F16 at 36 mp is hard to pull off even with the best lenses. If it's not pin sharp at 100 percent, just downsize to 24 mp. That way you still sell the file as XXL on other sites that will pay you for that size.

Sigh. Apparently that isn't a magic bullet either. I just had this one rejected even after downsizing to 25mp:
July 30 2014_21.jpg by Trevarthan, on Flickr

Reasons:
Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

I avoid f16 cuz of diffraction issues and resort to focus stacking (at f8-11) for the DOF, if needed, and if possible.

I see you used a 24 PC-E lens for this shot.....did you try using some tilt and a larger f-stop?....back to my LF days.

I did not. I often tell myself I'm going to use tilt, but unless I'm doing tabletop, I rarely do. Even with live view, I have a hard time figuring out the focus when tilted. I guess I need to practice with that more.

I need to research and practice some focus stacking too. I think that would have worked well for the waterfall image. I only had that thought when I was home editing.

One of the things I dislike about the 24mm PC-e is that the DOF scale goes from f16 to f8. There's no f11. I've got a 24mm f1.4g too, and it has f11, but no f8. So I've just been standardizing on f16. It looks like I need to figure something else out though.

I tweaked the sharpness settings in Lightroom CC. Maybe f16 was adding more diffraction than I thought. Maybe I just don't know how far I need to push Lightroom yet. This might have been my first legitimate rejection in a while.

On a side note how do you like the D810?  I'm currently using the D800 but am thinking of 'upgrading' for the improved Live View display (I do a lot of macro and would like to be able to focus using a 4X loop on the LCD with Live View....not a good enough display on the D800 to be reliable).

I absolutely love it. It's very similar to my old D3S, three times as capable, and half the price. Live view is a real pleasure. Resolution is great, and high ISO noise is in the same class as the d3s. I'm not sure I'd buy one if I already had a d800, but it was an easy decision for me and exceeds my expectations. Can't wait to upgrade again in another four years to 70mp. I mean, Moore's Law, right? I'm just wondering if my glass will still be able to handle 70mp. We might all be buying new glass by then.

As far as I understand it, even if I sold the cuttingboard, I would still own the copyright to it, unless I sold that explicitly. So yeah, I'll just submit a property release. No big deal. Thanks for clearing that up. Too bad the rejection reason wasn't clearer.

Received another nonsensical rejection today. This time, surprisingly, it was istockphoto who rejected a piece that shutterstock had already accepted. Here's the shutterstock photo:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=204443335

And here's the istockphoto rejection:

https://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/43709924/2/stock-photo-43709924-3d-cutting-board.jpg

"Please provide a focused description for the work of art featured in this image. Aim to describe the artwork as well as possible (the artist, date of creation, location, etc). Works of art created by someone other than yourself must be free of copyright protection to be considered royalty-free.

In your description, please include any valuable information regarding the artist/ownership of the original artwork that will assist us in determining that the work of art is not subject to copyright protection. Make sure that your description is clear, helpful and targeted to the client who may be interested in your image (and not to the inspector).

If this work of art is indeed under copyright protection, a property release signed by the copyright holder will need to be provided. Thank you."

I'm quite sure I made it clear that *I* was the original artist, and that I created this cuttingboard in my basement in December 2013. I'm not sure what else they could possibly want. However, it's impossible to prove that, because every microstock site has a habit of deleting everything about the photo AFTER rejecting it. I don't see a way to see the tags and/or description I submitted, but I know it was at least as descriptive as the shutterstock description. I'm starting to think they do this precisely so that you won't be able to call them on their crap. Sigh. Infuriating.

You wouldn't get that rejection unless you submitted it as editorial. If you didn't submit it was editorial, you would have gotten the "Needs model release"  or "needs property release" rejection. You wouldn't need a property release on the bridge. It's a public bridge, and it's not the main subject of the photo anyway. There's also no graffiti there, even under the bridge cause I've been there and photographed it.

Did you accidentally click the editorial pull down?

No. I did not.

Also, it's probably not a good idea to submit images so similar so close to each other. They compete for attention. The goal with Shutterstock is to get good quick sales so your image rises in popularity. You can't do that if you're splitting those sales between two images.

That's no excuse for choosing an incorrect rejection reason. It's not helpful.

I see nothing on my little model at 100%. Her shoes have no markings, her diaper has no visible tags, and her dress is white and tagless. The buildings are blurred. This was shot at f2 with the focus on my daughter. Wouldn't that be enough to avoid any potential issues?

Shutterstock accepted this the same day I submitted it: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-204443335/stock-photo--d-cutting-board-this-is-a-d-cutting-board-i-made-in-the-dark-wood-is-walnut-the-red-wood.html?src=B747ZsNdZi2ZosrW3vDLpQ-1-0

So, yeah, all I have to do is spend 10,000 hours woodworking and take a couple of photos. No problem! :p Seriously though, it just goes to show I haven't been thinking about stock in years. I've had this photo sitting around since December 2013 and just now thought to submit it.

Checked for sensor spots on the d3s today. They're everywhere. Ordered a new sensor swab kit. Wish the D800 worked better with my 24mm 1.4g and 85mm 1.4g. I'd order one so I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often.

istock accepted the bridge photo too: http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/chattanooga-market-street-bridge-at-dusk-43084254

Go figure. I mean, I'm glad. I just wish there was more consistency in this game.

Couple of things. I note that you don't watermark your flickr photos, which is fine, but it's trivial to download your images at the 2048 size (I just did. In Chrome, Inspect element and then use the URL to open the JPEG). I'd stick to smaller sizes or put a small watermark for anything you're selling.

I'm aware of that. If I ever found someone stealing my work I'd be concerned. I never have, yet.

I think that some technical weaknesses could be addressed that would increase your acceptances (I just looked at the first four as you said those had been rejected). On your fireworks shot, I can see multiple sensor spots in the sky, it looks washed out (insufficient contrast) and I prefer shots like this if the perspective distortion is corrected. So somehting like this (I only uploaded a small version as it's unwatermarked)

This is great news. I can fix technical problems.

I do like the perspective correction. I don't know how to do that in software. I've only used my tilt shift to do it in the past. I guess I should learn.

I think your version looks over saturated. Is it possible this aspect is personal preference?

Regarding the sensor spots.... I'm aware I have a few. I bought a cleaning kit years ago, but I've been hesitant to use it. Seems risky. I'll have to suck it up and just do it. Sensor spots are the one thing I really hate about digital. I change lenses all the time and it seems like I have spots hours after cleaning. Sigh.

The shots are very grainy (the other three as well) and have a slightly over sharpened look. Are you shooting RAW or JPEG, and if RAW, how are you processing images? Given the D3S reputation for great low light performance I'm a bit surprised (but I use Canon so I don't really have any experience with Nikon performance).

I shoot jpeg. I try not to process the images, but these looked a bit better after a pass in lightroom. I tweaked the exposure and tried to minimize the noise.

The Delta Queen shot looks shaky - you said it was hand held and it probably should have been on a tripod. The same for the blue railing shot.

Can you explain to me why you think it looks shaky? I don't see it, and if I can't see it, I won't ever be able to avoid it. I took this shot at 1/125. I thought that would be more than enough to eliminate any shake. I was on a ladder, so a tripod wasn't really an option. I shot the blue railing at 1/125 also. What shutter speed would eliminate shake hand held?

For stock, I think the blue railing shot would work better if a little more of the bridge and rail in the foreground were in focus - a background blurred is great, but one part of the girder sharp just isn't enough.

That's good feedback. Bridge mostly in focus, background out. I can try that. I thought it worked, personally. I stared at that image, and I loved it as-is. But I've received similar feedback from others on this image. It works for art, but not stock, I guess.

I also think you need to do a little more post processing on your shots to clean up minor flaws (like sensor spots, and it's surprising iStock didn't catch that - they used to be so good) and get your contrast and color optimal (I don't mean super saturated although I know there's a lot of that about).

I don't see the contrast or color issues, personally. I agree with the sensor spots and I'm surprised nobody mentioned it either if you saw it. I never saw them when I examined the image, so I thought the background hid any defects fairly well, but I admittedly didn't look very hard.

I don't think you need to shoot different stuff if you don't want to, but I think you're missing the technical bar a bit on the shots you like to do, at least as far as stock is concerned.

Fair enough. Again, I can fix technical. I appreciate you taking the time to look.

You've picked a particularly difficult subject here.

Agreed.

  Using your Flickr shot as an example, I would suggest a smaller aperture (get more in sharp focus), a higher ISO to compensate, and then careful use of noise reduction software when needed.

I'm pretty sure the 24mm f1.4G is as sharp as it is going to get at f8. Going to f11 might have gotten more in focus, but it wouldn't have improved sharpness of the subject. By f16, this lens starts getting less sharp due to diffraction.

Or just shoot under easier conditions until you build up your portfolio.

I think you're right. What frustrates me is that I'm not shooting under easier conditions to make better photos, or even to improve customer satisfaction. I'm doing it to appease a reviewer.