I became aware of stock photography around the same time I got my first DSLR camera in 2008. I signed up with istock first and was immediately frustrated by the review process. Looking back at my current portfolio on istock, I'm amazed they took anything. It's all crap.

I've made maybe $200 on microstock since 2008. My photos don't get approved and when they do, they don't sell.

I think my flickr page is the best example I have of what I'm capable of: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevarthan

The top four photos are the sorts of things I like to shoot. Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc. I don't really like people, though my daughter is pretty cute. All four of these photos were rejected by shutterstock. istock only took the fireworks.

I've got excellent equipment. I spent years collecting it and I really enjoy using it. I can't blame these rejections on the equipment at this point. If anything, the number of rejects has increased as my equipment has improved. It's me.

I've skimmed a few stock photo books. Nothing jumped out at me that would help. I think I'm missing something. Maybe a lot of somethings.

I'd like some advice. No need to be gentle. I appreciate bluntness. What can I do to start getting photos accepted and start selling? What should I avoid? What should I change?

Thanks,

Jesse

"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."

Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell.  Just because you like shooting them doesn't mean anyone necessarily wants to buy them.

I like your shots a lot. Just pay attention to the feedback you get from the stock sites (why are they rejecting your images?), and as others have said, shoot what people will buy, not necessarily what you like to shoot. Try different subject matter and see how it does.

Shot what you can not find on stock search engines or what looks quite different! Simple as that!

Ok, great advice.

First, someone asked why they reject my work? Dusk (bridge railing), the fountains, and the fireworks were rejected for focus: "Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution." That's a very common rejection reason for me. I find it incredible because I take great pains to make sure something is in very clear sharp focus. The fireworks, in particular, are sharp and clear, and so is the bridge below them. The boats aren't, but they aren't the subject.

Another is too grainy. The fireworks were also rejected for being too grainy. It's a 13 second long exposure. It looks fine to me at full resolution. For example, istock accepted the fireworks, but shutterstock thought it was too grainy and had poor focus.

It's very confusing. I think both of these reasons are excuses because they just don't have a "we don't want this photo because we don't think the subject material will sell" reason. I wish they did have that reason because it would be far more helpful.

Second... on the advice that I should shoot something else... ok, fair enough. I think so too. Someone mentioned I could try shooting things people buy. Ok, I can do that. I enjoy shooting objects. However, the last time I tried to shoot a lot of objects, I found I was spending way more money on things to shoot than I was making on stock revenue. Any ideas to manage that situation?

Another is too grainy. The fireworks were also rejected for being too grainy. It's a 13 second long exposure. It looks fine to me at full resolution. For example, istock accepted the fireworks, but shutterstock thought it was too grainy and had poor focus.

You've picked a particularly difficult subject here.  Using your Flickr shot as an example, I would suggest a smaller aperture (get more in sharp focus), a higher ISO to compensate, and then careful use of noise reduction software when needed.  Or just shoot under easier conditions until you build up your portfolio.

Your daughter is adorable and I think your people shots in general are strong.

I too find that landscapes and nature sell for me both on the micros and traditional sites. Personally, I think landscapes are hard because it's so easy to be distracted by the beauty of a scene, but you need to really think about composition, lighting, filters, bracketing. If it's a place that is easily accessible to you, go back and shoot it again and again at different times of day and in different seasons - don't let the scene control your photo. Be ruthless in your editing.
Shooting at the best times of the day and being patient and waiting for the right light is key, along with thinking about compositions with plenty of copy space and with the ability to be cropped as banners, etc for web use. Landscapes from popular travel destinations have an edge when it comes to sales.

Bridges also sell. I've got one iPhone shot of a nondescript bridge in New Jersey that I took from a moving car that has sold several times. A bridge shot at sunset that I put on the micros instead of the macros feeling it was far from my best work surprisingly has been licensed well over a hundred times. It was even a a strong seller on Fotolia, my worst site, which I dropped several months ago.

So in addition to thinking about what buyers need and photographing people which I think you are quite good at, don't stop shooting landscapes and bridges. Wait for the light, think about your composition and go with a small aperture to overcome the inspector's bias.

One thing I noticed in your still life and interior shots is that you are not careful to remove extraneous objects and unwanted reflections either by using a gobo or in post, and you're not prop-styling the rooms or even the still life set ups. You need to pare down those kinds of shots to the essentials and style them with stock in mind, not just do a quick grab shot and hope it will sell.

Good luck.

Your daughter is adorable and I think your people shots in general are strong.

[...]

So in addition to thinking about what buyers need and photographing people which I think you are quite good at, don't stop shooting landscapes and bridges. Wait for the light, think about your composition and go with a small aperture to overcome the inspector's bias.

Thank you. I think that is excellent advice.

One thing I noticed in your still life and interior shots is that you are not careful to remove extraneous objects and unwanted reflections either by using a gobo or in post, and you're not prop-styling the rooms or even the still life set ups. You need to pare down those kinds of shots to the essentials and style them with stock in mind, not just do a quick grab shot and hope it will sell.

You know, those weren't shot with stock in mind at all, and I never even tried to upload them as such. Missed opportunity, I suppose. You're right.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 10, 2014, 09:19

"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."

Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell.  Just because you like shooting them doesn't mean anyone necessarily wants to buy them.

Really? These genres don't sell? $hit, better scrap my portfolio of over 5000 images which comfortably bring in well over four figures a month.

Wonder what other landscape photographers think about landscapes being "easy" to shoot?

Notice I didn't say 'good', 'great' or 'epic' landscapes.

Second... on the advice that I should shoot something else... ok, fair enough. I think so too. Someone mentioned I could try shooting things people buy. Ok, I can do that. I enjoy shooting objects. However, the last time I tried to shoot a lot of objects, I found I was spending way more money on things to shoot than I was making on stock revenue. Any ideas to manage that situation?

There's a whole thread on Shutterstock rejections, so a lot of people are feeling your pain there.

When we suggest things people buy, we mean types of photos that sell, not shooting objects that people purchase. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Couple of things. I note that you don't watermark your flickr photos, which is fine, but it's trivial to download your images at the 2048 size (I just did. In Chrome, Inspect element and then use the URL to open the JPEG). I'd stick to smaller sizes or put a small watermark for anything you're selling.

I'm aware of that. If I ever found someone stealing my work I'd be concerned. I never have, yet.

I think that some technical weaknesses could be addressed that would increase your acceptances (I just looked at the first four as you said those had been rejected). On your fireworks shot, I can see multiple sensor spots in the sky, it looks washed out (insufficient contrast) and I prefer shots like this if the perspective distortion is corrected. So somehting like this (I only uploaded a small version as it's unwatermarked)

This is great news. I can fix technical problems.

I do like the perspective correction. I don't know how to do that in software. I've only used my tilt shift to do it in the past. I guess I should learn.

I think your version looks over saturated. Is it possible this aspect is personal preference?

Regarding the sensor spots.... I'm aware I have a few. I bought a cleaning kit years ago, but I've been hesitant to use it. Seems risky. I'll have to suck it up and just do it. Sensor spots are the one thing I really hate about digital. I change lenses all the time and it seems like I have spots hours after cleaning. Sigh.

The shots are very grainy (the other three as well) and have a slightly over sharpened look. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG, and if RAW, how are you processing images? Given the D3S reputation for great low light performance I'm a bit surprised (but I use Canon so I don't really have any experience with Nikon performance).

I shoot jpeg. I try not to process the images, but these looked a bit better after a pass in lightroom. I tweaked the exposure and tried to minimize the noise.

The Delta Queen shot looks shaky - you said it was hand held and it probably should have been on a tripod. The same for the blue railing shot.

Can you explain to me why you think it looks shaky? I don't see it, and if I can't see it, I won't ever be able to avoid it. I took this shot at 1/125. I thought that would be more than enough to eliminate any shake. I was on a ladder, so a tripod wasn't really an option. I shot the blue railing at 1/125 also. What shutter speed would eliminate shake hand held?

For stock, I think the blue railing shot would work better if a little more of the bridge and rail in the foreground were in focus - a background blurred is great, but one part of the girder sharp just isn't enough.

That's good feedback. Bridge mostly in focus, background out. I can try that. I thought it worked, personally. I stared at that image, and I loved it as-is. But I've received similar feedback from others on this image. It works for art, but not stock, I guess.

I also think you need to do a little more post processing on your shots to clean up minor flaws (like sensor spots, and it's surprising iStock didn't catch that - they used to be so good) and get your contrast and color optimal (I don't mean super saturated although I know there's a lot of that about).

I don't see the contrast or color issues, personally. I agree with the sensor spots and I'm surprised nobody mentioned it either if you saw it. I never saw them when I examined the image, so I thought the background hid any defects fairly well, but I admittedly didn't look very hard.

I don't think you need to shoot different stuff if you don't want to, but I think you're missing the technical bar a bit on the shots you like to do, at least as far as stock is concerned.

Fair enough. Again, I can fix technical. I appreciate you taking the time to look.

"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."

Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell.  Just because you like shooting them doesn't mean anyone necessarily wants to buy them.

That's not true. I sell lots of zoo animal shots. Got an EL on one today. And I had a similar shot to his of Chattanooga get an EL last week. Cityscapes and landmarks sell well. Sell 75-100 images a day on Shutterstock, and a quarter of those are zoo animals and landmarks.

Anyway, I think the key is having variety and photographing the things you enjoy. Photographing your cute daughter doing everyday things can be a good way to bump your sales. Nothing like having full-time access to a good model like that.

The fireworks shot is way overexposed. Something like that should be shot at like f8-11 at 2-3 seconds, prefocusing on the bridge. Then you'd have plenty of depth of field to get it all in focus.

Re saturation, check the image now - I had forgotten to embed the sRGB profile into the JPEG I made for the web and it looked awful in browsers other than Safari. Sorry about that.

I can't get my sensor completely clean so I use Lightroom or Photoshop to deal with them. You have to get used to looking over your image for these sorts of details if you want to avoid rejections. It does get easier to spot them with practice . If you use Photoshop you can add a curves adjustment layer set to Hard Light blending mode that makes them stand out really clearly. Lightroom 5 has a tool to help visualize them but it's not that great IMO.

It's not hard to fix perspective in Photoshop or Lightroom if you didn't use a tilt shift lens. You'll lose some of the image (for some you can clone in corners to fill, depending on the subject matter).

If you're going to do much processing, RAW is the way to go, IMO, especially when shooting in difficult light. You'll get a variety of strong views on this, but I think in controlled light - studio - JPEG works fine and it's faster. With RAW and 16 bit processing you have a lot more leeway to process a shot and get a clean JEPG out the other end. When you do shoot JPEG, you need to avoid the camera doing too much processing (sharpening, noise reduction, etc.). I would always do noise reduction in Photoshop so I can mask a layer and only modify those darker areas of the image that need it.

As far as whether a certain shutter speed is fast enough to avoid camera shake, I'm sure you've read the general rules and know that it depends, in some cases on you and how stead you can be. Up a ladder might mean some ladder movement even if you're rock steady.

When I look at the Delta Queen image I see the sternwheeler looking mostly focused but a bit soft. The bridge on the left looks as if someone shook it (not smoothly out of focus), all the way back to where there are buildings that look sharp. Without a tilt-shift lens I don't get (visually) what's in focus and what's not. It just looks wrong given that this isn't a tilt shift lens - and even given the extreme aperture.

For stock, I'm guessing you'll do better at f/2.8 or higher - just having a little bit more that's really sharp while still giving you plenty of background blur

And here's a tutorial on using Curves in Photoshop which has some good examples of images that need a little improvement in contrast (which also improves the colors). Look at the before and after images for examples

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm