Hello!

I want to start stock photography, because I became unemployed and I need to make a living fast.

But first I need to know, if my pictures contain at least 10 that worth a try. I would like to join Shutterstock.

If you have the time, could you please mark the pictures that are good for submission, or if not, what are the errors.

Thank you very much.

P.S. Pictures are in a zip file. I wont post the pictures to shutterstock with the copyright mark.

http://www.2shared.com/file/V9E3tMaK/kldeni.html

if you need money "fast" stock photography not really where'd I'd be concentrating my effort, I'd be out trying to get another job. Even with a top level portfolio ready to upload it takes time to build sales.

i took two years to reach acceptable and reasonable (far for self sustainable) incomes....for fast money i'd rather ask to mcdonalds or something like that

http://www.2shared.com/file/V9E3tMaK/kldeni.html

Watch out!
Bitdefender blocked this page
This page is blocked by Bitdefender Antimalware filter.

However free picture uploading sites all say that they retain the copyright if I use them.

Just get a decent watermark on them and they'd be no more likely to be able to use them than any thief taking watermarked comps from the agencies. Be aware that there are sites which steal and use even watermarked agency thums or comps, e.g. this porn site: http://anglerz.com/sign-become-vip-member-with-the-art-cuisine.html and plenty more whic will steal and use images other sites have legitimately bought and used.

Put your photos online somewhere with a link to them that doesn't require opening a zip file. 

To the OP. Fair enough if you realise there is no easy money at this. Sounds as if you're determined to get out of manufacturing. I can understand that. Sounds as if you're trying to diversify as well, which is wise IMO.
Try Inkscape rather than Gimp for vectors.
Good luck.

None of them are good enough I am afraid.

You might want to start small...I mean that literally. Perhaps shoot small, simple objects at first just to get noise, lighting and composition right.

That light at the end of tunnel has got potential, dont know what it was shot with but it has issues such as light flare, not centered, noise, overexposed highlights and so on. I would not even bother with the rest, there're snapshots.
If you do want to sell your images, you have to think about what you shoot and if will sell. Nowadays you have to come up with something very unique in order to be succesful in micro due to the vast number of image libraries already online. Learn how to use photoshop/lightroom, compare your images with the best sellers and ask yourself a honest question - are my images good enought?
I did not mean to be rude, we all here had to learn the hard way in order to get better.

That looks like a consumer-grade auto-everything camera, around $250.  You're going to have to figure out what you can do with it within those limitations.

$1 per day is not a fortune in Hungary

My 100% honest truth critique, no bull. 

You have some nice shots you might share on instagram or facebook here, but the majority of what I'm seeing isn't stock.  The quality is sub-par, and you will need to work on these images a ton in post processing to pass inspection just on a technical standpoint.  Churches, insects, sunsets... all a photo reviewer's worst nightmare.   Even if it gets through, it's not going to make you "fast money".  Work on better subject matter, and push the limits of your equipment so you can make a few dollars before investing more into better quality glass/camera body.

I commend you on your endeavors, but stock isn't as easy to make a living at, as it seems.  Even if you're an advanced amateur, or professional right out of the gate.  I recently referred my friend's wife as a shutterstock contributor (I sold my old DSLR camera body to her, and gave her some instruction) and she is shooting amazing food images.  She earns 5-10 subscription downloads per day, on a good day.   What is that, about $25-30 per month (before taxes)   This isn't "fast money".  She has about 300 images approved already, in the past 3 months.  And I have to say, her food images are outstanding, for a noob.  Borderline cooking-magazine-worthy.  Stock imagery is much more competitive today.  Now, monthly earnings per image is 1/4th to 1/5th of what it used to be.  It is a struggle, and if you live week-to-week with your finances, you will fail miserably in this business even before you've started. 

Keep shooting, and best wishes.  Practice makes perfect.  You won't learn what really sells and what will get approved, until you start uploading.  Work on recognizing commercial value, even before you put the camera to your face.

Which is almost exactly the same as my opinion.
With the greatest respect, you are not at present "a photographer". 
You are technically way off. You need to study lighting, and/or use of natural light, understand aperture and depth of field. Composition. Post processing. The list is endless. Then you start on stock. What might sell (there is no definite there) seeing trends, finding niche subjects.
And shoot, shoot, shoot. . .
You are very quickly going to find the limitations of your equipment. The shots you have put up here are full of noise, purple fringing and Chromatic aberration.
Again, good luck with this. I honestly think that you need to go away and learn about the basics of good photography before joining the race that this business is. Plenty of books and online tutorials are available. 
 

.

No troll here, if you don't value the small you don't deserve the big.

It seems I have a larger task before me than I have anticipated at first, but I will try.

Do you think making 3D models or icons for shutterstock would sell for me better?

Maybe I post some of my work tomorrow.

Do you have any graphic design experience?  Experience with Photoshop / Illustrator / or 3D software?  If you don't, you will have a long journey ahead going the "digital illustration for stock" route as well.  Do what you love, get even better at it, and you'll love what you do.  At the end of the day, everything is hard work, hunger, persistence, and quality execution.  There are no shortcuts.  Even if you follow all of the tutorials that you can find online about "how to make a glossy icon" or "vector background tutorial" you will still be competing with the masses, who have already done the same things.  Work smarter, not harder.  Some things are just not worth the time or efforts put forth.  Pissing in the wind is only enjoyable if you just got stuck on the leg by a jellyfish. 

Personally, if I had to talk to myself... and I were in a new position to go full time with microstock, RIGHT now.... today... I would say, dude - honestly?  Don't waste your time.  This business is nowhere nearly as lucrative as it was 10 years ago.  If all I wanted to do was pull in some side money for a rainy day, then that would be a different story.

I agree...it's totally doable to work up to $400/month even now. Just takes time, talent, strategy and perseverance.

I agree...it's totally doable to work up to $400/month even now. Just takes time, talent, strategy and perseverance.

I agree, but a wise strategy IMO would be to diversify with something else out of stock entirely. Too volatile to be relied on alone. The OP seems ready to learn, and that may give him some income out of this in the longer term, but if I were him I'd want another income stream as well. He mentions woodwork for instance.   

This is waaay below any standard you need for stock. Actually these would hardly qualify even for tourist snap shots.

also I don't really understand why ppl come to any forum asking what you need for stock photography. Go to shutterstock.com, type a few basic keywords / combinations, like "beautiful woman" "smiling woman" "beautiful brunette" "food" "fitness" "relaxed female" "female thinking" and see what comes in the first few rows - that's what you need to do, and large amounts of it... by the hundreds at least, but more like by the thousands.

If you can do it, go ahead. If not, don't bother.

I did actually say that would be the advice I'd give MYSELF.  I did offer an example of what a portfolio of 300 newly uploaded food images was returning, for my friend.  I can't personally live on $400/month; but that might pay for my groceries, my prepaid cell phone, and a tank of gas.  I wish I lived in a country where money went further.  If I weren't tied down, and wanted to live a little bit more adventurously, I'd do so. 

There is no such thing as a standard R.P.I. Semmick.  If it were that easy, everyone would be doing it.  You can't assume that Hermitlog is already at the same skill level you are; or that he will be able to hit the right subjects that you hit, when you submitted your first 1200 images.  Artist A can submit 100 images and earn $50/month from them, while Artist B uploads 100 and only earns just $5/month.   

... I made $400 with 1200 images back in 2013, 18 months after I started from being a complete amateur without a clue. It wont suffice to support me, but it does him...

It will support him if he can reach the same sort of level you did in 18 months. Can he do it faster? Who knows, but from what he's showing, he's got a long way to go.

The point being, he lost his job and needs to make money soon. I don't get the feeling he has the luxury of a year or more to wait to ramp up to $300-400 per month. So the answers he's getting about not wasting his time, well, I think they're fair answers. Unless he's got enough money socked away somewhere to wait over a year to build up a microstock portfolio that can earn a few hundred per month, he would indeed be wasting his time, especially in the short-term when he really needs to be doing something that has more immediate returns.

I think that a bigger problem than your lack of technical skill (which definitely is a problem) is that you appear not to know that what you're looking at is not good - not good composition or lighting and generally without any clear subject. Without that basic eye for design and story telling you will have a hard time with illustration, 3D modeling, photography or anything visual.

You certainly have some determination to your credit. Sometimes people know their images aren't any good - not even nice snapshots - but they don't know how to make them better. That can be fixed by learning technical skills.

If you honestly thought these were pleasing images (forget even being good stock) then you need to wait to learn techniques until you have some notion of light, shadow, composition and telling a story visually.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think it helps to sugar coat things.

And if you knew these images were awful, what made you think they might work as stock? Do some searches on Shutterstock or Stocksy and look at the images there. That's your competition.

Good luck

I think you should try a reshoot. You live in a place that most of us seem to have no experience with. So capture things like local festivals (or objects related to them), local people doing everyday things (get friends and family to pose for you and get a model release), local landmarks etc.

Photos that sell are photos that others can use, perhaps a site outlining a trip to your city, maybe a blog covering great places to visit, maybe just an ad agency wanting to build a local advertising campaign. Think what they would want, how they can use the image you are making.

Go to SS, iS and all the rest, search about your county and what people have already put up. Learn from that and fill in the gaps. Head to the most popular sections, see if you can build something there. Read read read about stock, about cameras, about the market, about photography etc

I think that a bigger problem than your lack of technical skill (which definitely is a problem) is that you appear not to know that what you're looking at is not good - not good composition or lighting and generally without any clear subject. Without that basic eye for design and story telling you will have a hard time with illustration, 3D modeling, photography or anything visual.

You certainly have some determination to your credit. Sometimes people know their images aren't any good - not even nice snapshots - but they don't know how to make them better. That can be fixed by learning technical skills.

If you honestly thought these were pleasing images (forget even being good stock) then you need to wait to learn techniques until you have some notion of light, shadow, composition and telling a story visually.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think it helps to sugar coat things.

And if you knew these images were awful, what made you think they might work as stock? Do some searches on Shutterstock or Stocksy and look at the images there. That's your competition.

Good luck

Perhaps we should actually start these threads by asking the OP what they think of their own work.
Possibly the hardest thing to learn is the artistic skill of how to turn what is seen with the eye into an interesting, (and hopefully "sellable as stock") photograph. To actually look at what is in the viewfinder. Technical skills are relatively easy.
Someone said here (I think) ages ago that they knew a skilled photographer who could take shots of the most mundane subjects and make money out of them.

Compositionally, I see some potential in a few, but as mentioned earlier, technically they are not good. Take, for instance, the image of the house sitting in the trees with the lake and mountains in the background. There is no detail at all in the shadows where the house is. Those trees should be green instead of almost black. And with the closeup of the spider that is yellow and black...the highlights have been blown out on a good portion of the spider. Not sure if you used a tripod, but on macro shots, you must, or you will get blur.

I notice on some them there are harsh shadows, meaning there wasn't enough light and/or your flash didn't fire. Lighting will be a big challenge.

There are articles online about people who shoot with point-and-shoot cameras such as yours, and they get beautiful, stock-worthy results. Maybe you could search for some tips on how to get more out of what you have to work with.

I really like the mood of the image of the sunset in the marshes. You got some lens flare from shooting into the sun and there are other technical issues, but if the technical issues were fixed, I can see how it might be used commercially. As well as with a few others you posted.

I would suggest doing a lot of research to learn what makes a good image, and then do a lot of shooting. We ALL started out where you did, and some of us have some beginner shots still in our portfolios, especially those of us who started 10 or more years ago in microstock.

It's amazing how much time people have to write lengthy answers to a troll. Must be making a lot of $$ and not have to get much work done.

It's amazing how much time people have to write lengthy answers to a troll. Must be making a lot of $$ and not have to get much work done.

What is it with the 'Troll' thing? A newbie comes on line and now they are all trolls? I guess I am troll also since I am not a pro like you 

Its a quick mock up but it gives you an idea of where to take it. Skies with clouds are ten times better. If you loose color because of

shooting into the sun, or on a overcast day, you can always try black and white. You can also use photoshop to create some interesting

compositions.

Thanks a lot. I thought that cutting and reversing parts of a picture, and then copying it to make a new picture is a bad editing

technique, and avoided it, because I thought that they would reject such outright. However the one you did looks better than the original

picture.

I just don't know how to retouch these kind of discontinuity lines to make them disappear, so the picture will look seamless.

Indeed for the first look the pictures are way better with clouds, but is this a legitimate tactic in the eyes of rewievers?

On the black and white town picture, did you add just clouds or edited the contrast too?

I don't really understand the editing in the first picture, is it just some cuts? I mean is it better because the subject flag is more

emphasisesd?

Quote from: ArenaCreative on April 22, 2015, 12:34

My 100% honest truth critique...

Which is almost exactly the same as my opinion.
With the greatest respect, you are not at present "a photographer". 
You are technically way off. You need to study lighting, and/or use of natural light, understand aperture and depth of field. Composition.

Post processing. The list is endless. Then you start on stock. What might sell (there is no definite there) seeing trends, finding niche

subjects.
And shoot, shoot, shoot. . .
You are very quickly going to find the limitations of your equipment. The shots you have put up here are full of noise, purple fringing

and Chromatic aberration.
Again, good luck with this. I honestly think that you need to go away and learn about the basics of good photography before joining the

race that this business is. Plenty of books and online tutorials are available. 

I looked up DoF and instantly realized that I missed critical knowledge of photography, I never thought that DoF or something that I

imagined regarding focus, since I didn't know the term, could be changed. They said the size of the DoF can be changed, and the DoF behind

and infront of the focus could be different (I still have to grasp how is this possible).

I have to find out how to change this  on my camera.

Reading about aperture, I made a personal discovery (I know this comes naturally for you, but for me it was an "Heureka moment"). So on

aperture depends if I restrict the image to collinated light only or for light from every angle. I presume that light sources (trees,

etc.) which light comes in an angle will look blurred, wheras light sources which light comes collinated will look sharp.

I don't exactly understand, but hyphotetize that with small aperture, but long exposition more parts of the picture will become sharp

(larger DoF, landscape), wheras large aperture and short exposition produces images where only some parts of the image are sharp (smaller

DoF, portraits).

I think the reason for that usage is that on a person you don't want to concentrate on unimportant details, because humans look at the

face, probably most on the eyes, but you want to see the whole landscape not just trees or statues.

Am I right?

Well I think I have to make at least tens of pictures with different settings about the same subject, that means I have to spend hours

photographing only one glass of milk, or a church, which is really slow work, sigh. I really have try hard, not to loose interest, as I

have did with many thing in the past, I have to do this.

I just read, that digital cameras are more sensitive of chromatic aberration and purple fringing (I didn't know what that was until now).

Despite interested in science it never occured to me, that since different colors have different wavelenghts, the camera will capture the

differently. I deduced that purple fringing occurs on the edges, because it is everywhere, but more visible where light differs greatly.

I have to use filters for digital cameras, but my camera don't have a socket, so bad luck.

I think that a bigger problem than your lack of technical skill (which definitely is a problem) is that you appear not to know that what

you're looking at is not good - not good composition or lighting and generally without any clear subject. Without that basic eye for

design and story telling you will have a hard time with illustration, 3D modeling, photography or anything visual.

You certainly have some determination to your credit. Sometimes people know their images aren't any good - not even nice snapshots - but

they don't know how to make them better. That can be fixed by learning technical skills.

If you honestly thought these were pleasing images (forget even being good stock) then you need to wait to learn techniques until you have

some notion of light, shadow, composition and telling a story visually.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't think it helps to sugar coat things.

And if you knew these images were awful, what made you think they might work as stock? Do some searches on Shutterstock or Stocksy and

look at the images there. That's your competition.

Good luck

I honestlythough my images are good. I thought that you only have to shoot something unusual, or something that only rarely happens and

you need the perfect time to capture it (thinking of this a passing train is not that unusual). These pictures were important for me

because I knew their story, I knew my emotions, the situation, and somehow this made me think that they were good shoots. While others

only see the product, basically I am biased towards my work, I have to be more objective.

I am thinking about nieches and themes for me, because I realized now that landscape, buildings or insects are too broad themes. It's hard

to narrow it down that much, in the past I thought that only produces boring images (the same theme all the time).

Dunno, probably sewers? Or flames? Someone suggested local monuments, I have check it out if shutterstock has pictures what were made

here.

Yep it does. But only 350, filled with monuments, sport events and festivals, and a few nature photos, but I can see the gaps there.

Compositionally, I see some potential in a few, but as mentioned earlier, technically they are not good. Take, for instance, the image of

the house sitting in the trees with the lake and mountains in the background. There is no detail at all in the shadows where the house is.

Those trees should be green instead of almost black. And with the closeup of the spider that is yellow and black...the highlights have

been blown out on a good portion of the spider. Not sure if you used a tripod, but on macro shots, you must, or you will get blur.

I notice on some them there are harsh shadows, meaning there wasn't enough light and/or your flash didn't fire. Lighting will be a big

challenge.

There are articles online about people who shoot with point-and-shoot cameras such as yours, and they get beautiful, stock-worthy results.

Maybe you could search for some tips on how to get more out of what you have to work with.

I really like the mood of the image of the sunset in the marshes. You got some lens flare from shooting into the sun and there are other

technical issues, but if the technical issues were fixed, I can see how it might be used commercially. As well as with a few others you

posted.

I would suggest doing a lot of research to learn what makes a good image, and then do a lot of shooting. We ALL started out where you did,

and some of us have some beginner shots still in our portfolios, especially those of us who started 10 or more years ago in microstock.

Thanks for thee feedback. Is lensflare bad? I thought that it was nice. I read somewhere that shooting into the sun damages the

photreceptors, so now I try to avoid it.

By the way I have travel to that marsh, and that takes a day, so I have to invest more time at thing closer to me.

Quote from: Hermitlog on April 22, 2015, 08:07

Quote from: fritz on April 22, 2015, 07:52

http://www.2shared.com/file/V9E3tMaK/kldeni.html

Watch out!
Bitdefender blocked this page
This page is blocked by Bitdefender Antimalware filter.

I see now why you don't want download it. You think it is a virus. Well I just uploaded my pictures to 2shared yesterday, and after your

complaint I redownloaded it from the site. My AVG Internet Security didn't find anything. And I am sure as hell, didn't upload any virus

into it, I can barely program in C.

But I understand, that you don't trust a newcomer, so I try to upload the pictures. However free picture uploading sites all say that they

retain the copyright if I use them. So that's a nono. I guess I have to make multiple posts here because of the 4 attachment limit.

Is that okay?

it's got nothing to do with "not trusting a newcomer", but you might want to make your work *accessible* not only for this but for all

other situations as well in order to achieve *any* rate of success out there. This goes for photo galleries as well as writing and/or

pitching your work (any work) to editors (photo editors or otherwise). If people who are even willing to help you out here and take a look

at your pic are greeted with 404s or virus warnings or anything like that, then this is not the right way to do it.

You need to get a grip of these things anyway or I would advise very strongly against going down that road.

I didn't planned to use batch files on shutterstock or any site, I was just in a hurry here. The next day I had the time.

Quote from: Hermitlog on April 23, 2015, 14:04

I looked up DoF and instantly realized that I missed critical knowledge of photography, I never thought that DoF or something that I imagined regarding focus, since I didn't know the term, could be changed. They said the size of the DoF can be changed, and the DoF behind and infront of the focus could be different (I still have to grasp how is this possible).
I have to find out how to change this  on my camera.

Reading about aperture, I made a personal discovery (I know this comes naturally for you, but for me it was an "Heureka moment").

No, really...
Not one of us comes out of the womb knowing this techical stuff.
It has to be learned.
Some people are more naturally gifted compositionally, true; but getting our heads round the technical stuff is work.

I know, I just forgot to add now. I meant that when someone becomes skilled sometimes it's harder for them to imagine that other don't know that stuff, what they use everyday.

It took me  two years to learn the basic principles of good photography and that was because every day I took images and analysed them .After 4  attempts I was accepted on SS . Keep learning and look at other  peoples work on SS to get an idea of technical standards. You are persistent  so don't let anyone drag you down .I am sure you will make it in the end but it will be a long road. None of the pics critiqued were up to SS standard-for the reasons already stated by others on this forum. I shoot lots of flowers and  they are my second best sellers.I also do many illustrations in abstract as I have developed my own style which are readily accepted. You must find a niche and work on it. Good luck.

What do you think about my models? Are my skills comercially viable or not? I know that I boched up the textures a bit. I also made other works, but I don't want to upload videos of complex mechanical machines, because it is more time consuming.

fdjtx7lef

9x162ts0n

54rcrdxcn

561aksz6f

4uju81iqf

vi68qforb

vtnp3757b

o65dymvx3

nunxlvfh3

xt8w8cown

4lquvuvbr

mjg6dejvb

feyd4dclz

rxeyky9lj

3uy4q2syf

uip4m7od3

516q2m6mv

4pp9puq6v

lu1zes8pj

5ghzvmsk7

7mcaq4w0n

bl9i8yknr

dr3t3go47

7eontml1z

lcgh9setz

bp8dmbwgn

q8agqmj9z

wan5e8e1j

dywhx35ef









by5yc9993

id4z8xfyv

euszcjf2v

bpcz02luf

klnr40cgn

I think LEGO is copyrighted.

You seem to know how to photograph stuff then. You also seem to know more than you let us believe. I am not sure anymore if you are taking the piss or not. 

You need to up the tesselation or divisions.  On the pencil, for example, you can see how the sides do not match the end cap.

You seem to know how to photograph stuff then. You also seem to know more than you let us believe. I am not sure anymore if you are taking the piss or not. 

These were no photographs or photoshops, I made them in solidworks from simple objects, the mug was made from a simple cilinder shape, then I rounded it a bit, then made a render (see the attached jpg), the texturing is not UV mapped, because I used only stock textures, I learned this in middle school.

If you don't use engineering programs it will be difficult for you to understand.

I just started photoshop today, and it is confusing as hell, I can't even fill a simple rectangular shape with a color. You see my mind is wired differently I am used to programs like AutoCAD what is designed more logically than photoshop (at least for me).

I can design moderately well if everything is precisely set in stone, I define every mm with clear numbers, each spline, curve or line has their lenght, angle, etc. And they all traced back to a reference point, so if I set a number from 50 mm to 60 mm, the whole object and every other dimension changes accordingly.

Wheras in photoshop or 3Dmax, nothing is set in stone, and you just draw freely, and you have to make unnecessary circles again and again, if you want to something precize. That's why I can't really photoshop pictures too, I would have to unlearn my pedantic habits.

I like to see myself as an artist, but I am probably (in skills at least) closer to the engineer-machanical community.

However I use architectural and engineering programs to produce mostly artistic products, I am kind of hybrid.

You need to up the tesselation or divisions.  On the pencil, for example, you can see how the sides do not match the end cap.

Do you mean that the sides of the pencil overlap into the body of the metal cap?

By tessalation do you mean that round surfaces look polygonal (or angular not round)?

Your 3d modelling skill is good and you can earn decent money with your 3d rendering.  Too jaggy or very low poly model render will mostly reject. I see noise in your rendering, which will also not acceptable by many agencies. Render with highest rendering quality setting of your 3d software. Highlight reflection is also too much in some renders. Render on white background will be great.  Good luck

I can rump up polygon count a bit, but not much.

What do you mean by noise? On the background or the model?

Yeah on second tough, reflections were a bit much, and sometimes produced misshapen images.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 24, 2015, 09:03

You need to up the tesselation or divisions.  On the pencil, for example, you can see how the sides do not match the end cap.

Do you mean that the sides of the pencil overlap into the body of the metal cap?

By tessalation do you mean that round surfaces look polygonal (or angular not round)?

It mean increase poly count of your model so it look smooth and non-jaggy. 3ds max turbosmooth or mesh smooth modifier used for sub dividing surface which result in high poly smooth model.

....