MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I want to be good at this, but I'm just missing something. Advice, please.  (Read 33360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2014, 21:41 »
0
you have the tech skills but not shooting the in demand content. that -- you will have to figure out on your own,

good shooting



« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2014, 03:14 »
0
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.

« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2014, 17:59 »
0
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

Go figure. I mean, I'm glad. I just wish there was more consistency in this game.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2014, 18:10 »
+2
Be careful what you wish for. Sales were far better on iStock when the inspection was much stricter.

« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2014, 20:02 »
0
"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.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 20:29 by wordplanet »

« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2014, 21:03 »
+1
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.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2014, 22:53 »
+1
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.

« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2014, 15:39 »
0
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.

« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2014, 15:49 »
0
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

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.

« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2014, 18:26 »
0
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/
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/

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.

« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2014, 18:53 »
0
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.

« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2014, 19:33 »
0
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?

cuppacoffee

« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2014, 19:36 »
0
Graffiti on the bridge? If so, they both should have been editorial. I'm not sure which agencies accept graffiti, but some don't.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2014, 19:46 by cuppacoffee »

« Reply #38 on: July 14, 2014, 20:33 »
+2
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.

« Reply #39 on: July 14, 2014, 20:37 »
+2
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.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 20:45 by robhainer »

« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2014, 20:45 »
+1
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.

BD

« Reply #41 on: July 14, 2014, 20:52 »
+1
"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.


« Reply #42 on: July 14, 2014, 20:55 »
+2
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.


« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2014, 21:00 »
0
"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.

BD

« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2014, 21:05 »
0
"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 (:

« Reply #45 on: July 15, 2014, 18:01 »
-2
This is the response I received:

Quote
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.

« Reply #46 on: July 15, 2014, 18:15 »
0
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

« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2014, 14:59 »
-1
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.


« Reply #48 on: July 20, 2014, 10:09 »
0
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

And here's the istockphoto rejection:

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.

« Reply #49 on: July 20, 2014, 10:23 »
+2
It's a simple process to submit a property release for art created by yourself and also required by responsible agencies.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
9700 Views
Last post February 04, 2008, 13:00
by strikerx98
Missing Funds

Started by Phillip Minnis « 1 2  All » Veer

34 Replies
8331 Views
Last post March 17, 2012, 14:54
by bittersweet
1 Replies
2041 Views
Last post March 31, 2012, 13:54
by S.
6 Replies
3928 Views
Last post April 11, 2012, 17:01
by pancaketom
12 Replies
2233 Views
Last post August 07, 2013, 12:20
by Anita Potter

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors