it has an unformulated elegance to it and I think that it's something to deserve respect. I am trying to understand how to improve my images but in a way, I enjoy the fact that there is still some mystery and that the I can't always put my finger on why I really like one of their images; that's part of the charm! Formulated stock is easy to understand and replicate so too many people are doing it.  It might be hard to get into Stocksy but I also feel like it's a good sign for them.
I come from a Stock background so yes, my images are a bit stagged but I think I could learn from being a Stocksy contributor and that my images aren't that far off from what they are looking for, I just have to get accepted. It encourages me to try new stuff, explore in post-processing, be more authentic in my photography... what's not to love, really?

If some members of the forum don't feel like it matches their style, well, that is fair but in the end it's a bit like the dating world, You can't be everyone's cup of tea and it's fine like that! as said earlier, to each their niche  :)

Ron

« Reply #83 on: November 30, 2013, 13:18 »
0
Answer me this, what is their style?

« Reply #84 on: November 30, 2013, 13:21 »
+1
I think what makes Stocksy a really great collection is that it has an unformulated elegance to it and I think that it's something to deserve respect. I am trying to understand how to improve my images but in a way, I enjoy the fact that there is still some mystery and that the I can't always put my finger on why I really like one of their images; that's part of the charm! Formulated stock is easy to understand and replicate so too many people are doing it.  It might be hard to get into Stocksy but I also feel like it's a good sign for them.
I come from a Stock background so yes, my images are a bit stagged but I think I could learn from being a Stocksy contributor and that my images aren't that far off from what they are looking for, I just have to get accepted. It encourages me to try new stuff, explore in post-processing, be more authentic in my photography... what's not to love, really?

If some members of the forum don't feel like it matches their style, well, that is fair but in the end it's a bit like the dating world, You can't be everyone's cup of tea and it's fine like that! as said earlier, to each their niche  :)

Your humility is very charming, however, you have a nice style and perhaps are doing well in general stock photography. Perhaps you should focus more on exploring your own individuality insteading of seeking conformity to the existing style on Stocksy. Could that be why you were rejected by Stocksy? I am not a member of Stocksy, what I am saying is purely speculatve.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 13:27 by Freedom »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #85 on: November 30, 2013, 13:42 »
0
Answer me this, what is their style?
I asked that and was told if I couldn't see it, it wasn't for me!
I only asked!!! As I'd assumed it was lifestyle, I never imagined it was for me.

AYA

« Reply #86 on: November 30, 2013, 14:01 »
+2
Answer me this, what is their style?
Ron, As I mentionned, I quite enjoy the fact that Stocksy's style is hard to define; it has charm, mystery and grace. Most of the collection is closer to Art photography than to commercial photography so the rules are a bit different in editing; less about the technical and more about that little something that stands out. I agree that some images are quite boring but they might just not speak to me.

I don't mean to disagree with you but I think that there is different ways of looking at it, that's all.

AYA

« Reply #87 on: November 30, 2013, 14:15 »
0

Your humility is very charming, however, you have a nice style and perhaps are doing well in general stock photography. Perhaps you should focus more on exploring your own individuality insteading of seeking conformity to the existing style on Stocksy. Could that be why you were rejected by Stocksy? I am not a member of Stocksy, what I am saying is purely speculatve.

Hi Freedom,
I am just starting out so success is still far, faaar away. I agree with what you say about not compromising on your personal style too much, here's a personnal exemple; I was rejeted twice by SS in the last few months ( I am aware that they are a bit weird with rejections right now). I shoot with a very shallow depth of field and I like dramatic light, so everything I find makes an image interesting, SS dislikes. I take no offence in that and I will reapply as a contributor but I would never change my style for them; there's already plenty of people succedding in that style without me changing my style to fit in. 
Stocksy on the other hand, has a style that I like so applying as a contributor is an exercise that would make me a better photographer and it would also be a fun experiment. I think that for my style of photography, Stocksy is more of a matter of flexibility than compromise.

BTW, I don't mean to start a heated debate on SS!  ;)

« Reply #88 on: November 30, 2013, 14:16 »
0
As I'd assumed it was lifestyle, I never imagined it was for me.

Lifestyle is not a photography style, it's subject matter.

« Reply #89 on: November 30, 2013, 14:31 »
0
delete

« Reply #90 on: November 30, 2013, 14:32 »
0

Your humility is very charming, however, you have a nice style and perhaps are doing well in general stock photography. Perhaps you should focus more on exploring your own individuality insteading of seeking conformity to the existing style on Stocksy. Could that be why you were rejected by Stocksy? I am not a member of Stocksy, what I am saying is purely speculatve.

Hi Freedom,
I am just starting out so success is still far, faaar away. I agree with what you say about not compromising on your personal style too much, here's a personnal exemple; I was rejeted twice by SS in the last few months ( I am aware that they are a bit weird with rejections right now). I shoot with a very shallow depth of field and I like dramatic light, so everything I find makes an image interesting, SS dislikes. I take no offence in that and I will reapply as a contributor but I would never change my style for them; there's already plenty of people succedding in that style without me changing my style to fit in. 
Stocksy on the other hand, has a style that I like so applying as a contributor is an exercise that would make me a better photographer and it would also be a fun experiment. I think that for my style of photography, Stocksy is more of a matter of flexibility than compromise.

BTW, I don't mean to start a heated debate on SS!  ;)

I know what you mean. SS and other general stock photo agencies actually accept many different styles. Stocksy, again I am speculating, if wants to outperform, cannot only live with one style or few styles either. It must be getting boring for the editors after a while. Therefore, an individualistic approach might be your best bet. But what do I know?

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #91 on: November 30, 2013, 14:55 »
0
Interesting! I did search for "fiber optics" looking for strong compositions, natural light something different from others  but....

http://www.stocksy.com/search?src=head&text=fiber%20optics


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #92 on: November 30, 2013, 15:14 »
0
As I'd assumed it was lifestyle, I never imagined it was for me.

Lifestyle is not a photography style, it's subject matter.

Indeed; but that's relevant because ... ?
I had asked about the style. I hadn't expected Stocksy to be for me because I'd assumed the preferred subject matter was lifestyle.
So the comment that 'if I didn't understand the style, it wasn't for me' was bizarre.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #93 on: November 30, 2013, 16:21 »
0
OK, I didn't notice Ron had started a new style thread. Apologies to all.

Taken here frome there:

My honest feeling is this: if you have to ask, you're probably not right.
Can you honestly see a similarity in style between the underwater photos referenced above and those found in a search on Scotland?
Not for a moment criticising either set; but 'similar style', I don't see, despite the totally different subject matter (before anyone feels obliged to point out the bleeding obvuious).
Sue, I don't share your obsession with searches of Scotland.
A totally irrelevant way of avoiding a simple question. I didn't ask what your obsession is.
I was asking about this 'easily discernable Stocksy style', comparing the keyword I'm closest to with a totally different subject-matter.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 16:41 by ShadySue »

Ron

« Reply #94 on: November 30, 2013, 16:38 »
0
How did I start a new style??

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #95 on: November 30, 2013, 16:42 »
0
How did I start a new style??
Natural talent.  8)
(typo corrected)

Ron

« Reply #96 on: November 30, 2013, 16:45 »
0
How did I start a new style??
Natural talent.  8)
(typo corrected)
Hmm, I dont have talent. I know stuff, but I have and always will be average in everything I do. Before you ask, yes I am happy in life :)

Then again, maybe I am too hard on myself and always trying to improve myself.

« Reply #97 on: November 30, 2013, 18:58 »
0
Everyone is so excited about the opportunity of being accepted to Stocksy but could anyone, who is already in, confirm that it makes financial sense to devote one's best works for them ?

Not in my experience :/



You mean you are there with your images and you're not satisfied with sales ?

Yep, and I don't see how the whole thing can work out to anything worthwhile, unless you have plenty of images to start out with.
Wow, met the standard into the exclusive club and want to get paid as well? Some folks are just never satisfied. :D
« Last Edit: November 30, 2013, 19:38 by heywoody »

« Reply #98 on: December 02, 2013, 12:55 »
+1
Hi Julie,

I really like the collection you put together. The images that didn't work for me were the guy with the snake, the blonde with the grey background, and perhaps some of the images with people looking direct to camera (all mentioned by others).

The images with the baby are probably the best for me, but really they all look great.

I'm still not 100% on what will get approved when I submit images (I've had loads of rejections and even been asked to put forward several images I'd previously discarded).

A few things I've noticed tho, are:
- if you're shooting one person, they should be "in their own world", "doing their own thing"
- multiple people engaging with each other rather than the audience/viewer


I think they're also being quite tight on who gets accepted at the moment to deliberately keep the membership small. There's a finite number to this, so they don't want to hit that too quickly. Your folio may well have the goods (I sure think it does), but just didn't get a green light on this occasion for that reason.

Ben

gillian

  • *Gillian*

« Reply #99 on: December 02, 2013, 18:51 »
0
I love these images, and I think the ones that look right are the cafe ladies. Others a bit posed. Not to say that some contributors aren't getting these type of images through, but most of us have had "too posed" as a rejection. And as the collection grows and the talent increases they are getting stricter and stricter. It's a good thing in the long run, as I suppose they aren't interested in having 200 pages of baby images that look like all the rest. I believe they see what fits in with what's currently in the collection, also a good thing.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
1297 Views
Last post October 16, 2011, 17:35
by Xalanx
56 Replies
8782 Views
Last post July 26, 2012, 13:26
by JPSDK
58 Replies
11719 Views
Last post August 26, 2015, 18:10
by Alfa156Melb
6 Replies
1812 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 10:46
by EmberMike
7 Replies
2430 Views
Last post July 30, 2014, 03:11
by mojaric

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors