MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Critique of my Shutterstock photo's prior to submission  (Read 2616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 02, 2014, 16:47 »
0
I would like to get your input on some photo's that I am considering sending to Shutterstock. I have small portfolio's on Bigstock, Fotolia, Istock, Dreamstime and 123RF. All of which contain photo's already declined by Shutterstock in my first two submission attempts.

My style leans towards nature and landscape which is well covered in most sites already and was the topic of my previous submissions. I tried to go a different direction this time with some travel photo's and some shots from a local school that close in 2010.

I am including a link to the photos on Flick'r at full resolution for your review.

newbielink:http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenbrokeacres/sets/72157639325604084/ [nonactive]


Let me know if you have any questions or difficulties getting to the link, this is my first post so I may make a mistake somewhere. Your help and input are greatly appreciated.  :)
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 16:57 by greenbroke »


steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2014, 17:03 »
0
I think they will reject them all. You are aware of issues with model and property releases I assume - most of them need either one or the other, and they are not particularly newsworthy to fit into the old definition of Editorial. I'm not sure SS would take these as the trial images.

Steve

« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2014, 17:07 »
0
First off, don't plural words don't need an apostrophe.  Sorry - my pet grammar peeve.

I don't know much about SS, but Ashford Castle 6 is interesting, although the blues in the sky look a little too saturated.   The sweater shop looks underexposed.  The sun and shadows are very harsh in some.  Looks like the kind of stuff that occasionally sells on Alamy.

Ron

« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2014, 17:22 »
0
Yeah those are all editorial shots. I am not sure if they will accept editorial for the first 10. However the new illustrative editorial category is suitable for them.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2014, 17:22 »
0
First off, don't plural words don't need an apostrophe.  Sorry - my pet grammar peeve.
8) 8)

« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2014, 17:51 »
0
First off, don't plural words don't need an apostrophe.  Sorry - my pet grammar peeve.
8) 8)

LOL, stupid editing! First "don't" should have been removed.

« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2014, 18:17 »
+4
Perhaps SS is seeking new shooters that show they have an "eye" for interesting design and composition. Your shots say "I walk around and just take pictures of stuff".

Not meaning to be harsh but you should consider different angles, close-ups, unique light etc... and not so much shooting like an insurance adjuster.

Sorry for the tough love.  :)

« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2014, 18:21 »
+1
I will take all of your input to heart (even grammar) :) I will wait until I can put something more interesting together and try again. Much appreciated

« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2014, 21:56 »
0
Perhaps SS is seeking new shooters that show they have an "eye" for interesting design and composition. Your shots say "I walk around and just take pictures of stuff".

Not meaning to be harsh but you should consider different angles, close-ups, unique light etc... and not so much shooting like an insurance adjuster.

Sorry for the tough love.  :)

I agree. You put all your subjects in the middle, and nothing is composed. Actually you photograph opposite of what you should.
you do like this: There is a subject, Ill photograph that. Snap.
You should do like this: see a keyword, illustrate the keyword so that everything in the frame supports that keyword.

Lets take the cornerstone, which is a good and concrete keyword. Then you show the stone with exactly so much wall that you can see it is in a corner, else you photoshop it into an adequate building part. You bricks counterdict the cornerstone message. Also you should cut the grass and use a reflector to get the light right.
And dont say:"But thats how it was, when I was there", because thats not what stock is about, we are not documenting, we are providing content, and we are many, and the competition is high, so your pictures have to be very good.

So composition and mixed content is going to kill these pictures. There is also a problem with oversaturation, I think. maybe you camera is set on vivid?

« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2014, 22:30 »
0
BTW, you have images in your flicker port that are much better than those you selected for ss.
Also some that would work in your application. If technicalities are ok. You could take a look at these, just an opinion:

waterlily
waterfall 1
trio
thecougar
sturpic1 (???)
SDvalley
renstance
remakenight
mountlion
LPstripnight
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 22:37 by JPSDK »

« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2014, 23:02 »
0
Thx for the feedback, I think you hit it on the head with "see a keyword, illustrate the keyword so that everything in the frame supports that keyword." That's a departure for me but it does explain my challenges.

« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2014, 23:09 »
0
it also gives you a place to start. There is nothin easier than photographing keywords.

You can start with photographing a book, isolated if you have lights, and if not, with a blurred bookshelf in the background.


Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
34 Replies
10700 Views
Last post January 24, 2009, 21:57
by goldenangel
4 Replies
1530 Views
Last post October 16, 2011, 17:35
by Xalanx
56 Replies
10512 Views
Last post July 26, 2012, 13:26
by JPSDK
101 Replies
15015 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 13:17
by AYA
23 Replies
3443 Views
Last post December 27, 2013, 06:55
by electric bill

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements