Author Topic: New to microstock (Read 7379 times)

puddlepirate1 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 19, 2013, 20:01 »

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!

Newsfocus1 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 20, 2013, 02:59 »

Quote from: puddlepirate1 on March 19, 2013, 13:47

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.

Aviation images are fine as editorial on those agencies which accept it (which is most of the top names on the right). Just be sure to study the individual caption requirements for editorial and follow it exactly- where required. Regards, David.

ETA To be more specific: Shutterstock/Bigstock/123/Istock require an exact editorial caption format and the others (currently) do not.

puddlepirate1 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 28, 2013, 14:55 »

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....

Poncke · « **Reply #28 on:** March 28, 2013, 15:22 »

Focus in the wrong place is not related to cropping or framing, that means the part of the image that was in focus is not the subject of the photo. Means you focused on the wrong part of the scene/object or the DOF was too shallow, maybe the image was not in focus at all. So you have noise problems, focus problems, copyright problems and 2 more images rejected for something else. Basically, you had it all wrong

puddlepirate1 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 30, 2013, 10:53 »

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.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 30, 2013, 16:14 »

Shutterstock and focus can be a mystery to all of us at some point (no pun intended!). (AND now Canstock!)

Aga · « **Reply #31 on:** March 30, 2013, 19:58 »

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%.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #32 on:** March 30, 2013, 21:27 »

Always examine your photos at 100% (200% even better). Trust me, if you see noise they will too.

Do you have photoshop and do you know how to clone out trademarks?

None of my stock photos are people shots. I have some cute teenagers (ok, they are gorgeous), but I have never used them for models. 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.

A good tripod is your best friend and can go a long way toward getting a well-lit, sharp photo.

gillian vann · « **Reply #33 on:** March 30, 2013, 23:19 »

Quote from: Gel-O Shooter on March 30, 2013, 21:27

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?

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #34 on:** March 30, 2013, 23:50 »

Quote from: gillian on March 30, 2013, 23:19

Quote from: Gel-O Shooter on March 30, 2013, 21:27
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?

Gillian, I would think it would be. The question is do I trust an ad designer to see it that way? What about something a little less innocuous, but still worthy of public humiliation....like maybe zit cream or stinky foot powder? Any of these would have caused enough angst to at least merit an emergency family relocation to Siberia for 6-8 months.

Good luck with your little models and enjoy them before they go off to college!

puddlepirate1 · « **Reply #35 on:** April 07, 2013, 13:30 »

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...!!

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** April 07, 2013, 13:44 »

Quote from: puddlepirate1 on April 07, 2013, 13:30

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.

Not 'must' - for years <2% of my stock images were shot on a tripod, more recently it's probably up to c5 - 10% as I've been shooting birds from a hide.
However, if shooting 'still life' or 'objects' I'd certainly use one - and hope I remembered to switch IS off.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New to microstock (Read 7379 times)

puddlepirate1

Newsfocus1

puddlepirate1

Poncke

puddlepirate1

Pauws99

Aga

Gel-O Shooter

gillian vann

Gel-O Shooter

puddlepirate1

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors