MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Critique request for 3 photos rejected as IStock application.  (Read 18192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 22, 2010, 16:40 »
0
Hi, my wife and I are nature photographers and we'd like to get into IStock. We submitted three of our favs and got rejected. Reason given: "...we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto."  We'd appreciate any opinions you have on why they didn't accept them. Thanks!

newbielink:http://a5.vox.com/6a0123dddc8e56860b0123f19b45bd860f-pi [nonactive]

newbielink:http://a6.vox.com/6a0123dddc8e56860b0123de052f46860d-pi [nonactive]

newbielink:http://a4.vox.com/6a0123dddc8e56860b0123dddc901c860b-pi [nonactive]

If you want to help further, you can look at our website at newbielink:http://www.door-county-photography.com/ [nonactive] and see if there are any pictures there that you think would work as microstock.


« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2010, 17:04 »
0
I won't bother you with the specifics, but more so in the subject matter part of the rejection reason.

Nature photographers , as they say , are  a dime a dozen.
Even if you succeeded on technicalities and composition, you have to have something outstanding that brings you away from the horde of nature shots.
Perharps if you had something or in some location that is not so available,
or something that is difficult to capture.

To cut things short, I would say, peruse IS and see how many "nature" images they already have. It's easy to shoot nature images of just about anything that green.
But as one nature photographer I know, and yes, he sells loads of stock images,
told me, "it's not that nature photos are crap. it's that they are so many. so if you want to sell , make sure it's something incredible".

or else, try branching out and shoot other categories that are available in your location, but are not so common. I am sure there are lots of things you can find, that others don't have the access to photographing them.

Go beyond your comfort zone, because this comfort zone you are in, is like full of others doing the same thing.
Hope this helps.  Above all, spend more time at IS to get a complete grasp of what you can branch off into, or look at the successful nature photographers and see why they are successful.

Lastly, don't let ego come into play. Leave them at your door,  even your subjectivity. many times, my favourites are the last thing that anyone will buy.
I don't submit them, if ever.

As one of our auspicious best sellers here pointed out in one of the thread,
"stock photography is not about  xxx....  it's a business".

and good luck.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 17:14 by PERSEUS »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2010, 17:15 »
0
Istock must be tightening up standards a bit. Did they suggest you try again or they just said no thanks?

I think all three are pretty nice. Like artwork.

But I don't think nature sells in high volume on Istock so given that's your specialty it looks like they're cutting back in this area. I looked up "treelined road" and there are a few hundred images but there doesn't seem to be huge buyer demand.

They're probably looking for more variety of subjects. Like a convertible driving down the road.

Also, looking at the technical quality the images seem to be lacking detail. Like they're heavily processed and have a smudgy appearance. I think you might have a hard time getting these accepted on any higher volume selling micro even if they're pretty.

Hope this helps

« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2010, 17:27 »
0
I just looked at one, and could not fault it. I'd say the noise reduction is high - giving it a bit of a painterly appearance - which many people will like.

This image has a subtle sort of appeal and I would say that microtocks aren't into subtlety.

« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2010, 17:40 »
0
I see pixel distortion all over, especially in the grass at the bottom. Your skies are blown out to white. The last shot with the sea has a huge purple fringe edge on the horizon and the sea is blown out too. That's what I bet they said (or will say). You can recover those blown outs probably by proper lighting and in the RAW. What camera do you use?

The shots are nice though.

« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2010, 17:41 »
0
What dp you mean by "pixel distortion" in this case?  

I take issue with the "blown out" critique.  The sun is starting to come through the clouds and hit the water in the background, it would appear "blown out" to your eyes as well as to the camera, but to me that's a part of the photo.

I do see the slight purple fringe.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 17:48 by stockastic »

« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2010, 18:17 »
0
I like the composition of the first two, but the technical problems are very pronounced in all three. Artifacts, digital noise, lack of sharpness, etc. These issues may not be problems if you make prints. But Istock is very particular about them.

« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2010, 18:30 »
0
Thanks for the input, everyone, and keep it coming! I'd like to address some of the comments and questions so far.

"Did they suggest you try again or they just said no thanks?"  They did say to wait 3 days and try again. We might do that.

"I'd say the noise reduction is high...", "they're heavily processed..." There is very little NR or processing on the first two (the birches in fog and the winding road), the dock picture is HDR, otherwise it would be completely blown highlights and black silhouettes. We used just enough processing to make them pop and not look like dull RAW captures.

The cameras used were Canon DSLRs. Rebel on the windy road, 20d on the others. "L" lenses were used for all of them.

I'll take into account the technical issues brought up, but keep in mind IS referenced "composition of your photography or subject matter", not tech issues.
Keep the critiques coming, we really appreciate the time you are putting into it.

« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2010, 18:38 »
0
I would have also cloned out the power lines crossing the road.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2010, 18:43 »
0
Thanks for the input, everyone, and keep it coming! I'd like to address some of the comments and questions so far.

"Did they suggest you try again or they just said no thanks?"  They did say to wait 3 days and try again. We might do that.

"I'd say the noise reduction is high...", "they're heavily processed..." There is very little NR or processing on the first two (the birches in fog and the winding road), the dock picture is HDR, otherwise it would be completely blown highlights and black silhouettes. We used just enough processing to make them pop and not look like dull RAW captures.

The cameras used were Canon DSLRs. Rebel on the windy road, 20d on the others. "L" lenses were used for all of them.

I'll take into account the technical issues brought up, but keep in mind IS referenced "composition of your photography or subject matter", not tech issues.
Keep the critiques coming, we really appreciate the time you are putting into it.


A 20D with L glass shouldn't be producing those results. Somthing in your workflow is pulling the detail out.

Regarding thier rejection for subject matter they are known for giving one reason at a time. So it's highly likely that if you find three acceptable subjects you'll get rejected the next time for technical issues like "overfiltered" and "lighting".

Keep in mind nature is a pretty well covered category so even if you do get some stuff accepted chances are good they'll be buried and sales may be slim. But you never know.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 18:44 by PaulieWalnuts »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2010, 18:54 »
0
iStock is real good at giving you a rejection reason which would be the first thing they see. You might fix the problem and then the rejection for the next thing they see. In other words....rather than telling you all the reasons they go one by one...and I do think there is alot of noise and they do look over processed

« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2010, 19:18 »
0
I do see the slight purple fringe.

Yap, and it's easy to solve. (sample at 200%).


The blowout is easy to cure too, even from JPG if necessary (top is my quickedit):

« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2010, 20:02 »
0
"I'd say the noise reduction is high...", "they're heavily processed..." There is very little NR or processing on the first two (the birches in fog and the winding road), the dock picture is HDR, otherwise it would be completely blown highlights and black silhouettes. We used just enough processing to make them pop and not look like dull RAW captures.

Considering the cam you are using, and considering you are telling the dock pic is HDR me thinks there is something very wrong with your workflow.

Here is an example of a landscape photo that was accepted on IS, and that by the way sold last week for 12$. On top the original with blown out sky part, in the middle the shot as on IS with filled up white sky, and at the bottom (200%) an eccentric blow up (200%) of a part that should have purple fringe and noise, certainly with a mediocre Sigma lens. Know your tools! Istock only wants the top. So be amongst the top.  ;) Perhaps you'll need to study the tools of your trade first. May the holy Net help you in this.

(PS: I didn't use HDR - the shot is taken from my motorbike - I went to shoot a waterfall and when there I discovered the right light wasn't around, it was secluded by rainforest, and all the time fat women without MRF were bathing in it - Gostwyck was right: 200 clicks for nothing except this)




« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 20:12 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2010, 20:33 »
0
I think your problem is that you supplied three landscape shots.

The purpose of the iStock application is to prove you have the ability to make commercially viable imagery. Are your images good enough to be accepted once you've been approved at iStock? Yes, they probably are. But as a group they clearly aren't good enough to prove you've got the muster to be a commercial photographer. And that's what this industry is all about: making commercial imagery. That you can make pretty pictures like the ones you provided is just a bonus.

Here's what I'd do:
I like the winding road shot - it's got a lot going for it, but you might want to clean it up a little (overhead wire, truck in the background, missing white line, stray leaves, ...) and punch up the fall colour a bit. Ditch the other two shots in favour of something completely different - something that isn't nature-related at all. Your 'potter's afternoon', 'sailboat', 'The Iverson House' might be good candidates.

The technical comments listed earlier are, in my opinion, not entirely valid for the iStock application process. The application process is completely separate from the image submission process, and if the application inspectors found technical problems with your images they would have likely informed you. Or maybe they didn't get to looking that closely - who's to say.


Make your next application wisely, and good luck!

« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2010, 20:40 »
0
The technical comments listed earlier are, in my opinion, not entirely valid for the iStock application process.
No but the challenge is not to be accepted, but to get approved in day to day uploads. A creative photographer that doesn't know the tools of his trade can become a Flickr star at 600px. For IS, you need to take the technical hurdles first. An image not approved will never sell.

« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2010, 20:46 »
0
The technical comments listed earlier are, in my opinion, not entirely valid for the iStock application process.
No but the challenge is not to be accepted, but to get approved in day to day uploads. A creative photographer that doesn't know the tools of his trade can become a Flickr star at 600px. For IS, you need to take the technical hurdles first. An image not approved will never sell.

Yes, I agree, but right now his challenge is in fact getting accepted.

The points you and others brought up may very well be valid, but they're not the thing that's currently holding him back. Just take a second to read why iStock rejected his application: "...we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto." Nothing at all was said about technical flaws, which is why I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2010, 20:46 »
0
Ignore all comments...
Have a look at your images at 100 % magnification...

First one : noise, especially visible in raod... despite using/shooting at iso 100.. must be post processing.. trying to saturate colors more... no can do....
Second one : The trees... iso 400.. noisy... and over exposed...
Third one : iso 400 .. clear noise visible over horizon....

My tip.. use a tripod and never go higher than camera native iso... euhm.. the lowest.
Every site that is presented with these images.. most probably having enough of them... will most surely find a reason to reject them... whatever reason they give.....  ???

In other words... start shooting more interesting in demand subjects.

Patrick H.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 20:49 by patrick1958 »

« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2010, 20:53 »
0
Ignore all comments...
Err, my remarks were exactly the same as yours ;-)
His shots are noisy (the road), blown out (sky, sea, above trees), fringed (the sea). Sometimes you have to be nice. The times of landscapes are over. What the world needs now is more girls with headsets. ;-)

« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2010, 21:04 »
0
Just take a second to read why iStock rejected his application: "...we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto." Nothing at all was said about technical flaws, which is why I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
It's the only tree he gave us to bark up. We do the guy a favor actually. If you don't even know the tools of your trade, don't try to deliver masterpieces. The times of landscapes are over, unless stunning and landmarks. What now? The only way to expand in stock is by people and product shots.

« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2010, 21:20 »
0
I could be wrong, but I believe the Istock language of "overall composition of your photography" includes the lighting composition.

The technical comments listed earlier are, in my opinion, not entirely valid for the iStock application process.
No but the challenge is not to be accepted, but to get approved in day to day uploads. A creative photographer that doesn't know the tools of his trade can become a Flickr star at 600px. For IS, you need to take the technical hurdles first. An image not approved will never sell.

Yes, I agree, but right now his challenge is in fact getting accepted.

The points you and others brought up may very well be valid, but they're not the thing that's currently holding him back. Just take a second to read why iStock rejected his application: "...we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto." Nothing at all was said about technical flaws, which is why I think you're barking up the wrong tree.


« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2010, 21:34 »
0
I'd agree with everything Sharply said.

Image 1 has stock potential but the other two forget it. Your 'Squirrel in Snow' or 'Bald Eagle' headshot, if they are technically good enough, are worth consideration too. You must look at every part of every image at 100% to check for flaws.

The 'light filtering through trees' type of stuff always works well for prints and for submitting to the camera club competitions but they are actually very challenging to get good enough technically for an Istock initial submission (and rarely sell well even if you can get them accepted). All that contrast and relatively low light usually means technical issues. Personally I'd want to be taking that shot with a 20MP+ camera and then have the option of shrinking it down to 5MP to make any issues magically disappear. A 20D or Rebel doesn't leave you much room for manoeuvre.

I suspect this may be harder work for relatively little reward than you anticipate. When you shoot for stock you either have to have the end-use in mind at the time or be very lucky. As I've said many times the hard bit is simply understanding 'stock' __ once you do then the photography is relatively easy (mainly because you only bother to shoot when conditions are virtually perfect).

nruboc

« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2010, 00:56 »
0
I love the first one...lol.. why . couldn't they have made that road straight. This = a great concept

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2010, 14:00 »
0
I agree that the issue probably is that you sent three 'landscapes', I'm surprised they didn't accept at least the first one and ask you to submit two 'different subjects'. When I applied, I submitted three wildlife photos and was asked to submit something else. I submitted a shot taken in Venice and was accepted, but that image was rejected for the collection for my usual - 'flat light'.
I disagree with Perseus' advice for getting unusual subjects or behaviour for iStock in particular - I can't speak for the other micros. Firstly, iStock's buyers seem mostly to be interested in the well-known species shot in 'coffee-table book' style, not in the more typically 'natural history' photos.
Second, the reason many species are 'under-represented' is that they are 'shade-loving' species, whether plants or animals - automatic 'flat light' rejection. I've seen advice in the critique forum on iStock which went totally against the Nature Photographer's Code of Conduct, rule 1: the welfare of the animal comes first.
Third, from personal experience, if a species is unusual, it doesn't even matter if you're the only person with that species on iStock, you'll be lucky if you get a sale. I've seen some species with maybe twenty photos from various photogs, with 1-3 sales between them after 2-3 years. At first I had no alternative, but now that I have a 'pro' spec camera, these pics are now going RM - then if I only get one sale in five years, at least it might be 'worth it'. (Much as I hate to say that with my other hat of non-profit newsletter for a local natural history club on.)
'General' landscapes seldom sell well; well known locations sometimes do. But just recently, I've noticed some really super photos of Niagara Falls totally frozen, with few or even no sales after a year or two - that shocked and surprised me.

« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2010, 15:01 »
0
I disagree with Perseus' advice for getting unusual subjects or behaviour for iStock in particular - I can't speak for the other micros. Firstly, iStock's buyers seem mostly to be interested in the well-known species shot in 'coffee-table book' style, not in the more typically 'natural history' photos.

good points too, ShadySue. but I need to explain my "unusual". I don't mean strange or odd subject.
by that I mean, many nature photographers seem to take the generic images which as Paulie and everyone else from IS have mentioned 1) there's too many already (2) they don't sell even if you're approved.

nature is not simply taking what is there in front of you.
there are lots of excellent nature shots, but we need to make them more generic, other than just a nice nature shot.
i think many times ppl like paulie , sharply_done, etc.. have suggested including other inanimate  point of interest , .. i recall something s_d said a long time ago...
this is nice, but if you had maybe a man in an overcoat with an umbrella,
an oldsmobile, etc..

that's what i mean but "unusual". it brings your "ah, not another nature shot" to something conceptual.
this also increases the possibility of selling that "nature" shot.

that's what i mean by "unusual".  it's not impossible to creative conceptual shots from "found" nature
shots. you just need to bring in something or shoot it from a different perspective.

and once again, it isn't the technicality at this stage. it's to find out if you can indeed produce sellable images. thus, again as already pointed out , IS wants to see that variety, not just 3 of your favourite shots... but 3 of what you can do other than just a nice shot.

after you passed that stage, then you can bring in all those same old same old.
however, that still doesn't guarantee you that IS will approve them.

many times, others have had their initial entries accepted to be contributors,
but the same shots were then rejected on the other criteria .
which is why you have to give them 3 different genres and 3 of the very best.
it's only 3, not 10.

that being said, I feel it's no longer enough to just submit work to get approved.
It has to be something more ambitious. You're not just going to be shooting the same old same old, and expect to get to Vetta.
Look at Vetta, it's no just the same old same old.
I think any newbie, or even the old and experienced has to see the long view
instead of just making that blase "generic" micro stock photo.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 15:11 by PERSEUS »

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2010, 15:30 »
0
Repeat
Sorry, don't know how that happened (repeated earlier post)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 20:14 by ShadySue »

vonkara

« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2010, 15:32 »
0
Too much noise already in the first one. Very nice composition though

« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2010, 19:21 »
0
Hey everybody, thanks so much for the critiques. We understand much better now why the photos were rejected and now we don't feel bad about it at all. (We were, naturally, a little stung, initially.) My wife and I, as I said, are nature photographers. Fine art is what we strive for and it actually does quite well in our gallery in the little tourist/artist community of Door County, Wisconsin. We're clearly not technicians or experts with the cameras or the editing software. We'd love to get better (and you all have helped us a great deal by pointing out what we need to improve as far as technicality) and we're going to work at it. But things like a bit of noise just don't concern us, though we understand why they concern you. We've never lost a sale because of noise. Our photography is just artistic expression; just trying to make something pretty that people will want to hang on their wall or send as a greeting to a friend. Sometimes we force our eyes to blur or look at tiny thumbs to evaluate composition! Details are important too, but more for us than for our customers. One of our best selling images was shot with a rebel with a kit lens when we were just starting out and even I can see that it is technically a disaster. Doesn't matter, it just keeps selling.

We are concerned about the detail we're apparently losing in our Lightroom workflow. If any of you have any suggestions on where we could learn more about this that would be great. I've read and watched every tutorial I can find but I found nothing on this issue.

We've decided not to pursue stock photography right now, and we're fine with that. We never wanted to change our style or choice of subject for this. We just (naively) thought we could put some of the thousands of images we have to use, and make a bit of extra money. We're doing what we love and couldn't be happier. Thanks to all of you for the time you put into helping us. We know you didn't have to. You just helped out a random stranger because he asked for it.

BTW, that road is locally famous and often photographed. The story goes that it started out as a trail that wound around the telegraph poles going up to the tip of our peninsula. When they paved it, they kept the curves and the road wound around the electric poles until the late '80s when they removed them, probably for safety. That shot has been by far our best selling, outselling the rest of the photography combined the first year we showed it!

« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2010, 19:34 »
0
First and foremost, you chose IS which is the premier (NUMERO UNO)
and the most difficult site to start your micro stock career.
Much like an IT graduate going straight to Microsoft for a job.
You could have tried the other sites which are not as stringent . ie. IS and FT last of all. Although I would never submit nature shots to FT ( unless you have something incredibly rare like Arctic or Grand Canyon, Whales , or Icebergs from the Maritimes,etc.)

Do not be so quick to give up on your intention to be a stock contributor. Many of us are also gallery and creative photographers who started without a clue about digital photography, post processing, etc.
But with time, all these mysteries became 2nd nature . My colleagues and I all started the same way. Noise? What? we only knew about grains, not noise, not banding, photo shop,etc.
But today, we could work on our images without even thinking about it. Chatting and half watching our favourite video,etc..

The gallery prints is very different . I agree. I belong to a co-op of exhibition photographers and yes, I see prints that sold for 500 dollars bearing all these "artifacts" and what not.   The buyers are quite oblivious to those things. Even when I pointed out those things, they at times look at me blankly and say, "oh !! .. this is going on the mantelpiece of our fireplace.  It matches the wall of our living room in our cottage"... or " I was one of the builders of that building".

Micro stock or any stock work is different. It's being used for publications,etc where the quality is vital.   How microstock photography has risen way past that level, as many have pointed out, "the bar has been raised so high, but the cash and commission has come down to almost kissing the dirt on the floor".
 There is no logic to that. But fortunately  some sites are slowly raising the commission to those who can produce the goods and quite happily so.

But these new techniques in post processing and control with your DSLR come in handy too in your work. At least me and my affliates know they do.
e.g. We don't always need to be retouching negatives and film media , now that we have also gained knowledge of the digital media.

I wouldn't suggest you quit and just give up. I'd say why not start as a "weekend" contributor. Most of us started that way too. In fact, 5 of my affliates and myself included, are still in that category ,as we don't have much time outside of our regular photography livelihood. But we are very close to retirement, and we like the idea of one day being able to just work at stock in our own time , as many successful stock photographers have. This takes time to build.

I cannot tell you how much we all have learned from being told about the problems that plague digital photography. There are simpler ways to avoid that.
As a photographer, you should be able to surpass those problems such as noise,
artifacts,etc.. with proper exposure and lighting.

It really isn't a mystery. If you shot in digital and have your exposure and lighting spot on, you have really very little post processing to do, other than the simple spotting or colour correction.
That will ensure your consistent approval at IStock.

P.S.
Invest in the best glass you can find. It's not expensive to buy  prime lenses that will do the job better than the more flamboyant and expensive zoom lenses.
If you prefer zoom lenses which I deplore, then make test to find the sweet spot
and stay with that. You really don't need every mm of a zoom lense to make sellable stock photographs. I use only 2 prime lenses to do the job, and you can get a far superior prime lense with the money you spend on any one of those fancy doodie mother of a zoom lenses. You don't really need those ;
not unless you want to be the dude with the biggest bazooka in the business  :D
Exceptions of course, if you're intending to specialize in sports . But you still need to know how to get the best from your equipment.  That being said, you already far ahead of say, someone else  who haven't a clue about photography .  So, really, it's a bit too soon to quit.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 20:31 by PERSEUS »

« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2010, 06:08 »
0
We've decided not to pursue stock photography right now, and we're fine with that. We never wanted to change our style or choice of subject for this.

I can fully understand that - and I'd say, microstock will require more than a minor change of thought. I think all those images are great and I'd love to hang them on my wall.

But for microstock you will need your images to be more in a "raw" stadium, so different customers have lots of options to change the image to their personal needs. And most of them won't end up on a wall in a living room but on marketing material or illustrating articles.

Still, those images are nice and could certainly make some good money on stock as well. But you'd have to separate your workflows for your art/print business and the microstock business if you want to succeed. Maybe you should consider going a bit up, more like an RM agency with an artsy approach.

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2010, 07:06 »
0
Sorry, I think I'm hitting quote instead of 'modify'.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 11:49 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2010, 10:18 »
0
We've decided not to pursue stock photography right now, and we're fine with that. We never wanted to change our style or choice of subject for this.

I can fully understand that - and I'd say, microstock will require more than a minor change of thought. I think all those images are great and I'd love to hang them on my wall.

But for microstock you will need your images to be more in a "raw" stadium, so different customers have lots of options to change the image to their personal needs. And most of them won't end up on a wall in a living room but on marketing material or illustrating articles.

Still, those images are nice and could certainly make some good money on stock as well. But you'd have to separate your workflows for your art/print business and the microstock business if you want to succeed. Maybe you should consider going a bit up, more like an RM agency with an artsy approach.
Agree totally with what Michael says. My iStock acceptance rate shot up after I realised that I should submit them WITHOUT sharpening for printing - the buyer might want to do a lot with the image before they're ready to print.
That said, if you are selling well where you live, it may not be worth pursuing stock. Round about here, photography can't sell. For example, we've got a nice gift shop in this (small) town where they tried out some nice framed pictorial images, by heavily promoting them in their windows. I was impressed with their quality and astonished that they could sell so cheaply (I wouldn't even know where to buy the frames that cheaply) but none of them sold. Same in the nearby "Craft Village" - even a big name's stunning photos of local scenes, at a price it seems most Americans here or on iStock wouldn't get out of bed for, sold only three in over a year.
So while not discouraging you from stock, if you're not happy about changing your philosophy or workflow, good luck with the direct sales. Also agree with Michael, that if you want to make the effort to improve your technical issues, you might do better on one of the macros for this sort of image - though you'll see that they generally have many already.

« Reply #31 on: January 24, 2010, 11:07 »
0
Hey everybody, thanks so much for the critiques. We understand much better now why the photos were rejected and now we don't feel bad about it at all. (We were, naturally, a little stung, initially.) My wife and I, as I said, are nature photographers. Fine art is what we strive for and it actually does quite well in our gallery in the little tourist/artist community of Door County, Wisconsin. We're clearly not technicians or experts with the cameras or the editing software. We'd love to get better (and you all have helped us a great deal by pointing out what we need to improve as far as technicality) and we're going to work at it. But things like a bit of noise just don't concern us, though we understand why they concern you. We've never lost a sale because of noise. Our photography is just artistic expression; just trying to make something pretty that people will want to hang on their wall or send as a greeting to a friend.

Sounds like you've made the correct decision.

« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2010, 09:47 »
0
I love the first one...lol.. why . couldn't they have made that road straight. This = a great concept

I agree :)

I just got accepted (as in, nothing shows up yet in my on-line portfolio), and here are the pics that worked for me:


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
28 Replies
34827 Views
Last post February 04, 2010, 22:00
by Rosco0101
20 Replies
8200 Views
Last post May 17, 2010, 05:13
by pimpampoen
10 Replies
3927 Views
Last post July 21, 2011, 11:26
by wake6
25 Replies
5574 Views
Last post July 25, 2011, 04:16
by Paulo M. F. Pires
9 Replies
2736 Views
Last post January 04, 2012, 20:03
by Socas

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results