MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Automatic rejections for newbees?  (Read 11479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 03, 2009, 18:00 »
0
I am new to the forum (a newbee) and returning to photography after many years.  In trying to insert myself into the microstock arena I was shocked to find my initial submissions rejected.  Clearly I have a lot to learn about stock and microstock photography and am currently doing research on the matter.  Here's the question.  Is it normal for new photographers to have their work rejected?  If so is there any way one can ever find out why?


« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2009, 18:04 »
0
More information, like what site, what camera, what subject, post your images for critique, etc...

« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2009, 18:20 »
0
I thought I was really good as well the first time.  Ive improved my quality 500% since I started with microstock.  For many its a wakeupcall considering noise and artifacts and even focus.  I remember I rarely checked my stuff in 100% before.

Good luck and dont give up :)

« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2009, 18:37 »
0
Here's the question. why?
Where is your portfolio?

« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2009, 20:34 »
0
Just a follow up.  It seems my post was interpreted as my being upset because my work was rejected.  I have only submitted the three initial images to iStock for getting approved by them to be able to submit my work.  As it turned out, they wanted additional samples, indicating the initial submission was not the quality wanted by them.  I am a Newbee.  I am working on developing a portfolio and currently doing research and taking a class in microstock before I jump too deeply into the water.  My question evolves from reading several forum posts and subsequent replies, where it seems to me that it is normal, and perhaps routine, to have work rejected when initially applying for a MS account prior to submitting images.  Does this seem to be the norm for those who are getting their feet wet in MS?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 19:08 by lsanford1939 »

« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2009, 20:45 »
0
No.  People who are able to shoot a variety of well executed images or concepts will have no problems getting accepted.  Someone who just bought a camera will.

"currently doing research and taking classes in microstock before I jump too deeply into the water."

Try some photography classes instead.  Don't put the cart before the horse.

batman

« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2009, 20:57 »
0
you could start with sites that are less picky and known to accept anything . i won't mention them, a search in this forum will give you their names.
this will give you the confidence, while you are learning.
although submitting to microstock is not really the place for learning. you should have at least got the grasp of being able to produce well-exposed and good compositional images by now.
i would stay away from the Big 6 , even the big 7 ie Big Stock Photo for the time being. but if you really want to stick your foot in the cold water and do a "trial by fire" forced learning method, you could risk more rejections .
it's sort of a balance. don't get too confidence just because the lower placed sites take all of your work. they usually do. but if it means something to you to see your portfolio with some sites. i guess that would be the first step. or rather, the second.
the first being get to know your camera and kick ass with some good shots that are almost as good, if not better than the ones you see selling at the Big 6.
good luck. chins up. welcome to the coloseum ! ;)

tan510jomast

« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2009, 22:25 »
0
All before me are giving you good advice. Read them well. Also , learn to be objective, and not too attached to your work. We sometimes get blinded by our own "art" that we forget micro stock is generic . Look at the boxes in supermarket, magazines,and flyers, whatever and notice how a certain "type" of photos are always used over and over again.  you might tend to call them boring photos, but learn to separate yourself . Also look at your work at 100%, even 200% mag.
as some reviewers are known to check your work at 200% . Sounds wacko maybe, but that's the way it works. And learn to post process your work if needed , fringe, artifact, noise,etc..whatyamightcallem.. Shoot in RAW and used the highest resolution . If needed downsize your work, better to submit a smaller size that is to be accepted then a large size which is bound to be rejected due to noise, whatnot..   Lots to learn. Best of luck.

« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2009, 05:15 »
0
For the initial submission, iStock don't require top technical quality (that comes later) - what they do like to see is three images of differing subjects, showing that you aren't just a snapshooter and you can create an image with some understanding of composition and lighting.

The most common reason they give for an initial rejection is usually that the subjects are too similar and they want to see more variety.

As you say you are returning to photography after some years, you likely have an eye for an image - don't let the initial rejection put you off, have another go!

To save a later post though, bear in mind that once your initial application is accepted, if you submit the same images for your portfolio they will be subject to more stringent examination and may be rejected on technical grounds.

« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2009, 09:26 »
0
Thanks to all who have replied to my post.  I will heed the advice given here and take some deep breaths, do some more research, and fine tune my eye for stock images.  Clearly MS is a very different piece of the overall photography profession.
~lsanford1939

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2009, 09:54 »
0
Microstock is nothing like your traditional photography. What they look for is the type of photos they can use for advertising and the like. They like alot of isolated images. Don't get to frustrated by the whole process because as many of those here on the forum have been down the same road and one could easily get discouraged. I can't tell you how many times I was ready to give up because of those initial rejections to the Big 6, but I didn't give up. If you submit to the smaller less picky sites don't expect big sales because they don't produce much as far as income is concerned at least they don't for me. They don't have the buyers like the bigger agencies do therefore they don't have the traffic. As far as iStock is concerned they do like a variety of images and they are one of the more pickier sites in alot of ways. Good luck.

tan510jomast

« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2009, 11:11 »
0
Thanks to all who have replied to my post.  I will heed the advice given here and take some deep breaths, do some more research, and fine tune my eye for stock images.  Clearly MS is a very different piece of the overall photography profession.
~lsanford1939

Well, I wouldn't say a very different piece of overall p profession, I would prefer to call it more like advertising or marketing photography. It's not our call to be independently creative and do a Cecil Beaton or Richard Avedon , it's more like having a client saying, "no, cut out all that Cosmopolitan bit, we want something that works for every other magazine we sell".  I like to think of microstock as similar to a musician who writes tunes like "hang on sloopy", "wooly booly" simply 3 chord monotony for the generic public, and then leave the charlie parker , thelonius monk , for the jazz club circuit.
much like larry carlton, y'know rather than lenny breau ;)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 11:13 by tan510jomast »

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2009, 13:14 »
0
To the OP, as you mentioned you are an experienced photographer, you are correct that microstock standards are different than what is acceptable in many other areas of photography, such as fine art, events, etc. 

It is VERY common to read complaints from long time pros who experience rejections when they start microstock.  Since you are not making a complaint, but asking advice, I will just echo some of the advice already given in this thread:  Upload a variety of your BEST images, check focus and noise levels at 100%, make sure your lighting and composition look professional.

I have never heard of classes in microstock.  If someone is offering them they are probably just taking your money.  Nobody I know who is successful in microstock has ever taken classes on it.   As was already pointed out - if you need to improve your skills take classes in photography.

« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2009, 19:19 »
0
lisafx,
Thanks for your reply and insight into the MS world.  I misspoke when I said I was taking classes (plural).  There is an (one) online class offered by Brian Peterson's PPSOP titled Maximum Profit from Microstock World that I am currently taking.  I have taken several photography classes, mostly at the college level, over the years, and I have taken two from PPSOP.  I frankly was impressed with the quality of instruction and decided to give this MS class a chance.  Let's hope it does not end up being a waste of money.  I am here on this forum at the urging of the instructor of this class and I have found it to be very useful and informative.  I find MS to be a photography challenge and continue looking forward to it.  Rejects frankly don't bother me that much as long as I can learn from each one.  Sorry to be so chatty....Thanks again to all of you for taking the time to reply to this newbee.  Any and all advice and comments continue to be very welcome.
~lsanford1939

« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2009, 19:27 »
0
I'm currently involved with a professional group of fashion photographers. Looking at their port is horrible. Models are static, don't smile etc... They are much better than me but they don't have a clue about microstock. To start with, they don't know how to keyword. I just told them to read ALL of the blog posts of Ellen Boughs on Dreamstime, and then we can talk. Me thinks that Ellen's posts are covering all issues about microstock, the do's and don'ts, except the technical aspect of the images (noise, levels, light, etc...)

« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2009, 20:14 »
0
Oh, yeah, Brian Peterson.
http://www.ppsop.com/micr.aspx

Funny how none of his links at the bottom link to his work.  Even more humorous that you can't google a Brian Peterson on any micro site.  I'm sure I'd love to see his "award winning images" on iStock, but I can't seem to find them.

Those who can't do, teach.

stacey_newman

« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2009, 21:09 »
0
the article I think he is referring to is some Pete Saloutus guy....I went through to his website and frankly I think his photos kind of stink...IMHO

to the OP - your money would be better spent reading about shooting for advertising and marketing in general. and then you can get yourself an amazing and free education simply reading the articles and forums on iStock.

as for your initial submission, choose three images that demonstrate your best work. the files should be diverse i.e. not three of the same subject or the same scene. review your files 100% and be sure they do not have any noise or artefacting issues. also, what are you shooting with? as for the rest of it, learn by doing like the rest of us did. good luck.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 21:13 by stacey_newman »


« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2009, 21:12 »
0
Oh, yeah, Brian Peterson.
http://www.ppsop.com/micr.aspx

Funny how none of his links at the bottom link to his work.  Even more humorous that you can't google a Brian Peterson on any micro site.  I'm sure I'd love to see his "award winning images" on iStock, but I can't seem to find them.

Those who can't do, teach.


Brian doesn't teach the class; Pete Saloutos does.  And Pete does have portfolios on a few of the micros.  Not big ones; he has 73 images and 355 sales on iStock after eight months of uploading.  I wouldn't exactly use him as my guide to the world of microstock (you'd think he'd link directly to his portfolios if only for marketing purposes), but of course your mileage may vary.

« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2009, 21:39 »
0
Oh yeah, you're right, sorry.  I did look up the class teacher once before and thought he had an inexcusably small amount of files for teaching such a class, and was wondering why I couldn't find him tonight.  Still it speaks that he doesn't link right to those accounts there, eh?

"Pete Saloutos works with the top four Microstock agencies and will teach you the specifics to streamline your uploading process, speed up your submissions and leverage multiple submissions for increased profits. Whether an image is accepted or rejected, you'll know why."

I'd like to know how he knows all this about iStock with 73 images up.  If you want to know why an image is accepted or rejected, the critique forum will tell you tha.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 21:41 by sjlocke »

stacey_newman

« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2009, 22:30 »
0
his stuff on istock is pretty mediocre...so I went through his entire website, his pictures really are kinda bad....maybe that's too strong, bu what is he doing teaching? I think you're right Sean.....those who can't do teach....

« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2009, 19:51 »
0
Oh, yeah, Brian Peterson.
newbielink:http://www.ppsop.com/micr.aspx [nonactive]

Funny how none of his links at the bottom link to his work.  Even more humorous that you can't google a Brian Peterson on any micro site.  I'm sure I'd love to see his "award winning images" on iStock, but I can't seem to find them.

Those who can't do, teach.


First, it's Bryan Peterson, and he's authored some very popular books as well as being a noted commercial photographer for the last 2 decades. He doesn't claim to sell on istock or any other microstock site, and he's not teaching that class. Bryan Peterson sells on Getty and Corbis--do a search there--but much of his work is on assignment. The fact that someone doesn't sell on a micro stock site doesn't mean they are not an accomplished photographer, so it's always a good idea to get the facts straight before making assumptions. If you take a look at his clients, we would all be so lucky to have that list.

jmho,
dawn

« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2009, 20:32 »
0
Whatever.  We were talking about the class, and I misread the name of the "teacher" as I already mentioned above, and yes, I would expect a "teacher" of a microstock class to actually be successful and historied and microstock.  We were not talking about whether the guy whose name is on the page is an accomplished photographer.

DanP68

« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2009, 21:05 »
0
Seriously, Bryan Peterson wrote "Understanding Exposure," which is one of the most popular and useful photography books in existence.  Have you seen his work Sean?  He's fantastic.

« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2009, 21:15 »
0
I'm not commenting on his work or him.  I'm commenting on the subject of this class as listed in the description, and the microstock experience level of the instructor.  See the posts back a few from here.

stacey_newman

« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2009, 10:32 »
0
the photographer we were critiquing is Pete Saloutos, not Bryan Petersen. the guy teaching the course is Pete Saloutos, and no one said anything about photographers not being successful if they aren`t on microstock.

Pete Saloutos claims to be an expert on stock, and his stock images are mediocre, not to mention he claims to be an expert at iStock in particular and he has all of 73 image sin his portfolio and fairly unexciting sales numbers. that was the point.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4299 Views
Last post February 03, 2009, 12:26
by Anyka
6 Replies
5686 Views
Last post May 21, 2009, 14:38
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
2604 Views
Last post October 16, 2013, 15:14
by pixo
0 Replies
2373 Views
Last post November 16, 2013, 10:00
by bunhill
6 Replies
4759 Views
Last post July 25, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors