you are telling you didn't pass any test of  all major agencies?
Then you can try fotolia, they accept crap too and they don't want any test. Dreamstime doesn't have tests to pass but they randomly reject images.

try canstock - they are lenient  and mostphotos doesnt even review - go crazy uploading there

I'm too embarrassed now! Thanks for the advice though. I'll try the suggested sites and see how I get on. I think the problem is I'm shooting the wrong stuff. From looking at what's on offer almost all images include people. I tend not to - I was once told that nothing dates an image more quickly than clothes (i.e. people) and cars so I've tended to keep away from both. Alamy is difficult because if only one image in a batch fails, then they reject the whole batch out of hand - and a failure means you have to wait weeks before the next batch is checked by QC. I think I waited something like six weeks for the second batch to be assessed - which failed - so I gave up with them. Life is too short to wait weeks and weeks for half a dozen images to go through QC and when struggling to get through QC it's pointless uploading more because of the time wasted.

Thanks again.

I was once told that nothing dates an image more quickly than clothes (i.e. people) and cars so I've tended to keep away from both.

you haven't noticed most stock images feature people in block colours, ie red tshirt + jeans or single colour dress? things like that don't date quite so quickly.

of course you might be right and you might not be good enough? are you trained/experienced at all?

I have no models and I'm on iS and Alamy.

You need to ask yourself why you want to get into stock photography. From the sound of it, you are just looking for an agency without any tests that takes your images. But all the rejections need to tell you something.

Finding an agency just to get your photos online is not going to get you any sales. Most of the time those agency's are low earners and having poor images on a low earner is not going to make you any money.

If you are looking just to display your images, you can use Flickr.

If you really want to make money, then you need to take the rejections to heart and get help to improve your skills.

I have seen several people who are happy to have their poor images accepted on CanStockPhoto but on the other hand complain they dont get sales. When I tell them to try and get accepted on Shutterstock, they either never make it, or they dont try because they dont want to put in the hard work it takes to learn how to take technically perfect images. But getting accepted into the top agencies with good images is the way to make money

Its up to you, but you need to put in the work, and be willing to listen and take critique. When you are ready to do that, you will succeed.

And IF the above bold sentence is accurate you won't make any money anyway. If you are in this for the quick, easy buck, forget it. Microstock isn't what it used to be.  today, it requires some degree of skill, talent, and drive, with an eye for stock.  Some people do well with landscapes, some with isolations, some with composites, some are people experts and some, like me, believe is variety to make MS work for me.  If you are not willing to learn, unzip your pants and let it all hang out (pun intended) you won't improve.  How you choose to move forward from today will determine whether you are successful or not.  Having thick skin is a trait you need, especially if you are just starting out. You can show your images in MSG for critique and some of the pro peeps in here are great at offering advice.  Since you can't ge on any sites right now, you can't post in their forums, so why not start here, take it seriously and see if you can apply the advice given in these forums.

Good luck and hope we can help in some way.

Many thanks to all... I'm not bothered by rejection per se and I certainly do not want any old rubbish accepted because that's no use to anyone - least of all me, although Alamy's policy of rejecting an entire batch is a bit naff. It's down to me to bring my stuff up to the required standard so more effort required. However, enough moaning. Moving on.

I contacted Picture Nation to ask why they don't publish details of the best selling topic each month and happened to mention I've not made any sales with them as yet. Only expecting an answer to the first part - which was pretty much as I expected, i.e. if they  publish monthly stats they get inundated with images of that subject and not much else -  Jane also replied to the second part. She said there was nothing wrong with the quality of my portfolio, it was the subject matter - no people!! Buyers want people. So it was pretty much as I expected. Her advice was to include people and go for the hard to get image not the easy stuff. (Perhaps I should consider becoming a papparzzi ) ). Anyway, that seems to be the problem re sales with PictureNation - I'm shooting the wrong stuff. And that will apply to any agency, unless they specialise in supplying images for a very specific market.

Next was the Shutterstock issue and why hadn't I received the 'confirm your account' email. Then it struck me. Idiot! Check my junk email folder! Lo and behold, there they were. All three of them. So, job done. I've now submitted 10 carefully chosen images, all of which fully adhere to the guidelines, to Shutterstock for assessment. If they get accepted I'll go back and try Alamy again.

Taking all the helpful forum comments into account and the advice from PictureNation, plus a day's research on the web to understand more about what stock agencies need (I've a bad habit of doing things back to front...) I'm having a rethink about what to shoot. So, thanks again and here's keeping my fingers crossed. Onward and upward as they say.

Pete



 

If you are serious about this do yourself a favor and put some of your images up for critique either here or on the Shutterstock board.  If you can get a pass on the SS board you have it made, those folks will not pull any punches.  I hope you pass the test since you already sent your 10 but if don't the critique forum there is highly recommended if you have a thick skin.

Stock photos demand a very high level of technical excellence, random snapshots just won't work.  SS is one of the hardest to get accepted at but they also are the highest earner for many of us.  Canstock for example takes almost anything but sells very little.

And don't get sidetracked with the 'people' thing, yes images with people sell, but so do images without people.  I have over 1,700 images on SS and zero people.

One two of my aircraft images can be seen here:
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/powfoto/8567413658/#in/set-72157633022896332/

Noting fantastic. Just a basic handheld stuff...

not even looking at subject matter etc, I see dust spots.

Hmm. Dust spots. That troubles me because they are digital images. Not scanned. I had that problem with scanned transparencies but I've only ever submitted digital images. The lenses (two cameras) are clean - spotless. Very small particles of dust on the lens would probably be too out of focus to show up. What do you think would cause dust spots to show on a digital image?

The dust is on your sensor.  What camera are you shooting with?  Many newer DSLRs have a function that shakes the dust off your sensor when you start up the camera, but since your camera doesn't seem to have that feature, you will need some sort of sensor cleaning system. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/572883-REG/Photographic_Solutions_PE2C_Sensor_Swab_Plus_with.html

If you can't see the spots on those images you might also need a better monitor.   There are quite a few spots. 

Something we've all had to deal with at one time or another.  For the images you've already shot, try the clone tool in photoshop to get rid of the spots. 

OK. Useful. That can be fixed

The De Havilland was shot years ago with a small Fuji - SP1500 or something. I don't use that now. The others were shot with a Nikon D80. 18-200 VR lens which stays on the camera pretty much all the time. However the dust must have got there somehow so the sensor will need to be cleaned. Sounds like a job for Nikon.

The noise is probably because I used a high ISO rating - it was the fist time I'd attempted to shoot fighter aircraft and you don't get a lot of time to faff around because they're gone in an instant. To minimise camera shake and so on, I wanted a fast shutter speed. I had to focus on something static at approximately the right distance, then pan as the aircraft came in. No time to focus on an inbound aircraft and autofocus is totally useless for that - way too slow. Except for the De Havilland which was shot at Duxford, the other aircraft images were handheld shots at RAF Coningsby.

Given all aircraft have logos of some sort, even on parts such as the wheels, tyres, prop, etc or are recognisable by their design (e.g. Boeing windscreen, 747, Airbus and the like) then obviously aircraft images are no good at all for stock photography. That's good to know. I'll submit them to aircraft mags. I've had stuff published in mags with no problem and I've got an option to submit some railway images to a mag so I don't have a problem there. It's just the stock stuff.

There is no choice here -IMO. You have to be accepted by the top tier (okay, exclude iStock) and all the middle tier to make decent money (how much is up to you)...

Many thanks. Very useful info.  I've got a lot of work to do to bring my work up to stock standard - and I've got to rethink the subjects of my images - but at least I know where I'm going wrong!

Thanks for the advice on editorial. Very useful. I shoot quite a lot of editorial stuff so I'll bear all of that info in mind.

Well, having had my moan, it appears things are on the up. Out of the 10 images I submitted to Shutterstock they accepted one with no problem, two were rejected for copyright issues (miniscule maker's name on the saddle of an image featuring two bikes and a tiny fishing boat registration number on the bow of an image featuring a couple of small boats at their mooring). Four were rejected for the main point of focus being in the wrong place, i.e. I hadn't cropped the image tightly enough. One was rejected for noise. So not bad overall. These are all errors that can easily be rectified by paying a bit more attention to the subject. I'm confident the next batch will pass, no problem.

I need eight to get through. Of course, that is not the way to look at it. All ten must sail through but I'm a lot more confident now than when I first posted on this forum. At least there was no mention at all of dust or other 'orrible things....

LOL.. yes, pretty much  I'm still a bit mystified by those rejected for focus. Both are sharper than several of the images of the same subject that are already on SS. If I could work out how to publish an image on here I'd post two of them.

It took me over a year to get accepted to istock - trial and error method. I didn't even know about any microstock forums to help me out and give advice. I almost gave up as I am a self learner and I thought I would never take good enough picture, but it finally happened and it was worth the wait! Just don't give up and keep trying! Make sure your photo is sharp when you zoom it at 100%.

I thought about it briefly once....then I thought about how mortified my daughter would be if her photo showed up in a tampon ad....and I was paid 38 cents to deal with the drama that would ensue.    No thanks.

good point as I head into teenage years with my free models ... but surely a tampon ad would be deemed sensitive use?

Hi Gel-O-Shooter.  Yes, I have a tripod but to be fair, with the stuff I mostly shoot a tripod would be a hindrance and totally impractical. However I fully accept the fact that shooting stock is different and I must use a tripod. I use Photoshop to check the image at actual pixels size but other than cropping for effect - if the cropping in the viewfinder has been insufficient - I don't do much image manipulation. I can remove trademarks and so on, no problem and would have done so had I realised fishing boat registration numbers counted as trademarks! The tiny trademarks on the bike saddles were an oversight but a lesson learned.

Rejection isn't personal it's business so I don't have a problem with it per se. it's just annoying that I didn't get it right first time. I'll keep at it though and Shutterstock have already sent the standard 'waiting for your next submission' email - but this time I'm going to have a think about what to shoot and make * sure the next submission meets the criteria and is free from dust, noise and trademarks etc...!!