Author Topic: Please critique - are any of these worthy of submission? (Read 5927 times)

electric bill · « **on:** December 25, 2013, 08:57 »

Hello everyone and hope you are having a great holiday.
I'm wondering if it would be worth submitting these to Shutterstock. I've uploaded them to my Google Drive and these are the hosting URLs. I would really value your input.

AutumnMeadowhawkDragonfly
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/AutumnMeadowhawkDragonfly.JPG [nonactive]

BlueDragonfly
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/BlueDragonfly.JPG [nonactive]

BlueDragonflyVertical
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/BlueDragonflyVertical.JPG [nonactive]

CowsGrazing
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/CowsGrazing.JPG [nonactive]

GlenManorHouse
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/GlenManorHouse.JPG [nonactive]

MallardDucks_Male
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/MallardDucks_Male.JPG [nonactive]

SakonnetRiverSailing
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/SakonnetRiverSailing.JPG [nonactive]

SoapboxSeagull
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/SoapboxSeagull.JPG [nonactive]

SpiderWebWaterDroplets
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/SpiderWebWaterDroplets.JPG [nonactive]

StGeorge'sSchool_Newport
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/StGeorge%27sSchool_Newport.JPG [nonactive]

ZebraButterfly
newbielink:https://googledrive.com/host/0B0SVKF1RQamMdEdzQnBLWWNRc1k/ZebraButterfly.JPG [nonactive]

Ron · « **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 2013, 09:03 »

No, the first three are torn up and out of focus. Didnt check the other ones.

electric bill · « **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 2013, 10:29 »

Quote from: Ron on December 25, 2013, 09:03

No, the first three are torn up and out of focus. Didnt check the other ones.

I'm a bit confused about the torn up part.

fritz · « **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2013, 10:33 »

Your FUJI hs30exr is not good for stock, soooooooooo many issues. Buy second hand Rebel (200-300$) some prime lens and you'll see the difference.
With these images forget about submission.

electric bill · « **Reply #4 on:** December 25, 2013, 10:44 »

Thanks fritz, I was afraid of that.

Ron · « **Reply #5 on:** December 25, 2013, 10:49 »

Quote from: electric bill on December 25, 2013, 10:29

Quote from: Ron on December 25, 2013, 09:03
No, the first three are torn up and out of focus. Didnt check the other ones.
I'm a bit confused about the torn up part.

Your pixels are ripped apart. Artefacts, sharpening, noise, just ripped up pixels

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2013, 11:00 »

These photos could be submitted on Yay…

(Just joking, keep them in a little box and forget…)

Goofy · « **Reply #7 on:** December 25, 2013, 15:14 »

What makes you want to do stock in the first? This is a very tough business with a large learning for most. They rewards take years of hard efforts with willingness to understand buyer needs.

Sue Burton Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** December 25, 2013, 16:16 »

I don't seem to be able to access the link on an iPad but would have lived yo gave viewed your images for critique.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** December 25, 2013, 21:32 »

Quote from: fritz on December 25, 2013, 10:33

Your FUJI hs30exr is not good for stock, soooooooooo many issues. Buy second hand Rebel (200-300$) some prime lens and you'll see the difference.
With these images forget about submission.

I agree. I've been shocked at the appalling quality put out by some recentish digicams, and this would seem to be another camera that outputs images that are oversharpened in some places and blurry in others, apparently totally randomly.

noodle · « **Reply #10 on:** December 25, 2013, 21:57 »

the problem with point and shoots is the size of the sensor - with it being the size of your pinky nail, it just cannot collect enough information to make a quality image that is in demand. Also the technology of how the camera processes that information is another factor to consider.
Basically for stock you will need an entry level dslr at the least.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** December 25, 2013, 22:07 »

Quote from: noodle on December 25, 2013, 21:57

the problem with point and shoots is the size of the sensor - with it being the size of your pinky nail, it just cannot collect enough information to make a quality image that is in demand. Also the technology of how the camera processes that information is another factor to consider.
Basically for stock you will need an entry level dslr at the least.

Ha - after looking at these pics, I had a look at at some of the pics my husband took with an old Fuji FinePix2800Zoom back in 2002 and the IQ is better; but that camera was only trying to fit 2.11Mp onto its sensor, not 16Mp.

Grandpa · « **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2013, 06:23 »

Do not worry, your FUJI is good enough for stock photo! For first submission on Shutterstock avoid macro shoots - here You have problems with focusing. Better shoot something without zooming, on lower possible ISO and all will be OK! If images will be rejected, try again and again - one editor will reject, but another will accept the same photo!
You do not need buy camera and equipment for thousands $ and shoot photos for sale $ 0.25! One third of my PF was shoot by 7.1 MP Canon A550 and these images have regular sales today. DSLR has too shallow DOF.

enstoker · « **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2013, 07:02 »

Quote from: Grandpa on December 26, 2013, 06:23

Do not worry, your FUJI is good enough for stock photo! For first submission on Shutterstock avoid macro shoots - here You have problems with focusing. Better shoot something without zooming, on lower possible ISO and all will be OK! If images will be rejected, try again and again - one editor will reject, but another will accept the same photo!
You do not need buy camera and equipment for thousands $ and shoot photos for sale $ 0.25! One third of my PF was shoot by 7.1 MP Canon A550 and these images have regular sales today. DSLR has too shallow DOF.

No comment, specialy for last sentence.
Just HO HO HO...
Happy New year, grandpa.

Grandpa · « **Reply #14 on:** December 26, 2013, 07:37 »

How do You like these images:
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-field-poppy-flowers-image5468314
http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-white-flowers-field-image19631346
http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-images-dragonfly-image14384554
How about DOF? It is why using DSLR I did not throw away my old point@shoot!
HO HO HO, Enstoker! Happy New Year You too!

kingjon · « **Reply #15 on:** December 26, 2013, 10:16 »

Constantly resubmitting rejected images without making changes can get your account banned btw.

Grandpa · « **Reply #16 on:** December 26, 2013, 11:31 »

I know, thanks! It is not so difficult.

stocked · « **Reply #17 on:** December 26, 2013, 14:15 »

Quote from: enstoker on December 26, 2013, 07:02

Quote from: Grandpa on December 26, 2013, 06:23
Do not worry, your FUJI is good enough for stock photo! For first submission on Shutterstock avoid macro shoots - here You have problems with focusing. Better shoot something without zooming, on lower possible ISO and all will be OK! If images will be rejected, try again and again - one editor will reject, but another will accept the same photo!
You do not need buy camera and equipment for thousands $ and shoot photos for sale $ 0.25! One third of my PF was shoot by 7.1 MP Canon A550 and these images have regular sales today. DSLR has too shallow DOF.

No comment, specialy for last sentence.
Just HO HO HO...
Happy New year, grandpa.

Last sentence not that wrong for macro IMHO, but would recommend mft.

Ed · « **Reply #18 on:** December 26, 2013, 14:52 »

I would say that you shouldn't submit these images as they would get rejected (as has been mentioned)

I disagree very strongly about needing an SLR. There are many compact camera systems out there that are terrific for stock - Fuji X100, Fuji X100s, Fuji X-Pro1,Sony RX100, NEX 6, NEX 7, etc., etc. I have shot with my 5D MK III side by side with my Fuji X100S and in low light, the Fuji image quality is remarkably better (as well as auto focus aquisition).

The issue with the camera that you have is it has a 30x optical zoom and a 2x DIGITAL zoom.

What that means is the camera is not just relying on the lens to zoom into the subject matter, it is also cropping your image in camera in order to make it appear that the subject is closer, and then it is interpolating (making the image larger) that image into the largest size available. See if you can turn off the digital zoom in the menu of your camera (with some cameras it is possible), then try shooting and looking at the images at 100% size. You should see a big difference in the results.

fritz · « **Reply #19 on:** December 26, 2013, 15:37 »

Agree, but Fuji X100S is not PS it's Mirrorless camera. Its huge difference and the price is over 1000$. Mirrorless cameras are on the same level as DSLR.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #20 on:** December 26, 2013, 20:43 »

In addition to the many technical flaws that have already been covered (and just to be clear, these aren't anywhere close to the technical quality required), your subject matter isn't appropriate for an application. And probably not for stock unless you're an exceptional photographer. Go and search Shutterstock for dragonfly (nearly 15,000 results) or butterfly (over 93,000 results) or manor (nearly 9,000) or sailboat (nearly 40,000).

Look at the quality - composition, lighting, color - of the first few pages. If you can't best that, then you need to work on filling some niche that isn't so well supplied. And even for a niche, you need to understanding lighting and composition better than, for example, the St. George's School, Newport image.

You should also read up (the agencies all have information on this) on things like boat numbers and names and unreleased people that must be removed from all stock images (other than editorial).

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** December 26, 2013, 22:01 »

Nope. I haven't looked at your images but if you have to ask us ... you're not even close to being ready to submit to microstock. At the very least you have to have reasons to believe that your images are good enough to compete for sales in their genre rather than barely past muster for acceptance. That's just the way it is. Otherwise you'd be wasting your time.

lisafx · « **Reply #22 on:** December 27, 2013, 00:04 »

It looks like you are really enjoying photography. These are the type of images I was taking when I first started becoming passionate about photography.

I think your images are quite nice looking when viewed at a reasonable size. Makes me nostalgic for when I really loved photography and used to enjoy shooting the things I found in the world around me.

All the critiques of the image quality are, of course, right. The image quality breaks down badly at 100%, with far too much noise and too many artifacts, and even blurriness. Also, the subject matter is not what sells as stock.

But I do think your compositions are good and your exposures are fine.

If you decide to pursue stock, you have a steep learning curve and investment in better equipment ahead of you, but if you are content to shoot what interests you as a hobby, I think you are doing a good job.

electric bill · « **Reply #23 on:** December 27, 2013, 06:55 »

Thanks everyone (well almost everyone

). I appreciate the opinions.

Bill

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Please critique - are any of these worthy of submission? (Read 5927 times)

electric bill

Ron

electric bill

fritz

electric bill

Ron

Beppe Grillo

Goofy

Sue Burton Photography

ShadySue

noodle

ShadySue

Grandpa

enstoker

Grandpa

kingjon

Grandpa

stocked

Ed

fritz

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

lisafx

electric bill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors