Author Topic: Automatic rejections for newbees? (Read 11540 times)

lsanford1939 · « **on:** April 03, 2009, 18:00 »

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?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2009, 18:04 »

More information, like what site, what camera, what subject, post your images for critique, etc...

Magnum · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2009, 18:20 »

I thought I was really good as well the first time. I´ve improved my quality 500% since I started with microstock. For many it´s a wakeupcall considering noise and artifacts and even focus. I remember I rarely checked my stuff in 100% before.

Good luck and don´t give up

null · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2009, 18:37 »

Quote from: lsanford1939 on April 03, 2009, 18:00

Here's the question. why?

Where is your portfolio?

lsanford1939 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2009, 20:34 »

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?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2009, 20:45 »

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 »

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 »

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.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 07, 2009, 05:15 »

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.

lsanford1939 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 07, 2009, 09:26 »

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 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 07, 2009, 09:54 »

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 »

Quote from: lsanford1939 on April 07, 2009, 09:26

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

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** April 07, 2009, 13:14 »

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.

lsanford1939 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 07, 2009, 19:19 »

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

null · « **Reply #14 on:** April 07, 2009, 19:27 »

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...)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** April 07, 2009, 20:14 »

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 »

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.

disorderly · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2009, 21:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 07, 2009, 20:14

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2009, 21:39 »

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.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2009, 22:30 »

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....

dawnleblanc · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2009, 19:51 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 07, 2009, 20:14

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

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2009, 20:32 »

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 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #23 on:** April 10, 2009, 21:15 »

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 »

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.

digiology · « **Reply #25 on:** April 11, 2009, 10:38 »

and $395 for an online microstock course.... ouch!

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** April 11, 2009, 10:59 »

Quote from: lclark on April 11, 2009, 10:38

and $395 for an online microstock course.... ouch!

Exactly the point! I stand by my contention that the people who are blogging, writing books, and teaching classes on "how to get rich in microstock" are really about enriching themselves at the expense of eager newbies.

With the exception of Yuri Arcurs, successful microstock artists aren't wasting their time giving away secrets on how to be successful in the micros. These guys are not successful microstockers so they have nothing of value to offer.

Even in Yuri's case he has complained for the last year or so that his overhead is outstripping his profits and he has reached the point of diminishing returns, so I think his blogging, mentorships, keywording services, etc. are a way of segueying out of making money with his photos and into making money from aspiring microstockers. Not criticizing him. At least he has proven he knows what it takes to be successful before turning to teaching others.

But these other pretenders... don't waste your time or your money. There is no secret bag of tricks to being successful. No magical shortcuts. The big secret that successful microstock photographers know is that there is no secret: Take good photos (well composed, properly lighted, low noise, sharp focus), keyword them accurately, and wait for them to attract buyers. End of story.

batman · « **Reply #27 on:** April 11, 2009, 13:24 »

hurrah lisafx,for your honest and simple advice to all newbies. like the saying, A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON PARTED. there have been the same people who write IDIOT's GUIDE TO xxx , etc.. in different permutations. These are the direct descendants of the snake oil man from the old west days.
Practise makes perfect. It's the cheapest way and the surest way to succeed in anything. No book or snake oil is ever going to help you jump the queque. I remember old Mitz (spelling, sorry) he used to be great at responding to something like this, "how quickly can I be a top selling microstock contributor". It's still the same, no such thing as "press this button, send me a cheque or money order, and biff bam pow, congratulations you are the new Yuri !" woo hoo !

Quote from: lclark on April 11, 2009, 10:38

and $395 for an online microstock course.... ouch!

cost you zilch if you simply read every single one of the Big 6 information of what they want from contributors. Alamy has a good section on this too.
ALL AT NO CHARGE. keep the 395 bucks , or if you feel generous, send it to Africa Aid or some charity

DanP68 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 11, 2009, 17:26 »

Agreed, that price is way too high considering the level of instruction and what you are (not) likely to get out of it. Peterson himself offers courses through Adorama in NYC and in Florida a few times per year. It is a 2-3 day course and is not much more expensive than the price being asked by whoever this other guy is (the iStock guru

)

DanP68 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 11, 2009, 17:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 10, 2009, 21:15

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.

Yeah I know dude. I was just surprised you hadn't heard of Peterson before. As for Pete Saloutos...come on! He has like 70 sales on iStock...everyone must know who this guy is!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #30 on:** April 11, 2009, 17:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 11, 2009, 10:59

The big secret that successful microstock photographers know is that there is no secret:

Dang it!

disorderly · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2009, 04:12 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 11, 2009, 10:59

But these other pretenders... don't waste your time or your money. There is no secret bag of tricks to being successful. No magical shortcuts. The big secret that successful microstock photographers know is that there is no secret: Take good photos (well composed, properly lighted, low noise, sharp focus), keyword them accurately, and wait for them to attract buyers. End of story.

Not quite the end of the story. There's also the small matter of identifying types of images that clients can use and will pay money to get. The best flower pictures won't get accepted everywhere, and likely won't sell in large numbers where they do. Figure out what sells, and then find a way to make some of your own.

null · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2009, 04:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 11, 2009, 10:59

The big secret that successful microstock photographers know is that there is no secret: Take good photos (well composed, properly lighted, low noise, sharp focus), keyword them accurately, and wait for them to attract buyers. End of story.

That reminds me of an episode as a toddler in my grandma's garden. I was obsessed by all those birds, and wanted to catch one. After several trials, they all flew away when coming near. So I asked her what to do, and she said that it's a secret. The secret is you have to put some salt on their tail: it paralyzes them and you can just pick them up.

So I went out with a cup of salt, but I never managed to come close enough to put the salt on their tail.

Much later, I realized that she had been pulling my leg. If you can sneak close enough to put salt on its tail, you can as well grab it

So that's the real secret about microstock. Put salt on it's tail, and that's what all those blogs will tell you, collecting you as a referral and collecting Google ads revenue

crazychristina · « **Reply #33 on:** April 12, 2009, 10:06 »

I can't resist responding to the time-honoured aphorism that 'those who can, do, those who can't, teach'. Very few people can teach, and experts are usually the worst teachers (IMHO, of course).

tan510jomast · « **Reply #34 on:** April 12, 2009, 10:48 »

Quote from: averil on April 12, 2009, 10:06

I can't resist responding to the time-honoured aphorism that 'those who can, do, those who can't, teach'. Very few people can teach, and experts are usually the worst teachers (IMHO, of course).

I wouldn't paint all artists with the same brush, more so, I 'd rather revise the saying to:
THOSE WHO CAN WILL TEACH THOSE THEY CHOOSE TO TEACH, those who won't WILL NEVER.

I have in my younger days attended seminars by the great Ansel Adams, also, I had the luck to meet the great Yusouf Karsh in his Ottawa office at the top floor of Le Chateau Laurier, and in that short time of him sitting me down to look at my piddly portfolio right after I had graduated from NYI, he did take the time to give me a few trade secrets I would not have discovered even if I had paid $1M to some school.
NYI taught me how to use the different formats , and taught me the history of photography.
But I still had to spend hours photographing still objects to learn lighting ,etc..

But yes, there are some who can teach and will teach... Gary Burton , Pat Metheny, Chick Corea,Thierney Sutton, etc.
in another section of art (music) are all teachers who TEACH AND DO, as they still kick ass regularly at live performances

You just need to check their credentials, and not just pay to learn from any tom, dick or harry, or as the french say, jacques, pierre o luc !
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"CHOOSE YOUR FRIENDS WELL; but even more importantly, be even more careful who you choose as your enemies"
------------------------------------------------------------------

batman · « **Reply #35 on:** April 12, 2009, 13:01 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on April 12, 2009, 10:48

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"CHOOSE YOUR FRIENDS WELL; but even more importantly, be even more careful who you choose as your enemies"
------------------------------------------------------------------

that's an awesome signature you got there tan!

null · « **Reply #36 on:** April 12, 2009, 13:03 »

Those who cannot teach, teach gym

batman · « **Reply #37 on:** April 12, 2009, 13:07 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on April 12, 2009, 13:03

Those who cannot teach, teach gym

because they know their clients will never lose enough weight , or build up enough stamina , to chase them for their refund

madelaide · « **Reply #38 on:** April 12, 2009, 14:13 »

The other day people were complaining of a guy giving tips for free, now you complain that someone is charging too much.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Automatic rejections for newbees? (Read 11540 times)

batman

tan510jomast

tan510jomast

lisafx

stacey_newman

stacey_newman

DanP68

stacey_newman

digiology

lisafx

batman

DanP68

DanP68

tan510jomast

batman

batman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors