Author Topic: Getting Started, Confusion, Disappointment and Dismay (Read 4618 times)

flixelpix · « **on:** January 29, 2011, 09:03 »

I have managed to get myself approved at istockphoto, I submitted my best images and was approved. I then added these images to be approved in the library and they were turned down. In two months I have had 5 photos approved with a range of "artifacts" and lighting issues. I am trying not to take it all personally and am striving to improve but it really is disheartening.

I have had a bit of success with Getty Images via flickr but I am just confused as to where I am going wrong and how I am meant to improve?

(flickr is at newbielink:http://www.flickr.com/flixel [nonactive])

David

click_click · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:02 »

I hope you're not planning on just submitting to iStock or even become exclusive at some point...?

iStock tends to be one of the pickiest agencies out there. It's quite easy to feel inferior when submitting to them (up to the point when you understand what they are looking for...).

The images you applied with may not even be approved afterwards, due to technical issues that were not apparent in the smaller file size versions. So that's no surprise. Happened to many of us.

You have to get comfortable with the iStock standards in terms of technical quality and concept. Then it will be better.

Like I said, sign up with other agencies as well like SS, FT, DT etc. (you see them on the right here -> )and upload all your stuff there as well.
Not only will it give you more self confidence but also a few more bucks in your wallet

Good luck!

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:10 »

Sorry but it is simply very, very tough to get started in microstock nowadays. A newbie's images have to be of a similar technical standard to those who have been submitting for years, and that's just to get the images accepted. Getting significant sales against all the competition is another step beyond.

Your images do look very 'over-filtered' to me. That basically means you have done way too much post-processing and it is obvious. That will make them likely to be rejected and reduce their saleability otherwise. It might help if you chose a niche subject in which to specialise and gain expertise. If you want to be successful then you will need to become one of the very best photographers in your chosen subject.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:27 »

I would not take Flickr comments as any sort of useful critique. For example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flixel/5387686007/#
"Such a beautiful picture! Fantastic!"
In the context of micro, it is over filtered, the white balance is off, you have blown highlights, and you've clipped the corner and shadow.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/flixel/5390677717/#
"clear, simple and beautiful

"
For micro, it is an underexposed, oversaturated subject with far too much white space.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/flixel/5325141448/#in/set-72157625569214195/
"Looks good enough to eat..great image."
Multiple lighting sources, poor white balance, over sharpened, over saturated subject.

These are all simple subjects, and as gostwyck said, you should be able to nail them, because the 500,000 contributors (or at least some subset) before you can nail them, technically and artistically.

flixelpix · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2011, 10:52 »

Thanks

The ones I am posting to iStock I have learned that they almost have to be straight from the camera?

David

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2011, 12:45 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 29, 2011, 10:27

I would not take Flickr comments as any sort of useful critique.

So true, Flickr is an oversized photo club where people judge the "beauty" of images, which has little to do with the salability of images for stock. Not that you can't have a beautiful stock image, on the contrary, it's just not the only criterium.

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2011, 14:22 »

I think you've summed it all up quite well - the stages a photographer goes through in his relationship with IStock are:

1. Getting Started
2. Confusion
3. Disappointment
4. Dismay

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2011, 14:27 »

Quote from: flixelpix on January 29, 2011, 10:52

Thanks

The ones I am posting to iStock I have learned that they almost have to be straight from the camera?

To a point. The things you want to do to them is get the levels right so they appear properly exposed.

Also, if you are going to submit anything "over white", it had better actually be white. The dull gray is unlikely to be accepted and even less likely to sell. Try exposing a lot more to the right when you shoot something isolated, and use the dodge tool to get rid of any stray gray areas.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2011, 03:29 »

Quote from: flixelpix on January 29, 2011, 10:52

The ones I am posting to iStock I have learned that they almost have to be straight from the camera?

Absolutely not.

I have over 2,000 images in my portfolio and not one of them is even close to "straight from the camera". It's a very common reaction when a new-ish contributor gets a lot of rejections, but it's the wrong lesson to take away. You have to get better at post processing if you're going to do it. In the interim, less is probably a good idea, but in the long run the competition is going to be hard to beat with "straight from the camera",

sharpshot · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2011, 04:07 »

I wouldn't of started with istock for 15% commission, when they don't sell new images well and they have so many premium collections that they are trying to push. They can also cut commissions again, I just don't see an incentive to build a portfolio from scratch any more. Shutterstock is much better but they're hard to get in to now.