MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Help with initial portfolio submission (SS & others)  (Read 4092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 11, 2011, 11:24 »
Hey gang, I've put together some images that I am considering sending to ShutterStock as my initial images for approval into their program. I would love some feedback on a few things..

1 - Any images you see that might get flat out rejected (and why, if you wouldn't mind?!)
2 - Alternatively, any you see that I really should include?
3 - Are any of these going to be useful (from your experience with stock, would they have any value?)

newbielink:http://www.flickr.com/photos/tycn/sets/72157625674849331/with/5178959084/ [nonactive] (there's about 18 images right now)

I've just recently started moving from a scenic / city scape emphasis in my photography to more of a product / food / studio emphasis, and I think that will ultimately be more beneficial to me from a stock perspective. Should I not even submit these, and wait until I have a portfolio to submit that's more "stock" looking, and no so much of a "candid city / snapshot" look?

Please don't hold back, I'd like to nail SS on the first try, and then use those images to send to some of the others, like iStock.. (you CAN do that right? same image, multple sites?)


« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 11:30 by namebrandon »


  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2011, 11:42 »
I'm an istock exclusive, but I did apply to SS two years ago. I was accepted on my first try. I thought it would be smart to have an account there (empty of course) just as a back up should I ever consider going non-exclusive. I really like your photos. you have a street photography feel to your images. they feel very accessible. nice rich colours.

a few pointers IMO...the jars lined up, I would have cloned out the orange reflections of room lights. I find the shot looks too snapshot with those types of light reflections. do you plan on submitting some of them as editorial? because the two that contain license plates and logos obviously wouldn't be released...

speaking of which, your guy walking along the street with signs around him---very Friedlander. that one's my favourite. beautiful shots. good luck.

« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2011, 12:20 »
Thanks SNP!

I agree with you on the jars, definitely need to be straightened up. A lot of these will get more attention to detail before submission, I just wasn't even sure the concept of street-as-stock would really fly. I may just take a few, and group them with some more traditional stock-looking photos for the initial submission.

The license plated would definitely get "reflected" out, but I was confused on the logo you mentioned.. the "Duster" photo, with the logo on the side of the car?

I didn't even know there was an 'editorial' category/type, I may look into that.

The general idea behind me moving to stock photography is to get some additional cash on the side, for.. wait for it.. more photo gear. :) Have you found exclusivity to be beneficial for your bottom line? It seems many here prefer wide-reach over exclusivity.

Thanks again for your time and input, I really appreciate it!



  • Think before you speak
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2011, 14:47 »
Brandon....you have some nice photos there but most of them contain copyrighted material that would require property releases and the people would require model releases. I personally like your pictures because that is my style of photography, but the bottom line is most of the stock agencies don't. Most of them would reject them for improper lighting and composition or "no commercial value" or "focus isn't where we feel it needs to be". None of the ones with the cars or trains and boats would not make it because you wouldn't be able to get property releases for them. Any of the street shots wouldn't make it for lighting and composition reasons. The flowers vases hanging down probably wouldn't make it because of the designs on the vases would be considered copyrighted. The shot with the five people in front of the balloons would require model releases even though their faces are not visible. It sad that these agencies are getting a bit ridicules about their rules and regulations, but that is the way it is. Don't give up....shoot generic and think stock...who and what would that picture be used for?

« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2011, 14:52 »
Thanks donding! That's very useful.. I know most of my usual photography won't find much use in stock, so that's why I ask. I'm slowly moving to more stock-oriented shots so that should help. You're right, it does seem a little ridiculous to need model releases of people out in public or at a public event, but I expected ridiculous going in.. :)


« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2011, 03:56 »
You're right, it does seem a little ridiculous to need model releases of people out in public or at a public event, but I expected ridiculous going in.. :)


Why is that ridiculous ? Would you like to be photographed and published always you are out of home ? Doubt so


« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2011, 04:45 »
Only about half of the set would be possible to sell as stock at ms-sites. I hope you don't have too high expectations probably none of them would be a good seller on ms-sites, my personal guess would be three dollars for the set in the first two years after that probably nada. But of course you can proof me wrong.

« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2011, 14:22 »
old thread deleted
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 14:24 by sponner »


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
Last post January 17, 2007, 10:40
by leaf
13 Replies
Last post March 01, 2009, 01:15
by yecatsdoherty
2 Replies
Last post January 30, 2011, 00:52
by visceralimage
14 Replies
Last post December 22, 2011, 04:24
by Dantheman
6 Replies
Last post June 14, 2016, 11:32
by Shelma1


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle