Author Topic: Which stock would work best for this purpose? (Read 4018 times)

sensovision · « **on:** February 18, 2008, 20:40 »

Hi folks!
I'm still pretty new in stock photography world and wish to save extra time to editors who review my photographs.
I wonder if there are some stock agency which would be best used for evaluation of your photograph to see if it's well suit for stocks.
E.g. you submit photo there and if it's accepted there is good chance that it would be accepted by other sites too? Or there is no such site and each agency have pretty different preferences?

If someone using such technique I would appreciate if you tell more about it.

PS Right now I try my photos on DT first as they seems to give somehow reasonable feedback at least. But it seems that same photos which was accepted on DT could be declined on IS and FT(or it's rather exclusion than the case?).

digiology · « **Reply #1 on:** February 18, 2008, 21:02 »

I never test images on one site. What gets accepted/rejected seems to vary wildly from site to site (at least for me). I just upload them all simultaneously and then wait for the dust to settle.

Its almost amusing to see what gets accepted/rejected at each site.

Throw caution to the wind and just submit and see what happens.

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #2 on:** February 18, 2008, 21:11 »

I've started tracking my acceptance and rejection graphically in a spreadsheet. I list all the photo numbers down the page and the agencies across the top. If an image is accepted the appropriate cell is green, or red if rejected.

Any vertical red lines means I got a reviewer on a bad day. Horizontal red lines means I made a poor decision contributing that image.

On that note, many of the agencies use your acceptance rate in their 'best match' algorithm, so it's in your interests to keep your acceptance rate as high as possible. I cull my photos ruthlessly before uploading. If I'm not confident that an image will be accepted at almost all agencies, I don't upload it. That doesn't actually stop me getting rejections, but it helps keep my acceptance rate up. Most people find that quality gets better earnings than quantity anyway.

I hope that helps.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2008, 21:53 »

In my experience each site is different but I would say if something passes Shutterstock reviewers, it should have pretty good chances of getting accepted about anywhere else.

Everybody's experience is different. I think most of us have experimented until we found what sites fit our style.

vphoto · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2008, 22:03 »

I agree that Shutterstock test is more difficult to pass. Noise Ninja helped me out eventually.

sensovision · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2008, 06:50 »

thanks for your help, folks! As for ShutterStock I've heard they have strictest rules but didn't tried to upload to them until I manage to get new camera which wouldn't be so noisy.

Special thanks to Lee for idea with spreadsheet, this would also solve my problem with tracking what images was rejected or accepted and not submitting them twice, and hopefully give some idea when I was wrong submitting certain images.

Danicek · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2008, 09:05 »

In my experience, CreStock has the most strict reviewers. I would not use them to evaluate images...

PecoFoto · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2008, 17:50 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on February 18, 2008, 21:53

In my experience each site is different but I would say if something passes Shutterstock reviewers, it should have pretty good chances of getting accepted about anywhere else.

And Shutterstock review submissions quite quickly too.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2008, 19:39 »

I can't tell which is best for "suitable for stock".

In my experience however (bear in mind that I'm not in SS) StockXpert has a very fair technical evaluation. When they say there is something wrong - lighting, noise, isolation - I find them generally right. But I have to disagree in many of their "we're not looking for this type of photo" rejection. One of my best sellers in IS was rejected twice in StockXpert for that.

Regards,
Adelaide

sensovision · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2008, 20:03 »

Quote

In my experience however (bear in mind that I'm not in SS) StockXpert has a very fair technical evaluation. When they say there is something wrong - lighting, noise, isolation - I find them generally right. But I have to disagree in many of their "we're not looking for this type of photo" rejection. One of my best sellers in IS was rejected twice in StockXpert for that.

I'm not on SS to and StockXpert refused my initial submission 20 days ago with "We are very sorry but at the moment we are not looking for pictures like the ones you uploaded. You will be able to submit your work again a month from now."
So I maybe try to apply to them, although not sure what pictures to choose yet :p

After reading this thread and getting my own images rejected on one agency and accepted on other, I'm thinking to track them either with spreadsheet or creating some program which would help me tracking images and their performance.

Thanks everyone for sharing your methods of evaluation photos!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Which stock would work best for this purpose? (Read 4018 times)

sensovision

digiology

Lee Torrens

PaulieWalnuts

vphoto

sensovision

Danicek

PecoFoto

madelaide

sensovision

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors