MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: trevarthan on July 10, 2014, 09:09
-
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 (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
-
How big is your portfolio? It may be a volume issue I think I'm probably below average success (certainly on this site) but aim to upload about 20 new pics each week. Its almost beginning to seem worth while after 3 years!
-
"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 would suggest to focus on what the customer is interested in buying, not what you enjoy shooting, like Sean said.
You might also consider to have a look at this book
http://www.amazon.com/Stock-Photography-Selling-Photos-Profifoto-ebook/dp/B00K7T8VG4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405002069&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+kneschke (http://www.amazon.com/Stock-Photography-Selling-Photos-Profifoto-ebook/dp/B00K7T8VG4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405002069&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+kneschke)
Robert is a German stock artist who went from zero to over 10 000 dollars a month in about 5 years. He shares his experiences quite freely in his German blog and now his book is available in English as well.
Another good book,although older, is the one from Rob Sylvan. He used to be the istock site manager.
http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Stock-microstock-creating-photos-ebook/dp/B0041IXRGQ/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kstore_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=08RBGSCTY81D2233D2VZ (http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Stock-microstock-creating-photos-ebook/dp/B0041IXRGQ/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kstore_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=08RBGSCTY81D2233D2VZ)
You could also try to meet up with other stock newbies in your area and work together to create sellable stock. Challenge each other, set yourself upload goals, work on themes together etc...
I learnt a lot from working with other artists.
And have fun! It´s a long road, and maybe you also discover that stock is not really what you want to do. But focussing on getting it right will make you a better photographer anyway, so the time invested is not lost if you love photography.
-
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.
-
I like your photographs very much, but I believe you'll need to change your mindset to do well at stock. I went through just that sort of adjustment since I started doing this, beginning by shooting and submitting most everything and seeing what stuck. Beyond getting the technical aspects right (looking for flaws at 100%, small apertures to put most everything in focus, not overdoing the saturation and contrast in post-processing), think commercial use. Stay away from trademarked products; concentrate on photos that can help tell a story, or at least be an element in a work that will tell one.
By the way, my advise to use small apertures is to increase the odds of getting images approved. Once you have that down, you can play with shallow DOF. You'll risk a higher rejection ratio, but it's worth it if the approved pictures work (and sell) better.
-
Shot what you can not find on stock search engines or what looks quite different! Simple as that!
-
"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?
-
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?
-
As an anecdote for why I think the rejection reasons are often an excuse rather than a legitimate reason, I once shot high key macro photos of individual coffee beans, then wrote a software program to arrange them as alphabetical letters as part of a huge high definition image. istock rejected this one: http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/15314796/2/stock-photo-15314796-capital-letter-k-in-coffee-beans.jpg (http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/15314796/2/stock-photo-15314796-capital-letter-k-in-coffee-beans.jpg)
Saying: "We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:
-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance"
The individual beans were perfect high key shots with a macro lens. I spent hours, if not days, getting the lighting perfect and shot every bean in a highly controlled environment.
In later letter combination rejections, they complained about the image composition.
I mean, just say you think it won't sell. Don't make stuff up.
-
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.
-
Shutterstock seem to be going through a very picky phasse on rejections - I think you are right pictures are rejected because they have perceived LCV
-
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.
-
You've picked a particularly difficult subject here.
Agreed.
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.
I'm pretty sure the 24mm f1.4G is as sharp as it is going to get at f8. Going to f11 might have gotten more in focus, but it wouldn't have improved sharpness of the subject. By f16, this lens starts getting less sharp due to diffraction.
Or just shoot under easier conditions until you build up your portfolio.
I think you're right. What frustrates me is that I'm not shooting under easier conditions to make better photos, or even to improve customer satisfaction. I'm doing it to appease a reviewer.
-
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.
-
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.
I'm pretty sure the 24mm f1.4G is as sharp as it is going to get at f8. Going to f11 might have gotten more in focus, but it wouldn't have improved sharpness of the subject. By f16, this lens starts getting less sharp due to diffraction.
The question isn't the sharpness of the lens but whether it's focused at the right distance. With fireworks going off, you can't be sure your focus is set to the right place. A smaller aperture with a wider depth of field gives you a better chance of having important details in focus. I don't know where you set focus, but both it and what's around it will be sharper if you stop down.
-
"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.
-
"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.
LOL, fair enough Sean
-
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.
Another thing is that Shutterstock is tough for certain types of photos - studio shots that are technically competent will have no problems, but interesting natural light (high contrast, anything with dramatic or strong light) can be much more of a reviewer crapshoot. Sometimes it's you, but sometimes it really is them :)
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)
(http://digitalbristles.com/temp/14383261399_93c4d4fa06_k-edited.jpg)
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). 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. 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.
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 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.
Hope this helps
-
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.
-
I wonder if the shake you're seeing is because the images are slightly out of focus? Thinking back, I used autofocus on the Delta Queen and the Dusk photo.
I switched to manual focus and live preview for the fireworks image. I was surprised to find auto focus was almost always off that night.
I ran some tests a few days later and had trouble getting perfect focus from the 24mm in low light at f1.4. I thought it was the lens or camera at first, but testing seemed to indicate it was the light. I had a moment of panic because google says the D800 has chronic focus issues with this lens, but further research indicated the d3s was solid.
-
"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.
-
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.
A fellow msg-er showed me websites with his watermarked Flickr pics being used in ads - he had also right-click disabled, so they must have been very determined, it wasn't 'just a clueless kid'. But I've often found my watermarked iStock images 'in use', so I'm not blaming Flickr, just the thieves.
-
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 (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/photoshop-curves.htm)
-
you have the tech skills but not shooting the in demand content. that -- you will have to figure out on your own,
good shooting
-
Also, what is trending? Gold investments, politics, healthcare, gun ownership, etc. find a useful way to shoot these and other trends and that will give you a start anyway. To your point of props, yes it's a double edged sword, meaning how much should you spend on props given microstock commissions? That's a balancing act for sure.
-
Checked for sensor spots on the d3s today. They're everywhere. Ordered a new sensor swab kit. Wish the D800 worked better with my 24mm 1.4g and 85mm 1.4g. I'd order one so I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often.
istock accepted the bridge photo too: http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/chattanooga-market-street-bridge-at-dusk-43084254 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/chattanooga-market-street-bridge-at-dusk-43084254)
Go figure. I mean, I'm glad. I just wish there was more consistency in this game.
-
Be careful what you wish for. Sales were far better on iStock when the inspection was much stricter.
-
"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.
LOL, fair enough Sean
+1 . . .
. . .but I feel compelled to mention that earlier this summer I was at the Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn and all the animals were identified by these wooden placards on a sort of giant keyring with a photo of the animal on it. The photos were nearly all © shutterstock (Sorry, Sean, I couldn't resist! ) 8)
(PS the +1 means I agree with both Sean and Me)
For the OP, a lot of cameras and lenses hunt in AF in low light. Usually best to use MF at night and a tripod when you have one handy. I used to be able to handhold at 1/15 of a second in my film days but that was a long time ago. These days I usually opt for 1/125 if my subject is standing still, LOL.
If you'd shot the fireworks photo in RAW, you'd be able to get back at least three full stops, more than taking care of the overexposure. Without some sort of high contrast blending mode, it's easy to miss those sensor spots. You can send your camera to Nikon for cleaning.
-
I'm going to suggest that trevarthan give serious thought to abandoning JPEGs and investigate the joys of RAW processing. You lose the benefit of SooC images and will have to deal with much larger CPU and disk requirements, but in every other respect it's a huge win. So much more data to use in post-processing, and so much better results.
-
I also shoot "Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks". When I first clicked the link I expected to see some bad stuff. But I think you have some talent. Some of the work is pretty nice.
A big problem is that getting quality shots of that type in 2008 required a DSLR. And at that time generic shots still sold fairly well. Over the past few years because of cellphones there are now a bazillion generic shots of everything. And there are some fresh and unique shots from cellphones because of all the editing apps. Today only my really unique or spectacular stuff sells. Generic shots are dead.
And I know you're asking about stock but I'm going to suggest you look at other methods of selling your work. Your work seems to lean toward artsy so maybe take a break from stock and experiment with art and prints. You may find better results there.
-
Ha. Yeah, if you want to see some really bad stuff, you have to look at my stock portfolio on istock. I haven't touched it since 2011. It's really embarrassing. Most of the stuff that made it past the filters was 2008-2010 spray and pray Nikon D80. Way before I bought my current equipment and had a clue pounded into me by time and a few kind souls.
I lost interest for about 3 years because nearly everything I shot with the new equipment was rejected, including a lot of the stuff I did in that experimental code + macro period (I'm a software engineer for a living, so that sort of thing really fascinates me). I just gave up and put it down for a while.
I tend to be extremely tenacious, however. I have a history of putting things down for years, only to strike a home run later, so I think it's fine. I probably just needed a break.
disorderly, worldplanet, and anyone else who suggested it: I just switched my camera to RAW+JPEG for the first time. It was done grudgingly, because I really prefer to do everything in camera, but it sounds like I can't do that with stock and get the results I want, so I'll just have to deal with it. Thank you for the suggestion.
Also, whoever suggested it, thank you for the book recommendation. I've been reading "Taking Stock: Make Money in Microstock Creating Photos That Sell" all morning on my iPad. I'm only 13% in, but if nothing else, I've really enjoyed reading about the history of istockphoto and seeing example images and why the photographers think they work and sell well. I think this book is really going to help.
-
Shutterstock accepted this the same day I submitted it: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-204443335/stock-photo--d-cutting-board-this-is-a-d-cutting-board-i-made-in-the-dark-wood-is-walnut-the-red-wood.html?src=B747ZsNdZi2ZosrW3vDLpQ-1-0 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-204443335/stock-photo--d-cutting-board-this-is-a-d-cutting-board-i-made-in-the-dark-wood-is-walnut-the-red-wood.html?src=B747ZsNdZi2ZosrW3vDLpQ-1-0)
So, yeah, all I have to do is spend 10,000 hours woodworking and take a couple of photos. No problem! :p Seriously though, it just goes to show I haven't been thinking about stock in years. I've had this photo sitting around since December 2013 and just now thought to submit it.
-
Ok, here's a classic rejection scenario that I don't understand:
Shutterstock approved this photo on 7/12/2014: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevarthan/14629342151/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevarthan/14629342151/)
Heartened by the approval, I submitted another from the same shoot, on the same tripod, in the exact same location, with my model in only a slightly different spot on the bridge: https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevarthan/14445933148/in/photostream/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevarthan/14445933148/in/photostream/)
I thought, surely that will be accepted too, right? Why wouldn't it? Nope. Rejected on 07/13/2014 for "Editorial Caption--Image requires proper caption and must be tagged as editorial."
I can't work like this. You can't take one photo and then reject practically the exact same photo for something ridiculous like Editorial Caption, when it wasn't even submitted as an Editorial photo in the first place. I supplied a model release for both photos.
-
Assuming it's not a mistake on the part of the reviewer, my guess is that there's something in the second photo (and possibly in the one that was accepted, but the first reviewer missed) that requires a property release. Perhaps a sign on one of the buildings in the distance that's readable at 100%. I can't tell from the thumbnail, but that's where I'd look.
-
I see nothing on my little model at 100%. Her shoes have no markings, her diaper has no visible tags, and her dress is white and tagless. The buildings are blurred. This was shot at f2 with the focus on my daughter. Wouldn't that be enough to avoid any potential issues?
-
Graffiti on the bridge? If so, they both should have been editorial. I'm not sure which agencies accept graffiti, but some don't.
-
There isn't a court in the land that would uphold the copyright of graffiti illegally scrawled on a public surface, is there? Come on.
-
You wouldn't get that rejection unless you submitted it as editorial. If you didn't submit it was editorial, you would have gotten the "Needs model release" or "needs property release" rejection. You wouldn't need a property release on the bridge. It's a public bridge, and it's not the main subject of the photo anyway.
Did you accidentally click the editorial pull down?
Also, it's probably not a good idea to submit images so similar so close to each other. They compete for attention. The goal with Shutterstock is to get good quick sales so your image rises in popularity. You can't do that if you're splitting those sales between two images.
-
You wouldn't get that rejection unless you submitted it as editorial. If you didn't submit it was editorial, you would have gotten the "Needs model release" or "needs property release" rejection. You wouldn't need a property release on the bridge. It's a public bridge, and it's not the main subject of the photo anyway. There's also no graffiti there, even under the bridge cause I've been there and photographed it.
Did you accidentally click the editorial pull down?
No. I did not.
Also, it's probably not a good idea to submit images so similar so close to each other. They compete for attention. The goal with Shutterstock is to get good quick sales so your image rises in popularity. You can't do that if you're splitting those sales between two images.
That's no excuse for choosing an incorrect rejection reason. It's not helpful.
-
"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.
Which zoo do you go to? All of the zoos I have looked at don't want images of their animals to be used for commercial purposes, especially stock.
-
Well, then reviewer made a mistake, unless he or she is wanting a property release for that bit of scribble on the bridge, which is unlikely. No point taking it personal. It won't be the last rejection you get, and it probably won't be the last weird one. Make sure you keyword and title the images in the IPTC so you can easily resubmit them.
To tell you the truth, I think the one that was approved is better. I would let it ride for a while. Even so, I'm not sure that shot would get many sales. I think there's too much bridge and not enough attention on the cute girl. The first thing I see is the bridge poking me in the eye. I think you shot it from too high of an angle rather than getting down on her level. I'm not saying crop out the entire environment, but I would have worked in more and used the vertical bars as a leading line. The shot would have been her full body on the left third with the bars leading in from the right, shot lower at about her eye level.
-
"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.
Which zoo do you go to? All of the zoos I have looked at don't want images of their animals to be used for commercial purposes, especially stock.
Mostly little ones that don't seem to care or have policies on their websites.
-
"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.
Which zoo do you go to? All of the zoos I have looked at don't want images of their animals to be used for commercial purposes, especially stock.
Mostly little ones that don't seem to care or have policies on their websites.
Thanks (:
-
This is the response I received:
Dear Jesse,
Your e-mail is appreciated.
I have checked your image from your e-mails, and I feel the review was incorrect.
Please consider a resubmission, and add the following Note To Review:
ATTN REVIEWER: See an Admin about this batch (re:case #01055857)
Please remember: This note does not guarantee approval.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions.
Best regards,
Mate Toth
Contributor Success
Shutterstock
While I appreciate the affirmation that this rejection was incorrect, it leaves me with a lot of questions, such as: Why was it rejected if it was incorrect? If I really didn't select "Editorial: Yes" from the drop down (and I don't think I did), why was the reviewer even given the option to select this rejection reason? How many other photos have been rejected erroneously? What is the rate of human error in this process?
As a not-yet-successful contributor, I appreciate correct and helpful feedback. Incorrect or confusing feedback hurts everyone involved because revenue generating images might not ever be seen by the customer.
If I had 300+ images in my portfolio, I might not care. But what if the one rejected erroneously is the one that would have sold well? I think the current microstock review process has a lot of room for improvement. Success should be gauged purely by revenue, not the ability to appease a reviewer's feelings or moods.
I once shot a stock photo on assignment for a local graphics artist. I shot a ton of photos and put them on dvd. I was positive she would pick a certain photo because *I* thought it was the best. She didn't. She picked a photo I *hated*. And she picked it because it was perfect for the vision in her mind and what she wanted to do with it.
I think this is a lesson the microstock websites need to learn. Just because YOU think a photo is good or bad doesn't mean OTHERS are or are not willing to pay for it.
-
You wouldn't get that rejection unless you submitted it as editorial. If you didn't submit it was editorial, you would have gotten the "Needs model release" or "needs property release" rejection. You wouldn't need a property release on the bridge. It's a public bridge, and it's not the main subject of the photo anyway.
no - it's also a common reject reason when the reviewer thinks it might do better as editorial. some sites wont accept graffiti at all, or any recently produced art, others accept them as editorial. in these cases (if you don't have a release) just add an editorial caption and resubmit with a note to the next reviewer
-
you asked for advice, but you are not listening.
The good advice is already in the thread. Quite precise.
Forget revievers.
Look at your images, and compare to best sellers.
or said shorter:
forget your photography and remember the customer.
You could buy a picture and find out what the opposite side feels like.
-
Received another nonsensical rejection today. This time, surprisingly, it was istockphoto who rejected a piece that shutterstock had already accepted. Here's the shutterstock photo:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=204443335 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=204443335)
And here's the istockphoto rejection:
https://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/43709924/2/stock-photo-43709924-3d-cutting-board.jpg (https://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/43709924/2/stock-photo-43709924-3d-cutting-board.jpg)
"Please provide a focused description for the work of art featured in this image. Aim to describe the artwork as well as possible (the artist, date of creation, location, etc). Works of art created by someone other than yourself must be free of copyright protection to be considered royalty-free.
In your description, please include any valuable information regarding the artist/ownership of the original artwork that will assist us in determining that the work of art is not subject to copyright protection. Make sure that your description is clear, helpful and targeted to the client who may be interested in your image (and not to the inspector).
If this work of art is indeed under copyright protection, a property release signed by the copyright holder will need to be provided. Thank you."
I'm quite sure I made it clear that *I* was the original artist, and that I created this cuttingboard in my basement in December 2013. I'm not sure what else they could possibly want. However, it's impossible to prove that, because every microstock site has a habit of deleting everything about the photo AFTER rejecting it. I don't see a way to see the tags and/or description I submitted, but I know it was at least as descriptive as the shutterstock description. I'm starting to think they do this precisely so that you won't be able to call them on their crap. Sigh. Infuriating.
-
It's a simple process to submit a property release for art created by yourself and also required by responsible agencies.
-
I'm quite sure I made it clear that *I* was the original artist, and that I created this cuttingboard in my basement in December 2013. I'm not sure what else they could possibly want. However, it's impossible to prove that, because every microstock site has a habit of deleting everything about the photo AFTER rejecting it. I don't see a way to see the tags and/or description I submitted, but I know it was at least as descriptive as the shutterstock description. I'm starting to think they do this precisely so that you won't be able to call them on their crap. Sigh. Infuriating.
Not so.
Go into My Uploads (suitcase at the bottom of the page)
Choose rejected files from the dropdown File Status list.
Click on your file and you'll be able to see exactly what you wrote.
(http://www.lizworld.com/rej.jpg)
That said, sometimes inspectors 'gloss over' what you write in the description, even if you write N.B. in bold red.
-
You think that's what that rejection means? I mean, I'd be happy to submit a property release, but reading that rejection reason, it just didn't seem like that was what they wanted to me. I interpreted that as istock wanting a more detailed description.
-
You think that's what that rejection means? I mean, I'd be happy to submit a property release, but reading that rejection reason, it just didn't seem like that was what they wanted to me. I interpreted that as istock wanting a more detailed description.
As often with iS, the writty is ambiguous. That particular rubric means in effect, supply a PR or explain in detail why you don't need one.
-
If this work of art is indeed under copyright protection, a property release signed by the copyright holder will need to be provided. Thank you."
They want to know that you have the rights to "sell" the image of the Art... yes you may have created it, but do you still own the copyright to it. iStock ( I have found) seems to be more about the paper trail and less about the image.
-
As far as I understand it, even if I sold the cuttingboard, I would still own the copyright to it, unless I sold that explicitly. So yeah, I'll just submit a property release. No big deal. Thanks for clearing that up. Too bad the rejection reason wasn't clearer.
-
istock decided they rejected my cutting board photo in error. This is their response:
Hello
Apologies for the delay in responding to your ticket.
You did state that you made it yourself so I will approve the file. Apologies for the error.
Your file has been approved. Please allow 24 to 48 hours for the file to appear within your portfolio.
Regards
Scout
But wait, the saga of erroneous rejections continues! Just today, Shutterstock decided to reject my photo of the local Benton Falls:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5556/14763716672_303180a0c5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ouBUBb)Benton Falls (https://flic.kr/p/ouBUBb) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
This is a 15 second exposure, taken at f16 and the hyperfocal length, on a sturdy tripod, using a D810 and a 24mm pc-e. Everything is in focus. Their reason? "Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution."
You've got to be kidding me.
-
Don't feel bad...they just rejected 12/12 of my illustrations for "noise." They were output the same way at the same resolution I output all my jpgs. No noise whatsoever, of course. The corresponding vectors sailed through as usual. Something's up with the photo inspectors there.
-
On a side note how do you like the D810? I'm currently using the D800 but am thinking of 'upgrading' for the improved Live View display (I do a lot of macro and would like to be able to focus using a 4X loop on the LCD with Live View....not a good enough display on the D800 to be reliable).
-
On a side note how do you like the D810? I'm currently using the D800 but am thinking of 'upgrading' for the improved Live View display (I do a lot of macro and would like to be able to focus using a 4X loop on the LCD with Live View....not a good enough display on the D800 to be reliable).
I absolutely love it. It's very similar to my old D3S, three times as capable, and half the price. Live view is a real pleasure. Resolution is great, and high ISO noise is in the same class as the d3s. I'm not sure I'd buy one if I already had a d800, but it was an easy decision for me and exceeds my expectations. Can't wait to upgrade again in another four years to 70mp. I mean, Moore's Law, right? I'm just wondering if my glass will still be able to handle 70mp. We might all be buying new glass by then.
-
On a side note how do you like the D810? I'm currently using the D800 but am thinking of 'upgrading' for the improved Live View display (I do a lot of macro and would like to be able to focus using a 4X loop on the LCD with Live View....not a good enough display on the D800 to be reliable).
Can't wait to upgrade again in another four years to 70mp. I mean, Moore's Law, right? I'm just wondering if my glass will still be able to handle 70mp. We might all be buying new glass by then.
Well, if the 24 PC-E is any indication of the quality of the rest of your lenses I think you'll be fine. Did you see that Zeiss is in the process of coming out with a line of lenses meant for hi-rez cameras? At a hefty price tag, too. I have the 21 and haven't been very happy with its performance (soft edges) on the D800 so a new line-up will be welcomed even though I may never be able to afford any of them.
-
...This is a 15 second exposure, taken at f16 and the hyperfocal length, on a sturdy tripod, using a D810 and a 24mm pc-e. Everything is in focus. Their reason? "Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution."
You've got to be kidding me.
I realize this will sound asinine, but I'm guessing their pre-review software identified significant areas not in focus - probably because of the blurry water (which you intended to be that way) and the particular inspector wasn't on the ball enough to realize this was fine.
I have participated in many threads about problems with SS inspections on non-studio shots of various kinds (and at the moment am taking a break from uploading there as I had just had it with the inconsistent inspection process). You can read them (here and in the SS forums).
It's nonsense but as long as they get a largish pile of new content each week they're happy so I don't expect them to improve things. Which means that you can resubmit with a note explaining the water focus and it's likely it'll be accepted. Or move on if you don't have the patience to jump through the additional hoop.
-
My jpg rejections continue...this morning it's for keywords not in the English language. Vectors sailed through yet again. Same keywords, of course.
-
Lately - for the past several months - I've mainly been uploading backgrounds to SS and the other micros. They sail through SS except for one where it kept timing out and I must have forgotten to tick "illustration" - the reason for rejection - and they told me to resubmit it as an illustration & it was accepted. Photos, on the other hand, where I've played around with filters, etc., sometimes make it through and sometimes don't. Seems to be very dependent on the reviewer.
I haven't uploaded straight photos in a while though and am at a loss as to why they'd reject your waterfall for focus issues, unless you oversharpened it which would seem unlikely given how you shot it? It looks good to me and the water area is so small it's surprising if that blur would throw them off unless they just focus right on the center of the photo at 100% and don't look elsewhere. Artistically, you'd want the water blurred to give that sense of motion. I'd resubmit with a note.
-
Submitted a contact us about it and they're sticking to their guns this time:
Dear Jesse,
Your e-mail is appreciated.
I have checked your image in question, and I feel the review was correct.
Unfortunately, this image is not perfectly sharp at 100%. You may check & correct your RAW conversion settings, or try to upload in a smaller size (instead of 34 Mpixel size, you may upload it in 20-25 Mpixel).
Please feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions.
Best regards,
Mate Toth
Contributor Success
Shutterstock
I don't get it.
-
Downsize everything.
-
I tweaked the sharpness settings in Lightroom CC. Maybe f16 was adding more diffraction than I thought. Maybe I just don't know how far I need to push Lightroom yet. This might have been my first legitimate rejection in a while.
-
I don't get it.
Post the full size so we can see it?
-
Downsize everything.
It's looking like that's what I'm going to have to do. I'm starting to think f16 is just too soft for stock. I'm currently downsampling from 35mp to 25mp. We'll see if that works.
Alternative might be some sort of focus stacking. I'm just not sure how that would work.
-
I avoid f16 cuz of diffraction issues and resort to focus stacking (at f8-11) for the DOF, if needed, and if possible.
I see you used a 24 PC-E lens for this shot.....did you try using some tilt and a larger f-stop?....back to my LF days.
-
I avoid f16 cuz of diffraction issues and resort to focus stacking (at f8-11) for the DOF, if needed, and if possible.
I see you used a 24 PC-E lens for this shot.....did you try using some tilt and a larger f-stop?....back to my LF days.
I did not. I often tell myself I'm going to use tilt, but unless I'm doing tabletop, I rarely do. Even with live view, I have a hard time figuring out the focus when tilted. I guess I need to practice with that more.
I need to research and practice some focus stacking too. I think that would have worked well for the waterfall image. I only had that thought when I was home editing.
One of the things I dislike about the 24mm PC-e is that the DOF scale goes from f16 to f8. There's no f11. I've got a 24mm f1.4g too, and it has f11, but no f8. So I've just been standardizing on f16. It looks like I need to figure something else out though.
-
I realize this will sound asinine, but I'm guessing their pre-review software identified significant areas not in focus - probably because of the blurry water (which you intended to be that way) and the particular inspector wasn't on the ball enough to realize this was fine.
I have participated in many threads about problems with SS inspections on non-studio shots of various kinds (and at the moment am taking a break from uploading there as I had just had it with the inconsistent inspection process). You can read them (here and in the SS forums).
It's nonsense but as long as they get a largish pile of new content each week they're happy so I don't expect them to improve things. Which means that you can resubmit with a note explaining the water focus and it's likely it'll be accepted. Or move on if you don't have the patience to jump through the additional hoop.
worth repeating this one by Jo Ann
-
I avoid f16 cuz of diffraction issues and resort to focus stacking (at f8-11) for the DOF, if needed, and if possible.
I see you used a 24 PC-E lens for this shot.....did you try using some tilt and a larger f-stop?....back to my LF days.
I did not. I often tell myself I'm going to use tilt, but unless I'm doing tabletop, I rarely do. Even with live view, I have a hard time figuring out the focus when tilted. I guess I need to practice with that more.
I wonder if you could use something along the lines of a Schneider 4X loupe on the LCD as a focusing aide while in live view....may help with figuring it out while using tilt.
-
F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.
-
Comment to the picture above:
a 15 sec long exposure is bound to get the leaves blurred, and even the sturdiest tripod is vulnerable to earthquakes (footsteps), or slight movements in the metal itself. (yes, im serious). With long exposures the gras begin to GROW in the frame.
I suggest you go to a 9 or 11 and find a strong focus point in the front of the hyperfocal distance, then blur in the rest of the picture becomes less visible.
Then something else: The waterfall is a fine artistic picture, but it is not a good stock photo. It is not iconic (visual representation of a concept) enough and the keywords that describe it are mixed: waterfall, wood, green, forest, river, rock and more.
Now imagine a picture with only these 2 keywords: waterfall, blue.
Not that there couldnt be other keywords, but imagine an image with a content of mostly blue and waterfall.
That would make the customer happy when he searched for exactly that.
The more mixed your content and keywords is in the file, the more searches it becomes irellevant for.
So my advice to you, if you want to become good in stock:
Shoot icons. If you can even make your own new icon, you get en the several ciffers dls pr image.
Shoot keywords, and not artsy pictures.
Think customers, and forget about fancy lenses and techniques.
We photographers believe that photography and equipment is important.
But it is not, the most important thing when selling microstock is coherent content. Meaning that the image and the keywords as a whole must have an impact.
-
Btw, you have many examples of "keyword problems" in your flicker port. Do you want me to critisize some of them?
-
Comment to the picture above:
So my advice to you, if you want to become good in stock:
Shoot icons. If you can even make your own new icon, you get en the several ciffers dls pr image.
Shoot keywords, and not artsy pictures.
Think customers, and forget about fancy lenses and techniques.
What do you mean by icons?
-
F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.
Sigh. Apparently that isn't a magic bullet either. I just had this one rejected even after downsizing to 25mp:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/14790857412_83d29eef38_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ox21AY)July 30 2014_21.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ox21AY) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
Reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
-
This last one is genuinely grainy. I'm not going to fault the reviewers here. I think I might be able to solve the focus problems by tilting the lens and using f8 instead of f16. My only other option is to focus stack. Then, to remove the grain, I think I'd have to do an exposure bracket and blend in post. This would be challenging, as the light is constantly changing at that time of night, but I'm going to try it and see what I can accomplish.
-
I am going contrary to most of the advice here. You, like me, are not in it to feed your family, but rather to get a return on an activity you enjoy and make a few bucks to further your expensive hobby. That's what I do. I've surpassed $18,000 all time on SS and a few dollars more on other sites. One went belly up recently, so I really only have SS and one other. That suits me just fine.
I shoot what I want and what interests me. If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work. For instance, I've never been interested in studio work, models with releases or 17,000 varieties of business people posing in front of a white background. There are plenty of folks who are good at that and ready to (over)supply the market.
Ever since my army career in public information (writer and photographer) I've been interested in photojournalism and that's mainly what I do, along with the usual grist for my amateur's mill. I'm happy. I get to afford excellent equipment. I roam my territory photographing as the mood strikes me.
I really think you should photograph what you love. Maybe examine those images of yours that DO sell critically — see if there is a common denominator that made them interesting to buyers. Good luck!
-
I am going contrary to most of the advice here. You, like me, are not in it to feed your family, but rather to get a return on an activity you enjoy and make a few bucks to further your expensive hobby. That's what I do. I've surpassed $18,000 all time on SS and a few dollars more on other sites. One went belly up recently, so I really only have SS and one other. That suits me just fine.
I shoot what I want and what interests me. If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work. For instance, I've never been interested in studio work, models with releases or 17,000 varieties of business people posing in front of a white background. There are plenty of folks who are good at that and ready to (over)supply the market.
Ever since my army career in public information (writer and photographer) I've been interested in photojournalism and that's mainly what I do, along with the usual grist for my amateur's mill. I'm happy. I get to afford excellent equipment. I roam my territory photographing as the mood strikes me.
I really think you should photograph what you love. Maybe examine those images of yours that DO sell critically — see if there is a common denominator that made them interesting to buyers. Good luck!
well said, sir ! i don't know how many stock photographers i met who have pretty much had it with all that has been going on with microstock ( mad rejection inconsistency at SS, dc at fotolia, istock everything that went belly up and arse forward, dreamstime the little engine that didn't ...to quote another knowledgeable regular here,... oh the list is endless), and the sad refrain is "i burn out and lost interest in photography".
this is tragic, because it is not photography that burnt you out, it is the total anal structure of the microstock and G culture.
then again, many started stock photography as a business, so like many who lost their drawers during the market crash, they throw in the towel before they reach stress level of dangerous BP , blocked arteries, etc.
i think the balance way as Who's Pete Townsend used to say, or Sting, or so many tennis greats say..."i do it for myself first... i master the game... and then let the money come by itself. i will do it even if there is one person in the spectator section"
good advice, although not everyone will agree. we make our bed...
-
"If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work."
Lots of people are doing things they may not 'enjoy' and still do excellent work. Just because your 'passion' is not necessarily served by shooting someone I a suit, you could (hopefully, as a professional) still produce work that feeds your family. The whole 'enjoy' thing is a bit of a cop out.
-
...Then something else: The waterfall is a fine artistic picture, but it is not a good stock photo. It is not iconic (visual representation of a concept) enough and the keywords that describe it are mixed: waterfall, wood, green, forest, river, rock and more.
Now imagine a picture with only these 2 keywords: waterfall, blue.
Not that there couldnt be other keywords, but imagine an image with a content of mostly blue and waterfall.
That would make the customer happy when he searched for exactly that.
The more mixed your content and keywords is in the file, the more searches it becomes irellevant for.
....
of course, by concentrating on the blue waterfall, you miss fulfilling searches for "rock waterfall", "river rock", etc
so having an image with many relevant keywords gives you more chances. esp'ly with an oversupplied topic like 'waterfall' you want to give yourself as many chances as possible
-
I think what it boils down to is that right now I'm most interested in landscapes, whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters. I'm either going to solve that problem (I'm trying a lot of new things right now), or I'm going to give up and decide to shoot something else.
I haven't given up on the landscapes yet, and I probably won't unless I decide that the only kind of landscape that makes it through the filter is the kind I'm not interested in shooting. I haven't seen that yet. I've just seen me botch a couple of landscapes, technically. I can do better, and will.
Feeding my family isn't an issue right now, thankfully. I'm gainfully employed as a software engineer. From a high level, this is about the pursuit of happiness and (hopefully) retirement. It's about getting paid to do something I enjoy. It's about solving a single problem (because that's what I do best), then using what I learned to solve other problems.
I may find a nice niche market for my landscapes within microstock sites. I may not. I can't know the answer to that question without figuring out how to elevate my work to a level that passes the review filters. So, while I appreciate the feedback to focus on other things and listen to the market, let's keep the discussion technical for now, because that's where I think I need to improve the most.
-
whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters.
which review filters? there are so many sites to the right of Tyler's forum. just because we make money mostly with SStock does not mean you cannot make money with other sites. we have other ppl here who say they make more with the single digit sites .
the competition is stiff for sure with SStock,as with the need to be business only to know what SS sells. but it does not mean other sites will not sell for you.
you market your niche for the site that sells those type of work you make.
or you can ebay it yourself, as i know a few who have quit microstock to market their own "waterfalls, scenics,..." and they told me they will "never" come back to microstock .
obviously, they are finding better $ there , or else they would not have remove their portfolio from the top ten sites that were paying the rent for them .
write your own story. we come here to learn the legalities,etc.. but the rest of it,
depends on our own making.
-
whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters.
which review filters? there are so many sites to the right of Tyler's forum. just because we make money mostly with SStock does not mean you cannot make money with other sites. we have other ppl here who say they make more with the single digit sites .
the competition is stiff for sure with SStock,as with the need to be business only to know what SS sells. but it does not mean other sites will not sell for you.
I don't understand your logic here. If SStock sells best for the majority, it makes sense to learn how to pass their review filters.
In particular, I enjoy their turn around time. istock takes weeks to reply sometimes. SStock only takes 24 hours. That's a much better learn -> change -> resubmit cycle.
-
SStock do not always take 24 hours. You are in the low season and during this time, I used to get approval within the hour.
The approval time varies dependant on the period . My logic is that other sites may make as much money for you . Lifestyle makes a lot more than waterfalls.
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?keyword_search=1&searchterm=waterfall&search_group=images%2C&prev_sort_method=popular&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=undiscovered&sort_method=relevance2&page=1 (http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?keyword_search=1&searchterm=waterfall&search_group=images%2C&prev_sort_method=popular&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=undiscovered&sort_method=relevance2&page=1)
you can measure if you can cut it with your own by looking at the sellers here.
I make 90% of my sales with Shutterstock, but I don't shoot waterfalls. And with Shutterstock, if you do not record sales within a week or that month with your new images, you can forget about it being a regular earner for you. The ones on page one, do just that upon approval.
Just based on my own portfolio and other consensus.
-
F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.
Sigh. Apparently that isn't a magic bullet either. I just had this one rejected even after downsizing to 25mp:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/14790857412_83d29eef38_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ox21AY)July 30 2014_21.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ox21AY) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
Reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
+ robhainer
even with the best lenses, there is no evidence that f16 is the sweet spot. and most often it isn't.
thus explaining the softness due to defraction,etc.
it would be better to use ND filter to allow one to use the sweet spot , as opposed to just stopping down to f 16.
-
I don't understand your logic here. If SStock sells best for the majority, it makes sense to learn how to pass their review filters.
In particular, I enjoy their turn around time. istock takes weeks to reply sometimes. SStock only takes 24 hours. That's a much better learn -> change -> resubmit cycle.
i repeat the 2nd comment on first page by Mr. Locke for my logic...
"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.
[/b]
-
F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.
Sigh. Apparently that isn't a magic bullet either. I just had this one rejected even after downsizing to 25mp:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/14790857412_83d29eef38_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ox21AY)July 30 2014_21.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ox21AY) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
Reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
I see this was shot at f16 so diffraction probably caused the supposed softness particularly if the rest of your technique was solid. And at ISO 400 with a 30 sec exposure noise would've been a factor as well....did you run it through a noise reduction program, either that in LR or something else?
I don't have any experience with the D810 (yet) but I do know that with my D800 at ISO 400 and a long exposure noise would have been a problem.
Hang in there. You obviously have good compositional skills; a few minor tweaks here and there and you'll be sailing through the inspection process. BTW, we all get rejections for one reason or another. ;)
-
another factor which may not be indicated is the grafitti. it would be better to clone them off, as some sites will consider graffiti as a reason to rejection. even in editorials, it still, i am sure, nicer to have this bridge clean as no one would want to perpetuate that grafitti. not unless you are the one who placed it there.
as for denoise . perharps u remove noise generally, as one frame. it might have been better if u just reduced noise locally with marquee, leaving the rest unaffected to cause the softness due to pixel movement.
another tuppence worth of my idea to help, hopefully.
-
I see this was shot at f16 so diffraction probably caused the supposed softness particularly if the rest of your technique was solid. And at ISO 400 with a 30 sec exposure noise would've been a factor as well....did you run it through a noise reduction program, either that in LR or something else?
I don't have any experience with the D810 (yet) but I do know that with my D800 at ISO 400 and a long exposure noise would have been a problem.
Yup. Lots of noise. I was quite surprised. I could have shot ISO 64 if I calculated the exposure length properly and manually shot longer than 30 seconds with my shutter release cable. I didn't have a chart for that on hand though and can't do the math in my head yet.
I think the best solution for noise would have been an exposure blended shot, in this case.
As for f16... I'm going to try to shoot this scene using tilt at f8. We'll see if I can manage to make that look ok or not.
-
whether they sell or not, and as another member pointed out, I'm missing the mark technically. I can't seem to get my landscapes through the review filters.
...you market your niche for the site that sells those type of work you make.
or you can ebay it yourself, as i know a few who have quit microstock to market their own "waterfalls, scenics,..." and they told me they will "never" come back to microstock .
obviously, they are finding better $ there , or else they would not have remove their portfolio from the top ten sites that were paying the rent for them .
.....
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely
you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
-
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely
you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
good point.
no cascoly, not dls, they are selling framed-prints of their own work.
-
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely
you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
good point.
no cascoly, not dls, they are selling framed-prints of their own work.
ok, that's a much tougher sell, -- good to hear someone's making a go of it. before they prohibited it, digital sales thru ebay were a small but steady income source. a few people were scamming the system to inflate feedback, so they took their usual sledgehammer approach and banned everyone rather than just hitting the tricksters
-
...
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely
you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
So selling digital images in ebay is not allowed? I just read about this here http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html (http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html) and also found some vendors in ebay who sell digital images and when you buy them the vendor sends the file attached in e-mail.
-
SStock do not always take 24 hours. You are in the low season and during this time, I used to get approval within the hour.
The approval time varies dependant on the period .
I didn't intend that statement to mean that shutterstock ALWAYS reviews within 24 hours. I meant that for me, the average was within 24 hours, which is way better than the multi-week istockphoto average review time.
Officially, shutterstock aims to review within 10 days: http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#How long does it take for content to be reviewed? (http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#How long does it take for content to be reviewed?)
-
SStock do not always take 24 hours. You are in the low season and during this time, I used to get approval within the hour.
The approval time varies dependant on the period .
I didn't intend that statement to mean that shutterstock ALWAYS reviews within 24 hours. I meant that for me, the average was within 24 hours, which is way better than the multi-week istockphoto average review time.
Officially, shutterstock aims to review within 10 days: [url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#How[/url] long does it take for content to be reviewed? ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#How[/url] long does it take for content to be reviewed?)
not to worry, matey... it wasn't meant to correct anything u said, just a general statement
to say the review can take anything from within the hour to days, depending on the traffic.
-
Shutterstock accepted this one today, graffiti and all:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3857/14654313460_f4184af361_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ojXbQU)
Latest Iteration (https://flic.kr/p/ojXbQU) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
I don't like the colors as much as the one I posted earlier, but it's definitely a sharper image. Taken at f8, with the bridge girders in sharp focus all the way down the path. I took a little time to learn the math behind my tilt shift lenses, making this cool chart in the process:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3888/14649297309_8f7965db76_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ojvtHx)
Nikon Tilt in Degrees for Distance (web) (https://flic.kr/p/ojvtHx) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
Then I used a 1 degree tilt on my 24mm PC-e to take the shot.
I may retake the photo sometime using focus stacking. We'll see. Glad to have it approved though. Now I can move on to some other scene. I'm hoping this means I'm starting to get a grip on the technical side of things and understand where the "bar" is.
f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.
-
f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.
f8 sounds pretty possible to be the sweet spot. most lenses stop down 2, 21/2 , 3, for that.
and in my case, with most of my working lenses, i found f8 to be the sweet spot.
congrats on both approval of this image and finding f8.
-
"If I tried to make images that are "in demand" I would not enjoy it and that would be reflected in lousy work."
Lots of people are doing things they may not 'enjoy' and still do excellent work. Just because your 'passion' is not necessarily served by shooting someone I a suit, you could (hopefully, as a professional) still produce work that feeds your family. The whole 'enjoy' thing is a bit of a cop out.
I hear on this one! I hate my daytime job with passion! But it pays 10 times more than my earnings in this business thus I am stuck until I can officially retire (4 more years) and get a full retirement. The MS world gives me a break from my day job and more satisfaction hands down. 8)
-
f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.
f8 sounds pretty possible to be the sweet spot. most lenses stop down 2, 21/2 , 3, for that.
and in my case, with most of my working lenses, i found f8 to be the sweet spot.
congrats on both approval of this image and finding f8.
According to this site and their 3d blur graphs (pretty cool), f5.6 is the sweet spot for the 24mm f3.5 PC-e and the 24mm f1.4g:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12 (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12)
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325 (http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325)
I'll have to try f5.6 next time. I'll also make sure I do some research on this in the future before shooting.
-
...
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely
you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
So selling digital images in ebay is not allowed? I just read about this here [url]http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html[/url]) and also found some vendors in ebay who sell digital images and when you buy them the vendor sends the file attached in e-mail.
ebay requires that any digital photography be delivered in physical form -- print or CD. the article just talks abnout copyright which is aseparate issue.
if you find people selling digital images for download you should report them to ebay as they are hurting legitimate ebay sellers
-
According to this site and their 3d blur graphs (pretty cool), f5.6 is the sweet spot for the 24mm f3.5 PC-e and the 24mm f1.4g:
[url]http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12[/url] ([url]http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12[/url])
[url]http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325[/url] ([url]http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325[/url])
I'll have to try f5.6 next time. I'll also make sure I do some research on this in the future before shooting.
do the test yourself. for the bridge, 5.6 will give a step speed faster . and if 5.6 is the sweet spot, so much the better than f8. at the same distance, the 8 will give u a stop more dof.
but for a 24mm i m sure 5.6 will still be sufficient dof for the bridge shot.
-
...
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely
you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
So selling digital images in ebay is not allowed? I just read about this here [url]http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html[/url]) and also found some vendors in ebay who sell digital images and when you buy them the vendor sends the file attached in e-mail.
ebay requires that any digital photography be delivered in physical form -- print or CD. the article just talks abnout copyright which is aseparate issue.
if you find people selling digital images for download you should report them to ebay as they are hurting legitimate ebay sellers
I am not sure. Read their policy here: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable.html (http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable.html)
Examples of digitally delivered goods that you can list on eBay as long as you follow the requirements above:
MP3 music you wrote, recorded, and own all the rights to
Homemade movies you created and own the rights to
Computer software you created and own the rights to
Software that you're authorized to sell online by the owner, the owner's authorized agent, or the law
Digital art you captured yourself and own the rights to or that you're authorized to sell online by the owner, the owner’s authorized agent, or the law
Photos you captured yourself and own the rights to
Recipes you created yourself and own the rights to
-
...
if they're selling digital images for download they are in direct violation of ebay rules and it's only a matter of time before they're banned from ebay completely
you must deliver a physical product and creating CDs on demand thru ebay takes a lot of work for tiny prices
So selling digital images in ebay is not allowed? I just read about this here [url]http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html[/url] ([url]http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html[/url]) and also found some vendors in ebay who sell digital images and when you buy them the vendor sends the file attached in e-mail.
ebay requires that any digital photography be delivered in physical form -- print or CD. the article just talks abnout copyright which is aseparate issue.
if you find people selling digital images for download you should report them to ebay as they are hurting legitimate ebay sellers
I am not sure. Read their policy here: [url]http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable.html[/url] ([url]http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable.html[/url])
Examples of digitally delivered goods that you can list on eBay as long as you follow the requirements above:
MP3 music you wrote, recorded, and own all the rights to
Homemade movies you created and own the rights to
Computer software you created and own the rights to
Software that you're authorized to sell online by the owner, the owner's authorized agent, or the law
Digital art you captured yourself and own the rights to or that you're authorized to sell online by the owner, the owner’s authorized agent, or the law
Photos you captured yourself and own the rights to
Recipes you created yourself and own the rights to
if you don't sell on ebay, you may not realize you left out the most important part of that policy you quoted:
===
You can list most digitally delivered goods on eBay as long as you follow these guidelines:
You need to list your item only in the Everything Else > Information Products category using only the Classified Ad format.
=====
classified ads for digital photos cost $10/mo and don't appear in other ebay searches - the classified are more suited to craigslist type ads
-
2 days ago, Shutterstock accepted this photo (and it sold almost immediately, which is nice):
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3884/14859035416_7f29a4c92e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oD3rxN)
Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm (https://flic.kr/p/oD3rxN) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
But rejected this photo:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14878977831_905ed454ce_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oENDJx)
Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Hunter Museum at Sunset (https://flic.kr/p/oENDJx) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
With the reason, "We do not accept images of modern architecture or images where the architecture is the main focus."
I contacted them immediately for clarification, because both photos contain modern architecture in the same proportion, and the focus in both photos in on the bridge itself. I waited 2 days, but didn't receive a reply, despite their usual 24 hour contact us reply time.
Any ideas why they might have rejected that?
-
I can't answer your question (other than the oft-rehearsed SS inspection inconsistency), but I'd like to suggest you watermark your images. Although I can't just right-click-save from Flickr, once it was posted here, I can.
-
I'm guessing the problem is the modern building on left. Architects now often copyright there building designs.
-
I'm guessing the problem is the modern building on left. Architects now often copyright there building designs.
How does that work? The customer buys the building, but the architect owns the copyright? That's kind of like my cutting board, but I made that cutting board with my hands. Architects generally are Work-for-hire, aren't they?
How come we can photograph other buildings? Wouldn't the contractor own the copyright or something?
-
I'm guessing the problem is the modern building on left. Architects now often copyright there building designs.
SS' definition of 'modern' varies with the reviewer, and also with your keywords
-
All stock sites are not the same, but here is a discussion on Trademarks (including buildings) on DT started by the boss there. http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_148 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_148)
-
2 days ago, Shutterstock accepted this photo (and it sold almost immediately, which is nice):
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3884/14859035416_7f29a4c92e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oD3rxN)
Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm (https://flic.kr/p/oD3rxN) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
But rejected this photo:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14878977831_905ed454ce_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oENDJx)
Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Hunter Museum at Sunset (https://flic.kr/p/oENDJx) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
With the reason, "We do not accept images of modern architecture or images where the architecture is the main focus."
I contacted them immediately for clarification, because both photos contain modern architecture in the same proportion, and the focus in both photos in on the bridge itself. I waited 2 days, but didn't receive a reply, despite their usual 24 hour contact us reply time.
Any ideas why they might have rejected that?
comparing the two images, my guess (not expertise, as i am not an architecture nor IP lawyer)
it's not the bridge, but the building to the left which is very unique in design.
it's much like the design of say for automobiles? how do u know it's a Maserati, Lambo, Mercedez,etc..
all protected as intellectual property. even a shot of the rim will fall under this.
-
Wait a few days, resubmit it, but use a different description. Something like "Scene of downtown Chattanooga, Tennesee, from glass pedestrian bridge." It still might not pass, but it might be worth a shot.
The difference between the two is that one has more buildings, making it more of an overall cityscape while the other focuses more on one building with another in the background. The reviewer made a judgment call and considered the second image a single building architecture shot rather than a cityscape, a judgment he was aided by reading your description.
-
Update on this... SSTock asked me to clone out the billboards:
"Dear Jesse,
Your e-mail is appreciated.
I have checked your image with our Legal Department.
As per their decision, you may consider a resubmission, if you clone out the billboards on the right side of the image. (The Hunter Invitational, and the Enjoy music...)
After retouching those out, please consider a resubmission, and add the following Note To Review:
ATTN REVIEWER: See an Admin about this batch (re:case #01113477)
Please remember: This note does not guarantee approval.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any additional questions.
Best regards,
Mate Toth
Contributor Success
Shutterstock"
Unfortunately, after I did so (spending at least an hour in the process) and resubmitted, I received another rejection:
Model Release--A complete & accurate Shutterstock approved model and/or property release is required.
We do not accept images of modern architecture or images where the architecture is the main focus.
I mean, I already knew the architecture was an issue. I was asking for clarification only. It's highly annoying being asked to do additional work with the implication that compliance will yield acceptance (but not the guarantee), only to be shut down for exactly the same reason. Sigh.
This seems to be a pattern with microstock. Ask a hard question, be asked to do more work and resubmit, and get rejected again. It's like a "stupid tax" or something.
-
Sigh.
This seems to be a pattern with microstock. Ask a hard question, be asked to do more work and resubmit, and get rejected again. It's like a "stupid tax" or something.
move on, don't waste any more of ur energy on a beating a dead horse.
from the looks of things, u know how to take good photographs,
so go n shoot generic objects,etc which will have a wider usage . this will not only give u more
approval thus bigger port, but also the wasted energy u spent on this topic,
could have well been used for u to shoot other items
that do not invite reviewer ping-pong.
my point being, even if u got this shot approved, the usage is limited.
save urself the headache, my friend ;)
-
Sigh.
This seems to be a pattern with microstock. Ask a hard question, be asked to do more work and resubmit, and get rejected again. It's like a "stupid tax" or something.
move on, don't waste any more of ur energy on a beating a dead horse.
from the looks of things, u know how to take good photographs,
so go n shoot generic objects,etc which will have a wider usage . this will not only give u more
approval thus bigger port, but also the wasted energy u spent on this topic,
could have well been used for u to shoot other items
that do not invite reviewer ping-pong.
my point being, even if u got this shot approved, the usage is limited.
save urself the headache, my friend ;)
This is some of the best advice I've seen in a while! Heck, copy this last statement and make a template of it! We've all gone thu this before! And in the end the finally approved image NEVER SOLD!
-
I agree. Good advice.
-
Since you have the photo already, why not submit it as editorial (according to SS's editorial guidelines, which I'm not familiar with).
-
Since you have the photo already, why not submit it as editorial (according to SSs ediorial guidelines, which I'm not familiar with).
Excellent idea. I'll do that. Thanks.
-
I can't believe that in five pages nobody seems to have mentioned composition, while everybody is obsessing over sensor spots, focus, DOF etc.
The photos I've seen strike me more as technical records of architectural design, rather than attractive photos. I also have difficulty imagining what sort of use they would have for advertisers. Stock landscape images need to convey a feeling ("nice place for a holiday or conference") and/or a broad sense of place (Pyramids say "Egypt", camels say "Arabia" etc etc), or even just an emotion such as tranquility (eg http://fineartamerica.com/featured/end-of-the-day-paul-cowan.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/end-of-the-day-paul-cowan.html)). A picture of a museum building may be useful for nothing other than advertising that museum (unless the museum is a landmark or symbolises a place) and does the museum need to go to a stock site to get a picture of itself?
So I would counsel thinking about composition (how to make it look especially attractive) and usage (who will want this subject and for what).
-
For crying out loud. You accept this crap from me:
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/678958/210125644/stock-photo-glass-pedestrian-bridge-on-walnut-street-in-chattanooga-tennessee-at-sunset-in-mid-august-210125644.jpg)
And this even crappier image:
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/678958/210003313/stock-photo-glass-pedestrian-bridge-between-walnut-street-and-high-street-in-chattanooga-tennessee-just-after-210003313.jpg)
But then I get a clue and take a 6 shot focus stacked, HDR masterpiece like this:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3862/14962782880_d825d8d564_z.jpg)
And your door goons reject it for ...
Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Composition--Image is poorly composed and/or poorly cropped.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
Honestly... I'm starting to wonder why I'm even trying. :-\
-
For crying out loud. You accept this crap from me:
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/678958/210125644/stock-photo-glass-pedestrian-bridge-on-walnut-street-in-chattanooga-tennessee-at-sunset-in-mid-august-210125644.jpg[/url])
And this even crappier image:
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/678958/210003313/stock-photo-glass-pedestrian-bridge-between-walnut-street-and-high-street-in-chattanooga-tennessee-just-after-210003313.jpg[/url])
But then I get a clue and take a 6 shot focus stacked, HDR masterpiece like this:
([url]https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3862/14962782880_d825d8d564_z.jpg[/url])
And your door goons reject it for ...
Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Composition--Image is poorly composed and/or poorly cropped.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
Honestly... I'm starting to wonder why I'm even trying. :-\
all three photos are fine, especially the last.
But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say:
not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange.
all is true.
the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers. Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions.
If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?
-
Well i seem to feel that the last two pics are great for things like vacation brochures etc. Even I'm not sure how SS rejects stuff
-
all three photos are fine, especially the last.
But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say:
not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange.
all is true.
They don't say that, really. But that's what I took away from it too.
Am I twice as likely to be rejected if there is a colorful sunset in the photo? I was wondering all night if that was the red flag that got me.
the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers.
I resent that a little. I'm just trying to portray the scene at it's best and most beautiful. I think that's what most travel photographers do.
Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions.
I saw a photo from istock on facebook a few months ago of this scene. It was clearly a purchased stock image and shutterstock didn't have the same version. The one it had was weak, IMO, so I started shooting it.
I'm also wondering if they're rejecting me because I have three different photos of the same scene at this point, ignoring the fact that this one is technically the best.
However, none of the photos on shutterstock are at sunset with a colorful sunset, so I thought the time of day would be useful for some advertisers. Was I wrong? If that's the case, I can always reshoot, waiting for a colorless sunset with clouds, like this:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5562/15077756662_c691a42d85_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/oYnrKL)
Ross's Landing with Fluffy White Clouds (https://flic.kr/p/oYnrKL) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/678958/213907972/stock-photo-chattanooga-tn-usa-august-riverfront-fountains-and-evening-street-lights-with-a-partly-213907972.jpg)
I just need to know if sunset colors are something to avoid.
If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?
Not a bad idea at all. It's just a different kind of photo from what I see mostly for travel photos. Usually I'll have to shoot with higher shutter speeds and use f2 instead of f8, or else keep the model extremely still. I'm not opposed. This was just the low hanging fruit.
Thanks for the feedback, btw. I appreciate it.
-
I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. Hopefully you are with other agencies in addition to Shutterstock, just submit the images to them and they will likely be accepted and start selling.....Shutterstock's loss.
As for the HDR image I don't think the fact that it is taken at sunset has anything to do with the rejection. I wonder if that distinctive building in the BG may be a trademark concern? There are several reviewers at SS and what one may accept another may reject particularly if trademark issues are questionable which may explain why that building got by some inspectors in previous images.
Incorrect WB is a favorite rejection reason. It seems that some inspectors don't take into consideration the time of day the image was shot or the lighting conditions under which it was shot. I use the Colorchecker Passport when I shoot to make certain I'm getting the proper WB and still get WB rejections, occasionally.
I don't shoot HDR so I'm not familiar with SS policy with that technique....it does look HDRish to me so perhaps that was a factor in this rejection.
Looks to me like you are doing just fine.
-
I'm not a photographer, but looking at it from a buyer's perspective, shot #3 looks odd to me. It's kinda weird that everything's in focus and super sharp. I actually prefer the first two, with more natural lighting and focus that makes sense in my brain. Perhaps the inspector thought this as well.
Pretty shots, btw. :)
-
I wonder if that distinctive building in the BG may be a trademark concern? There are several reviewers at SS and what one may accept another may reject particularly if trademark issues are questionable which may explain why that building got by some inspectors in previous images.
Can't be. There are tons of images of the aquarium. I think it's more likely that the Ice Cream Show's sign in the lower left corner (the "M SHO" is obscured by a railing post) is causing concern, but I don't know. I asked for clarification from shutterstock. We'll see what they say.
Incorrect WB is a favorite rejection reason. It seems that some inspectors don't take into consideration the time of day the image was shot or the lighting conditions under which it was shot. I use the Colorchecker Passport when I shoot to make certain I'm getting the proper WB and still get WB rejections, occasionally.
Seems like it's a "we just don't like it" reason then. That's a shame, because their advertisers might like it anyway. I think the white balance is fine here, for the record. It's just a colorful sunset.
I don't shoot HDR so I'm not familiar with SS policy with that technique....it does look HDRish to me so perhaps that was a factor in this rejection.
I don't know the policy either, but I tried to submit it first without HDR. Twice. This was the first rejection reason:
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
Note that there was no mention of trademark or wb. So I brightened the fill (at the expense of the sky), and this was the second rejection reason:
Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Composition--Image is poorly composed and/or poorly cropped.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.
I actually thought I deleted that second image before it hit their reviewers, so I was surprised when it finally got reviewed alongside the HDR. This is it on flickr though:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5557/15142718242_1232dfa6d5_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/p57oz1)
Ruth Holmberg Pedestrian Bridge at Sunset (https://flic.kr/p/p57oz1) by Trevarthan (https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/), on Flickr
As you can see, it's not much different from the HDR. The sky is just a bit more washed out and the concrete and glass tiles don't have quite as much "punch". IMO, the HDR is "better".
The HDR was my attempt to ultimately "fix" the exposure issue. It offered the best of both worlds. Properly exposed sky and properly exposed foreground. Sigh.
My experience is that once they reject an image, they become dogged and reject any attempts to correct the image for the rejection reason out of hubris. "You don't like our rejection reason? Too bad. No amount of correction on your part will fix it. You're done." I hate that.
-
I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .
I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!
-
I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .
I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!
"Personal" implies emotionally butthurt, I think. I'm not butthurt about this. I just want to know what I did wrong. I don't understand, and I can't play the game if I don't understand the rules.
-
I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .
I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!
"Personal" implies emotionally butthurt, I think. I'm not butthurt about this. I just want to know what I did wrong. I don't understand, and I can't play the game if I don't understand the rules.
That's good that you're not taking it personally, but it still strikes me that you're trying to analyse and quantify something which is really just a subjective judgement. It depends on opinion of the reviewer you get. There are no set "rules" as such, just a matter of judgement within certain parameters. Again I will say though that I don't know the ShutterStock system specifically. I'm talking generally.
-
I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .
I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!
"Personal" implies emotionally butthurt, I think. I'm not butthurt about this. I just want to know what I did wrong. I don't understand, and I can't play the game if I don't understand the rules.
That's good that you're not taking it personally, but it still strikes me that you're trying to analyse and quantify something which is really just a subjective judgement. It depends on opinion of the reviewer you get. There are no set "rules" as such, just a matter of judgement within certain parameters. Again I will say though that I don't know the ShutterStock system specifically. I'm talking generally.
I agree. I just want to make sure that this is 100% a subjective rejection and not a technical rejection.
Subjective rejections shouldn't be tolerated in this highly technical industry, IMO. But that's a different discussion.
-
........My experience is that once they reject an image, they become dogged and reject any attempts to correct the image for the rejection reason out of hubris. "You don't like our rejection reason? Too bad. No amount of correction on your part will fix it. You're done." I hate that.
not true -- I often get images accepted that were initially rejected for white balance or lighting, especially late afternoon lighting -- as others have mentioned, you're going to have different reviewers, so different rejection reasons are not uncommon. and reviewers often just give 1 or 2 reasons for rejection when they may have other concerns too -- it's how it works.
-
........My experience is that once they reject an image, they become dogged and reject any attempts to correct the image for the rejection reason out of hubris. "You don't like our rejection reason? Too bad. No amount of correction on your part will fix it. You're done." I hate that.
not true -- I often get images accepted that were initially rejected for white balance or lighting, especially late afternoon lighting -- as others have mentioned, you're going to have different reviewers, so different rejection reasons are not uncommon. and reviewers often just give 1 or 2 reasons for rejection when they may have other concerns too -- it's how it works.
So what can I do to improve the lighting in this photo?
-
The next image up, the one on Flickr, looks a bit "flat and grey" to me. Needs a bit of a mid range contrast boost IMO.
As already said though, it's all pretty subjective. One man's "giving it a bit more pop" is another's "too much contrast"
-
The next image up, the one on Flickr, looks a bit "flat and grey" to me. Needs a bit of a mid range contrast boost IMO.
As already said though, it's all pretty subjective. One man's "giving it a bit more pop" is another's "too much contrast"
Agreed re: second image. That's why I tried the HDR. It worked to fix the contrast. What about the HDR? What could be improved there?
-
Hard to be other than totally subjective here, but IMHO the "blue hour" photo creates a mood and since the bridge is the sharpest area of focus, the beautiful museum building seems incidental, whereas in the HDR photo the impossible depth of field is jarring and, despite being identical to the accepted blue hour photo in many respects (the same image processed differently? or a re-take? - either way, it just doesn't work because it seems fake). They can't reject it for "everything being in focus," though ironically that is the major problem, so let's look at the stuff that might have been acceptable if not for the "too perfect as to seem unreal" DOF (IMHO) - the colors seem tweaked and the distinctive building is more prominent.
I really like the blue hour photo - and I'm sure the other one took you ages to stack and tweak - but chalk it up to experience. Personally, I've spent hours "improving" something in Photoshop only to realize I actually ruined a good picture, it happens.
I remember being at PhotoExpo when I first started, listening to an editor from Travel & Leisure explain why she hated some photo where everything in a beautiful hotel room was in perfect focus as was everything outside the window and it was all perfectly exposed.
What makes a good photo? There are rules and there are great photos that break those rules, but ultimately at some point it is subjective, though IMHO the rejected photo breaks rule #1 - a travel photo needs to be real.
Hope that helps.
-
Hard to be other than totally subjective here, but IMHO the "blue hour" photo creates a mood and since the bridge is the sharpest area of focus, the beautiful museum building seems incidental, whereas in the HDR photo the impossible depth of field is jarring and, despite being identical to the accepted blue hour photo in many respects (the same image processed differently? or a re-take? - either way, it just doesn't work because it seems fake). They can't reject it for "everything being in focus," though ironically that is the major problem, so let's look at the stuff that might have been acceptable if not for the "too perfect as to seem unreal" DOF (IMHO) - the colors seem tweaked and the distinctive building is more prominent.
I really like the blue hour photo - and I'm sure the other one took you ages to stack and tweak - but chalk it up to experience. Personally, I've spent hours "improving" something in Photoshop only to realize I actually ruined a good picture, it happens.
I remember being at PhotoExpo when I first started, listening to an editor from Travel & Leisure explain why she hated some photo where everything in a beautiful hotel room was in perfect focus as was everything outside the window and it was all perfectly exposed.
What makes a good photo? There are rules and there are great photos that break those rules, but ultimately at some point it is subjective, though IMHO the rejected photo breaks rule #1 - a travel photo needs to be real.
Hope that helps.
Eh. Good feedback. Definitely not what I wanted to hear, but good nonetheless. For the record, it's definitely a reshoot. The blue hour photo (I'm guessing you mean the darker of the two) was shot with an 85mm PC-e. The bridge tiles were in perfect focus all the way across (downward lens tilt), but everything else blurs a bit. The architectural guys on a landscape forum I frequent told me to sell the lens after I took that shot because I wasn't using it the way it's supposed to be used. It really bent them out of shape seeing me butcher it that way. That's why I called it "crap". So I thought, I'll do it again with the 85mm 1.4g at sunset and a focus stack. Surely everyone will love that. ::)
It's funny... the colors aren't tweaked at all. I mean, I used exactly the same processing on this photo as I did on the others. I have a super simple formula:
In camera, I expose as far to the right as I can so I get the benefit of the complete dynamic range the sensor is capable of.
In Lightroom:
- Highlights all the way down
- Shadows all the way up
- Just enough bump on the Whites to bring back the specular highlights.
- Just enough bump on the Blacks to blow some of them (hold the Alt key while sliding to the left until you see just a tad black show up).
- Vibrance +8 (practically nothing)
- Saturation +8 (again - nothing - just a hint)
- "Enable Profile Corrections" and "Remove Chromatic Aberration"
That's it. That's all the processing I do, and I do exactly that same step by step process for every photo I submit to shutterstock. Other than that, it's as shot. 6 shots, only the focus motor moved in between.
So yeah, this is actually how the scene looked. I did a little dance when I successfully completed the stack because there are always people walking across this bridge, and it takes a good minute to complete the walk, so it's super rare to get 10 seconds of clear bridge, much less the 2 minutes necessary for a focus stack set, and much much less the 2 minutes I needed right in the middle of a fading colorful sunset when the lights under the bridge are just starting to brighten. (for some reason, people start flocking across the bridge at sunset - never fails - it's like the colors behind them light a fire in their legs - I don't understand it)
I guess I'm getting dinged for doing a good job. ::)
I don't know. I think what you're really saying is that maybe this just isn't a stock photo. Maybe it works better as fine art. Maybe I need to always keep it simple for stock. White puffy clouds. No colors.
Shame though. I'd prefer to let the market determine if they want it or not, rather than some reviewer.
-
Shame though. I'd prefer to let the market determine if they want it or not, rather than some reviewer.
I know what you mean - Keep working at it - you seem really diligent and give FAA or Crated a try with the stuff you feel is fine art - it is all very subjective. And try it on other sites. We've all had files rejected by one site that sell well on another.
-
I think wordplanet has summed it all up pretty well.
I can't help but think that you are overthinking all this. It's stock. Take the shot, process it, upload. If they refuse it then either put it right and re-upload, or move on to the next shot. If it's refused again, move on.
Can't say with ShutterStock, but with iStock, when their inspection process was still strict, images which were seen as being easy to get, or which didn't have a strong concept tended to be judged more strictly than those which did fulfil those criteria. I know you went to a lot of trouble to get this shot, but the reviewer doesn't know that, so that could be at least partly the case here.
Also stock isn't really art. Or at least "fine art" often doesn't seem to sell that well as stock. You may be better selling these types of shots elsewhere, again as wordplanet suggests. The whole thing of what is "good" or not is very subjective, and trying to analyse it is an impossible task. If it was possible we could all say "This is good stock" or "This is good art" and sell accordingly. If only it was that simple!
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
-
The whole thing of what is "good" or not is very subjective, and trying to analyse it is an impossible task. If it was possible we could all say "This is good stock" or "This is good art" and sell accordingly. If only it was that simple!
Ay, there's the rub!
-
all three photos are fine, especially the last.
But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say:
not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange.
all is true.
They don't say that, really. But that's what I took away from it too.
Am I twice as likely to be rejected if there is a colorful sunset in the photo? I was wondering all night if that was the red flag that got me.
the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers.
I resent that a little. I'm just trying to portray the scene at it's best and most beautiful. I think that's what most travel photographers do.
Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions.
I saw a photo from istock on facebook a few months ago of this scene. It was clearly a purchased stock image and shutterstock didn't have the same version. The one it had was weak, IMO, so I started shooting it.
I'm also wondering if they're rejecting me because I have three different photos of the same scene at this point, ignoring the fact that this one is technically the best.
However, none of the photos on shutterstock are at sunset with a colorful sunset, so I thought the time of day would be useful for some advertisers. Was I wrong? If that's the case, I can always reshoot, waiting for a colorless sunset with clouds, like this:
([url]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5562/15077756662_c691a42d85_z.jpg[/url]) ([url]https://flic.kr/p/oYnrKL[/url])
Ross's Landing with Fluffy White Clouds ([url]https://flic.kr/p/oYnrKL[/url]) by Trevarthan ([url]https://www.flickr.com/people/26405131@N03/[/url]), on Flickr
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/678958/213907972/stock-photo-chattanooga-tn-usa-august-riverfront-fountains-and-evening-street-lights-with-a-partly-213907972.jpg[/url])
I just need to know if sunset colors are something to avoid.
If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?
Not a bad idea at all. It's just a different kind of photo from what I see mostly for travel photos. Usually I'll have to shoot with higher shutter speeds and use f2 instead of f8, or else keep the model extremely still. I'm not opposed. This was just the low hanging fruit.
Thanks for the feedback, btw. I appreciate it.
Icons and essense, my friend.
meaning.. Our photos are meant to make people buy things, so there are more sales in a photo of a shopping bag than a bridge. So photograph shopping bags, not the wonders of the world.
But since all shopping bags have already been photographed, and also all kinds of women with shopping bags, there are only women on bridges with shopping bags left. Thats a nische market, untill someone (like you? ( come up with a new icon.
If you have a picture of a bridge with no women with shopping bags, then you will find that the image is hard to sell and the agencies know that, which is why they reject. Dont take it personally. Its about business, not about photography. Repeat. Its business NOT photography.
I cant say it much clearer, and if you now think about lenses, light and dof, and what you have done right or wrong you are still on the wrong track and still stuck in the mud of the photo clubs.
-
Seems like I've move beyond "missing the mark technically" to an issue of business marketability. I welcome that problem. Seems like progress.
-
f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.
f8 sounds pretty possible to be the sweet spot. most lenses stop down 2, 21/2 , 3, for that.
and in my case, with most of my working lenses, i found f8 to be the sweet spot.
congrats on both approval of this image and finding f8.
According to this site and their 3d blur graphs (pretty cool), f5.6 is the sweet spot for the 24mm f3.5 PC-e and the 24mm f1.4g:
[url]http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12[/url] ([url]http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12[/url])
[url]http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325[/url] ([url]http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325[/url])
I'll have to try f5.6 next time. I'll also make sure I do some research on this in the future before shooting.
I have found found f5.6 to be the case with many of my lens.
-
In Lightroom:
- Highlights all the way down
- Shadows all the way up
- Just enough bump on the Whites to bring back the specular highlights.
- Just enough bump on the Blacks to blow some of them (hold the Alt key while sliding to the left until you see just a tad black show up).
- Vibrance +8 (practically nothing)
- Saturation +8 (again - nothing - just a hint)
- "Enable Profile Corrections" and "Remove Chromatic Aberration"
Sorry if this is stupid, I am not very experienced at post-processing after all -- but you really do hold highlights/lift shadows all the way on every single photo? I mean, won't that make you end up with a completely flat, pseudo HDR look? Don't get me wrong, I am all for a little highlight/shadow correction, but all the way on every photo seems excessive.
The other thing I would add my two cents to: I, too, shoot mostly in the "landscape", "architecture", or "travel" categories, and I have learned a long time ago that while that stuff does sell, it doesn't sell as much as other things. That's just how it is.
-
In Lightroom:
- Highlights all the way down
- Shadows all the way up
- Just enough bump on the Whites to bring back the specular highlights.
- Just enough bump on the Blacks to blow some of them (hold the Alt key while sliding to the left until you see just a tad black show up).
- Vibrance +8 (practically nothing)
- Saturation +8 (again - nothing - just a hint)
- "Enable Profile Corrections" and "Remove Chromatic Aberration"
Sorry if this is stupid, I am not very experienced at post-processing after all -- but you really do hold highlights/lift shadows all the way on every single photo? I mean, won't that make you end up with a completely flat, pseudo HDR look? Don't get me wrong, I am all for a little highlight/shadow correction, but all the way on every photo seems excessive.
The other thing I would add my two cents to: I, too, shoot mostly in the "landscape", "architecture", or "travel" categories, and I have learned a long time ago that while that stuff does sell, it doesn't sell as much as other things. That's just how it is.
Shrug. Looks great to me. I'm not great at editing. I try to keep it simple. And yeah, I know the sales are slower. Doesn't really bother me. I enjoy shooting it.
-
Doing highlights and shadows all the way is a trick I first heard from photographer Serge Ramelli. I just found out that it might be ok as a starting point, but it is too extreme for most of my photos. The philosophy is ok, I guess, but that is just the starting point.
Concerning SS - that's the queston of what kind of photos will sale - I had a lots of photos with completely good light, soft shadows, everything ok, even though I got rejections with light problems. Then I've found out it is not really light, but the colors.
For example, the cloudy sky should give the perfect light - but that is not good enough for SS. If the histogram is a bit on the dark side - and there are lack of colors on the photo - not good.
-
Doing highlights and shadows all the way is a trick I first heard from photographer Serge Ramelli. I just found out that it might be ok as a starting point, but it is too extreme for most of my photos. The philosophy is ok, I guess, but that is just the starting point.
Concerning SS - that's the queston of what kind of photos will sale - I had a lots of photos with completely good light, soft shadows, everything ok, even though I got rejections with light problems. Then I've found out it is not really light, but the colors.
For example, the cloudy sky should give the perfect light - but that is not good enough for SS. If the histogram is a bit on the dark side - and there are lack of colors on the photo - not good.
Thats the moment when you press the button to the "pep and pop for shutterstock" photoshop action.
-
Doing highlights and shadows all the way is a trick I first heard from photographer Serge Ramelli. I just found out that it might be ok as a starting point, but it is too extreme for most of my photos. The philosophy is ok, I guess, but that is just the starting point.
Concerning SS - that's the queston of what kind of photos will sale - I had a lots of photos with completely good light, soft shadows, everything ok, even though I got rejections with light problems. Then I've found out it is not really light, but the colors.
For example, the cloudy sky should give the perfect light - but that is not good enough for SS. If the histogram is a bit on the dark side - and there are lack of colors on the photo - not good.
I probably got it from the same guy. I watched a youtube video trying to figure out the best way to pull the shadows up after switching from Lightroom 3.3 to Lightroom 5.5. A bunch of the interface had changed, and some guy offered that technique. It worked well and gave me the results I wanted, so I've been using it ever since.
Here's the histogram for that HDR:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2vbt191.png)
I'm no expert, but it doesn't look underexposed to me (usually that means there is a gap on the right). It doesn't look overexposed (usually that means the curves are clipped at the top). And it seems to have a full range of colors.
-
JPSDK, can you maybe share that action? :) I still didn't figure it out completely...
The very next moment when I start thinking that I got it finally, and got a few batches accepted, I get my next batch 100% rejected :D
-
. . .Thats the moment when you press the button to the "pep and pop for shutterstock" photoshop action.
Is that the action that guarantees hundreds of sales as well? I didn't trust the horns and cloven hooves on the salesman! :)
-
trevarthan, histogram looks quite ok for me, and your photos as well, concerning quality. I think the problem is somewhere else. Example - you have a lots of photos of a bridge, but who is interested in that? I mean, what did you want to tell with those photos? If you photograph a famous bridge on a nice light it's something different, or if you've seen interesting detail on a bridge, or interesting reflection, etc, etc...
-
JPSDK, can you maybe share that action? :) I still didn't figure it out completely...
The very next moment when I start thinking that I got it finally, and got a few batches accepted, I get my next batch 100% rejected :D
Im the kind of quy that lent out my things, fx my camera is away from home on a mission in another mans hands.
But exactly that photoshop action, is a strong competitive tool, and I must admit that im a bit reluctant about feeding my competitors.
But PM me, and convince me your are not competition and we shall see.
-
. . .Thats the moment when you press the button to the "pep and pop for shutterstock" photoshop action.
Is that the action that guarantees hundreds of sales as well? I didn't trust the horns and cloven hooves on the salesman! :)
There a no sales in any postprosessing, it is, as I said earlier all about coherent content *, and of course the impact of that coherent content.
The action only takes care of the small part of an images´impact that comes from postprocessing.
Then again, postprocessing is more important than equipment.
* the coherent content, is the part the OP´is missing. And people are still discussing histograms and lenses.
Let us discuss coherent content instead, or maybe - better not?- because thats where the money and the competition is, and I should better keep my mouth shut, and let this obviously talented photographer waste a couple of years to find out by himself..
-
I think the problem is somewhere else. Example - you have a lots of photos of a bridge, but who is interested in that? I mean, what did you want to tell with those photos? If you photograph a famous bridge on a nice light it's something different, or if you've seen interesting detail on a bridge, or interesting reflection, etc, etc...
I've seen people who are interested in advertising real estate events in town buy them.
-
Well, there you go. The squeaky wheel gets oiled (And noted in the intranet system as being a total pain in everyone's ass):
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=216088459 (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=216088459)
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/678958/216088459/stock-photo-the-ruth-s-and-a-william-holmberg-pedestrian-bridge-in-chattanooga-has-a-backlit-glass-floor-and-216088459.jpg)
I didn't get an explanation this time. I was just told to resubmit it and given an admin code.
-
You probably wore them down. Let us know if it sells.
-
I like your photographs very much, but I believe you'll need to change your mindset to do well at stock. I went through just that sort of adjustment since I started doing this, beginning by shooting and submitting most everything and seeing what stuck. Beyond getting the technical aspects right (looking for flaws at 100%, small apertures to put most everything in focus, not overdoing the saturation and contrast in post-processing), think commercial use. Stay away from trademarked products; concentrate on photos that can help tell a story, or at least be an element in a work that will tell one.
Thanks!
-
You probably wore them down. Let us know if it sells.
Three times so far. Shrug. It's not nothing.