Author Topic: I want to be good at this, but I'm just missing something. Advice, please. (Read 38448 times)

samards · « **Reply #150 on:** September 10, 2014, 06:41 »

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 · « **Reply #151 on:** September 10, 2014, 08:00 »

Quote from: samards on September 09, 2014, 10:19

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

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.

JPSDK · « **Reply #152 on:** September 10, 2014, 08:09 »

Quote from: Difydave on September 09, 2014, 11:03

Quote from: JPSDK on September 09, 2014, 08:14
. . .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..

trevarthan · « **Reply #153 on:** September 10, 2014, 09:12 »

Quote from: samards link=topic=23035.msg393303#msg393303

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.

trevarthan · « **Reply #154 on:** September 10, 2014, 09:21 »

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

I didn't get an explanation this time. I was just told to resubmit it and given an admin code.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #155 on:** September 10, 2014, 11:50 »

You probably wore them down. Let us know if it sells.

jimmyjjohn · « **Reply #156 on:** October 29, 2014, 03:43 »

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!