I think that on SS forum there're some ex moderators.
Good luck, I'm sure that you'll be approved next time.

The trouble is they don't just review the images on technical quality but also if they think they will sell. One of my last batch that was rejected was for this reason but that images sells well on IS.

I have decided to submit these 10. Just wanted to check here before I send them.

Thanks for the help.

All posted pictures are technically good. Many are somehow at risk of "low commercial value" - they use this reason a lot lately - but it's worth trying imo.

Just do not send the medals: pictures of the Queen are no longer accepted at SS - although there are many old pictures online. Maybe it's acceptable as editorial? But I'm not sure.

I'm afraid about "limited commercial value" (especially the last two) but I hope in other opinions for you.

Isn't it the technical and compositional quality that counts ? Surely how much demand for a subject is subjective. Anyway, they are unusual. Isn't that what a library wants rather than over stocked similar subject matter?

Quality is real important but they are interested in commercial value too. For example when I had my examination I had 3 rejected images (all abstract works) and the reason was "limited commercial value". Currently I have 90-100% accepted images but when they refused a work it's often for "limited commercial value" and always they're abstract works or texture but I'm an illustrator, I think that can be different for you so I'd like to hear a photographer opinion.

I wouldn't recommend you to submit any of those shots in the first ten. They're not good. Maybe the photo with those 2 guys (with reservations).
I'm not going to explain why, it'll take too much time. But there are several people on SS forum who dedicate part of their lives helping newbies get in. Some of us don't really understand why.

There not good ? Very blunt. Quite rude in fact. It's a matter of opinion as I think they are and so do others here. There are people out there that actually like to help others. This is the trouble with having a critique forum is you get more confused than you started out. Too many mixed messages.

Quote from: Herg on February 04, 2011, 09:09
There not good ? Very blunt. Quite rude in fact. It's a matter of opinion as I think they are and so do others here. There are people out there that actually like to help others.

The only 'good' stock image is the tools and maybe the singers but I don't know who they are. The others all have either technical flaws or low commercial potential (or both). That bridge shot for instance __ who is going to buy that and what are they going to use it for? Honestly, if you don't understand why that shot is so pointless then you are not yet ready. Brick walls and flowers? Do me a favour. With 14M images online they need to be truly exceptional. SS is a commercial stock agency not your local camera club.

You should follow Xalanx's and others advice and get your critique from the SS forum.

Really Herg, show your images here: http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/
I understand you can be confused and here there're great photographers that can help you with your first submission and tell you an opinion about each photo.

The images generally lack commercial appeal. I like these two the best, maybe submit these two and find/shoot replacements for the other ones. Maybe some really clean and airy images?

Quote from: Herg on February 03, 2011, 19:48

The glass image may be "overfiltered", difficult to see from such small image.

This one might not get trough if not submitted editorial: (I'm amazed that this is for sale at IS ) NOTE: I'm not saying there is copyrighted stuff in the image, but a shot like this is like waving a red flag at a reviewer.

Quote from: gostwyck on February 04, 2011, 13:09

Quote from: Herg on February 04, 2011, 09:09
There not good ? Very blunt. Quite rude in fact. It's a matter of opinion as I think they are and so do others here. There are people out there that actually like to help others.

The only 'good' stock image is the tools and maybe the singers but I don't know who they are. The others all have either technical flaws or low commercial potential (or both). That bridge shot for instance __ who is going to buy that and what are they going to use it for? Honestly, if you don't understand why that shot is so pointless then you are not yet ready. Brick walls and flowers? Do me a favour. With 14M images online they need to be truly exceptional. SS is a commercial stock agency not your local camera club.

You should follow Xalanx's and others advice and get your critique from the SS forum.

Again, quite rude. I understand what you say but the tone is not polite. Camera club ? I didn't study Photography for 4 years and get a HND in specialising in editorial images for nothing. Please do not patronise me. As for the brick wall, if you look properly you can see it has a dirty great crack down the middle. Do me a favour, that image has sold over on IS. Think about Insurance ads, Surveying, cowboy builders etc etc.

This is exactly why I have been reluctant to post in these forums. There has been some helpful advice, some PM's telling me it's good enough for SS but the minority tend to give sardonic remarks.

Quote from: Herg on February 04, 2011, 15:52
Again, quite rude. I understand what you say but the tone is not polite. Camera club ? I didn't study Photography for 4 years and get a HND in specialising in editorial images for nothing. Please do not patronise me.

I thought your opening gambit, in titling this thread 'Ridiculous Rejections', was extremely rude and patronising to the SS reviewers. I just carried on in the tone you had started.

As it happens I think the SS reviewers do a fine job other than that they should probably reject rather more than they do. I didn't 'study photography for 4 years and get an HND in editorial images' so I must yield to your superior knowledge __ but I do make my living from microstock.

Quote from: gostwyck on February 04, 2011, 16:08

Quote from: Herg on February 04, 2011, 15:52
Again, quite rude. I understand what you say but the tone is not polite. Camera club ? I didn't study Photography for 4 years and get a HND in specialising in editorial images for nothing. Please do not patronise me.

I thought your opening gambit, in titling this thread 'Ridiculous Rejections', was extremely rude and patronising to the SS reviewers. I just carried on in the tone you had started.

As it happens I think the SS reviewers do a fine job other than that they should probably reject rather more than they do. I didn't 'study photography for 4 years and get an HND in editorial images' so I must yield to your superior knowledge __ but I do make my living from microstock.

Good for you. So do I as well as music and Sound recording.

So carrying on in the same tone makes it right to be rude ? My initial post wasn't intending to be rude.

Quote from: Herg on February 04, 2011, 16:10
So do I as well as music and Sound recording.

Glad to hear it. You carry on sitting in classrooms and collecting your fancy bits of paper __ and we'll carry on doing the job and earning the money.

When anyone starts referring to their 'qualifications' it becomes immediately obvious that they don't know what they are talking about.

The last time I sat in a lecture room (most time was spent shooting) was 1989. Granted, I might not know as much as you about microstock photography but at the same time don't call what I do "Camera club".

Still here Herg? upload them! (approved or not) microstockgroup isn´t the place to this kind of topics, actually it is just a weird place were negativism and bullying RULE!

wish you the best Herg

Yea I will. It's not only me then 

Don't worry, I don't get intimidated by bullies in ivory towers, especially when their work isn't itself exceptional.

I liked your earlier shot of the person cooking sausages, and from the little I know it seems to me SS like people shots - and they don't seem to like shallow dof (for me at least).  Good luck! 

Herg, I've been with SS for 4-5 year now so my advice may no longer be current. Before I upgraded my camera to a 5dMark II, I was running noise reduction software on all my SS submissions (I had a separate workflow just for SS). They don't want to see noise in your pictures. I now downsize my images instead of using noise reduction. You may also consider reducing the photos to the minimum size the site will accept. Many have indicated they were accepted that way. As for what files to upload, I agree with other comments about the medals being risky (whether or not they are allowed - a reviewer may decide not to take a chance). I do very little post production on my images as I'm not very good with photoshop. This works for me (and many others who are similarly challenged). If you have more people pictures with releases that could be used for stock that would be a good thing - sites tend to like good people shots. I also liked the food prep (sausage) photo.

Good luck!

^ meant post processing of course

Thanks for the advice, much appreciated. I won't submit the medals shot to be safe. Unfortunately I don't have many people shots.

BTW-How do you downsize an image. I use Raw Shooter and The Gimp.

Excuse me, you studied photograhy 4 years and you don't know how to downsize an image?

Quote from: Xalanx on February 04, 2011, 17:45
Excuse me, you studied photograhy 4 years and you don't know how to downsize an image?

I know it's ridiculous isn't it. I mean, fancy not teaching us that in the late 80's even though we only used film.   Don't worry, I am sure I will work it out on my own. It's not rocket science. Thanks for your help  It's obvious here that there are some who just don't want new members joining SS.