Suljo gets a little excited about iStock ;-)

To the op - the first one looks nice and artsy, but the lighting won't pass the stocks. The previous posts are correct. You need to start looking at stock until you are sick of it, and then shot that way. Sterile, clean, and if there's a good message or metaphor, that's a great bonus. Save the artsy stuff for a greeting card or for yur vacant wallspace.

Granting vandals the protection of copyright law is just beyond dumb.   What's next? Forbidding the property owner from photographing it for his insurance company?  Blocking its removal? 

"Artist" my @ss.   

You can photograph it all you want, you can't sell it as stock, nor can you put it on a greeting card, make a poster out if it etc.

They screwed from the old Veer and broke it. I had clients who bought from the old Veer all the time. Unique stuff there.

I just uploaded a few and you're right, the detailed categories did not work for me. So I just picked one. After I picked the first, it would not let me pick more. Not the worst thing in the world - I don't know anyone who buys via categories anyway.

I didn't get that form.  Is this only for non-US contributors?  

They have had my social security # for years.

No Alerts in my account, no email. Perhaps they are taking care of non-US counties first, and then maybe will ask for a W9 from the US people.

I have quite a few with their new dslrs ask me about the news stuff. I just have to take a deep breath, then I try and explain some of the things that have changed in the industry. All that public sourcing by newspapers and TV stations especially here in the USA, if some knew that they were actually putting photogs out of work, maybe they'd think twice about it.

Just wondering if there are any shooters here who actively shoot events, breaking news (fires, etc)?

Just plain curiosity here. I met up with a local camera club guy who wanted to buy one of my lenses, and he had with him a portable scanner, notebook, etc. As we talked he was listening to the scanner and writing things down. He was a little over the top in my opinion. When I ask him if he gets payment for this, he said he's trying to break into the game and actually gets paid for very little of what he shoots.

He says he submits a lot to the local TV stations under that "viewer submitted photos" thing, which in my opinion does nothing more than put aspiring professional journalists out of work, because the stations etc get a constant stream of content for free.

Thanks for all the comments and suggestions.  I especially got a kick out of all the post with the collection of rejections (I look forward to seeing all of them shortly).

Things I saw posted that I understand:
(I hear everybody talking about the Canon/Sigma 50mm 1.4 and 1.8s but no recs for Nikons - suggestions?)

Anybody have a link to a thread about how to set up better studio lighting than using the one SB800 Speedflash I have on the camera's hotshoe? 

I guess I need to learn how to use CS5.  I have no idea how to even begin to improve the colors on the green sands beach pic. 

Second the motion for 50 1.8. And one of your best and cheapest options for macro with Nikon is to get a BR2A reversing ring. Works great with the 50 1.8. Also visit the macro forum over at FredMiranda.com - it's a good group there. You don;t have to spend gobs of money on a $500 (or more) macro lens.

Lighting - start by looking here

http://neilvn.com/tangents/

Read his entire blog - I'm not kidding here. Get the book too. Neil does not talk a lot about landscapes on the blog, but he knows how to craft light. Be sure to see the post on the Black Foamie Thing 

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/11/21/the-black-foamie-thing/

Green sands pic - there's just about no rescue on that because you didn't account for the proper light when you shot it. Also the composition on it is poor. I know it's tough to schedule these things into a vacation or business trip, but when you want a particular shot, you need to make proper accommodations for it. If the light sucks, you go back when it good.

Actually, the black sand beach images are better sellers because they hold more mystery. Travel agents love them.

I'm going to pretty much say LCV on all the shots except for the two of Mauna Kea because they are interesting. These are the things that have been shot a million times over.

I'll just note some very brief observations

Spider - Why was it even submitted? Plain bad.

Hydrangeas - poor composition, overworked subject

Cows - flat light DSC0816 even looks like there are some focus problems.

DSC0701 the green sand beach - little aesthetic value and flat light.

Just a note: your post is pretty longwinded. Try asking for critique on just one or two images next time and you will get more help with specific questions.

Honestly though, with the quality of some of the stuff on SS, I can't imagine the kind of thing they reject.

Yeah no kidding! I can tell you the illustration area is a cess pool and they should really tighten up a bit there.

In the race to the bottom, the agency that dies with the most free images wins. Interpret that in any way you'd like.

Those don't look like "real people".  Those look like badly posed, badly lit hired models on white.

Yes have to agree. At least they're getting their use out of the white seamless.

That front page images is ghastly.

Quote from: stormchaser on June 02, 2010, 16:30

...it would be beneficial if the poster would address specific and meaningful question, and if those who replied by staying on topic. Derailing a thread sometimes results in much useless drivel.

Yeah, I didn't mean to hijack the thread with my silliness. I just wasn't sure if you had a particular complaint...

OK, I'll stop because next thing you know I'll be talking about cannibalism in the Navy.

Was not directed at you in particular   Just at what happens in general.

Vonkara is right, usually threads will die of their own accord, or someone will do a rampup and it will take on a life of its own, meaning any useful info will be buried within the many pages. Sometimes it's hard to sift through it all.

Quote from: donding on May 25, 2010, 16:00

Quote from: sc on May 25, 2010, 14:50

Haven't had time to look but try
http://www.keh.com/

Heh thanks...I booked marked that page!! They seem to have really good prices.

BTW thanks sc, this is a great site. Cheeper than e-bay and a huge selection. Ended up getting a used 105mm f2.8 in E+ condition for 525.00 and a 50mm f1.8 in E+ condition for 109.00. Thanks alot for the link.

Keh is a reputable dealer and you'll find good things there. I have done much business with them over the years.