MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I want to be good at this, but I'm just missing something. Advice, please.  (Read 35871 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: August 06, 2014, 22:30 »
0
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://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.


« Reply #101 on: August 07, 2014, 12:29 »
0
...

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 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

« Reply #102 on: August 07, 2014, 13:14 »
0
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://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.


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.


« Reply #103 on: August 08, 2014, 07:58 »
0
...

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 newbielink:http://www.ebay.com/gds/Copyrights-Publicity-Rights-and-Selling-Photos-/10000000177102630/g.html [nonactive] 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: newbielink:http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable.html [nonactive]
Quote
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 owners authorized agent, or the law
Photos you captured yourself and own the rights to
Recipes you created yourself and own the rights to

« Reply #104 on: August 08, 2014, 14:20 »
0
...

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 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
Quote
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 owners 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


« Reply #105 on: August 13, 2014, 07:39 »
0
2 days ago, Shutterstock accepted this photo (and it sold almost immediately, which is nice):


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm by Trevarthan, on Flickr

But rejected this photo:


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Hunter Museum at Sunset by Trevarthan, 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?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #106 on: August 13, 2014, 07:43 »
0
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.

« Reply #107 on: August 13, 2014, 07:51 »
0
I'm guessing the problem is the modern building on left. Architects now often copyright there building designs.

« Reply #108 on: August 13, 2014, 08:00 »
0
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?

« Reply #109 on: August 13, 2014, 11:44 »
0
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

cuppacoffee

« Reply #110 on: August 13, 2014, 11:51 »
0
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

« Reply #111 on: August 13, 2014, 11:58 »
0
2 days ago, Shutterstock accepted this photo (and it sold almost immediately, which is nice):


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Aquarium at Sunset 24mm by Trevarthan, on Flickr

But rejected this photo:


Glass Pedestrian Bridge and Hunter Museum at Sunset by Trevarthan, 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.

« Reply #112 on: August 13, 2014, 14:27 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 14:31 by robhainer »

« Reply #113 on: August 16, 2014, 16:35 »
0
Update on this... SSTock asked me to clone out the billboards:

Quote
"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:

Quote
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.

« Reply #114 on: August 16, 2014, 16:48 »
+3
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  ;)

Goofy

« Reply #115 on: August 16, 2014, 16:55 »
+1
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!

« Reply #116 on: August 16, 2014, 17:06 »
0
I agree. Good advice.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #117 on: August 16, 2014, 17:51 »
0
Since you have the photo already, why not submit it as editorial (according to SS's editorial guidelines, which I'm not familiar with).
« Last Edit: August 16, 2014, 18:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #118 on: August 16, 2014, 17:58 »
0
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.

« Reply #119 on: August 17, 2014, 01:37 »
+4
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).  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).

« Reply #120 on: September 05, 2014, 16:52 »
0
For crying out loud. You accept this crap from me:



And this even crappier image:



But then I get a clue and take a 6 shot focus stacked, HDR masterpiece like this:



And your door goons reject it for ...

Quote
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.  :-\
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 16:54 by trevarthan »

« Reply #121 on: September 06, 2014, 00:33 »
+2
For crying out loud. You accept this crap from me:



And this even crappier image:



But then I get a clue and take a 6 shot focus stacked, HDR masterpiece like this:



And your door goons reject it for ...

Quote
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?

« Reply #122 on: September 06, 2014, 02:15 »
0
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

« Reply #123 on: September 06, 2014, 09:31 »
0
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:


Ross's Landing with Fluffy White Clouds by Trevarthan, on Flickr



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.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 09:34 by trevarthan »

Mark Windom Photography

« Reply #124 on: September 06, 2014, 10:38 »
+1
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
10228 Views
Last post February 04, 2008, 13:00
by strikerx98
Missing Funds

Started by Phillip Minnis « 1 2  All » Veer

34 Replies
9864 Views
Last post March 17, 2012, 14:54
by bittersweet
1 Replies
2199 Views
Last post March 31, 2012, 13:54
by S.
6 Replies
4206 Views
Last post April 11, 2012, 17:01
by pancaketom
12 Replies
2467 Views
Last post August 07, 2013, 12:20
by Anita Potter

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors