Author Topic: I want to be good at this, but I'm just missing something. Advice, please. (Read 33486 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #50 on:** July 20, 2014, 13:29 »

Quote from: trevarthan on July 20, 2014, 10:09

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.

That said, sometimes inspectors 'gloss over' what you write in the description, even if you write N.B. in bold red.

trevarthan · « **Reply #51 on:** July 20, 2014, 16:07 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** July 20, 2014, 17:08 »

Quote from: trevarthan on July 20, 2014, 16:07

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.

grsphoto · « **Reply #53 on:** July 20, 2014, 21:11 »

Quote from: trevarthan on July 20, 2014, 10:09

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.

trevarthan · « **Reply #54 on:** July 20, 2014, 22:25 »

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.

trevarthan · « **Reply #55 on:** July 29, 2014, 17:44 »

istock decided they rejected my cutting board photo in error. This is their response:

Quote

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:

Benton Falls by Trevarthan, 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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #56 on:** July 29, 2014, 18:47 »

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.

Mark Windom Photography · « **Reply #57 on:** July 29, 2014, 19:04 »

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).

trevarthan · « **Reply #58 on:** July 29, 2014, 19:32 »

Quote from: Mark Windom Photography on July 29, 2014, 19:04

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.

Mark Windom Photography · « **Reply #59 on:** July 29, 2014, 19:38 »

Quote from: trevarthan on July 29, 2014, 19:32

Quote from: Mark Windom Photography on July 29, 2014, 19:04
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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #60 on:** July 29, 2014, 20:10 »

Quote from: trevarthan on July 29, 2014, 17:44

...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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #61 on:** July 30, 2014, 10:12 »

My jpg rejections continue...this morning it's for keywords not in the English language. Vectors sailed through yet again. Same keywords, of course.

wordplanet · « **Reply #62 on:** July 30, 2014, 10:45 »

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.

trevarthan · « **Reply #63 on:** July 30, 2014, 13:59 »

Submitted a contact us about it and they're sticking to their guns this time:

Quote

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #64 on:** July 30, 2014, 14:19 »

Downsize everything.

trevarthan · « **Reply #65 on:** July 30, 2014, 14:30 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #66 on:** July 30, 2014, 14:55 »

Quote from: trevarthan on July 30, 2014, 13:59

I don't get it.

Post the full size so we can see it?

trevarthan · « **Reply #67 on:** August 01, 2014, 13:31 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on July 30, 2014, 14:19

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.

Mark Windom Photography · « **Reply #68 on:** August 01, 2014, 14:54 »

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.

trevarthan · « **Reply #69 on:** August 01, 2014, 15:28 »

Quote from: Mark Windom Photography on August 01, 2014, 14:54

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.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #70 on:** August 01, 2014, 15:53 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on July 29, 2014, 20:10

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

Mark Windom Photography · « **Reply #71 on:** August 01, 2014, 17:16 »

Quote from: trevarthan on August 01, 2014, 15:28

Quote from: Mark Windom Photography on August 01, 2014, 14:54
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.

robhainer · « **Reply #72 on:** August 01, 2014, 19:58 »

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.

JPSDK · « **Reply #73 on:** August 01, 2014, 23:27 »

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.

JPSDK · « **Reply #74 on:** August 01, 2014, 23:39 »

Btw, you have many examples of "keyword problems" in your flicker port. Do you want me to critisize some of them?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: I want to be good at this, but I'm just missing something. Advice, please. (Read 33486 times)

ShadySue

trevarthan

ShadySue

grsphoto

trevarthan

trevarthan

Shelma1

Mark Windom Photography

trevarthan

Mark Windom Photography

Jo Ann Snover

Shelma1

wordplanet

trevarthan

Shelma1

trevarthan

Sean Locke Photography

trevarthan

Mark Windom Photography

trevarthan

etudiante_rapide

Mark Windom Photography

robhainer

JPSDK

JPSDK

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors