MicrostockGroup

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - puddlepirate1

Pages: [1]

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: April 07, 2013, 13:30 »

Hi Gel-O-Shooter. Yes, I have a tripod but to be fair, with the stuff I mostly shoot a tripod would be a hindrance and totally impractical. However I fully accept the fact that shooting stock is different and I must use a tripod. I use Photoshop to check the image at actual pixels size but other than cropping for effect - if the cropping in the viewfinder has been insufficient - I don't do much image manipulation. I can remove trademarks and so on, no problem and would have done so had I realised fishing boat registration numbers counted as trademarks! The tiny trademarks on the bike saddles were an oversight but a lesson learned.

Rejection isn't personal it's business so I don't have a problem with it per se. it's just annoying that I didn't get it right first time. I'll keep at it though and Shutterstock have already sent the standard 'waiting for your next submission' email - but this time I'm going to have a think about what to shoot and make * sure the next submission meets the criteria and is free from dust, noise and trademarks etc...!!

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 30, 2013, 10:53 »

LOL.. yes, pretty much

I'm still a bit mystified by those rejected for focus. Both are sharper than several of the images of the same subject that are already on SS. If I could work out how to publish an image on here I'd post two of them.

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 28, 2013, 14:55 »

Thanks for the advice on editorial. Very useful. I shoot quite a lot of editorial stuff so I'll bear all of that info in mind.

Well, having had my moan, it appears things are on the up. Out of the 10 images I submitted to Shutterstock they accepted one with no problem, two were rejected for copyright issues (miniscule maker's name on the saddle of an image featuring two bikes and a tiny fishing boat registration number on the bow of an image featuring a couple of small boats at their mooring). Four were rejected for the main point of focus being in the wrong place, i.e. I hadn't cropped the image tightly enough. One was rejected for noise. So not bad overall. These are all errors that can easily be rectified by paying a bit more attention to the subject. I'm confident the next batch will pass, no problem.

I need eight to get through. Of course, that is not the way to look at it. All ten must sail through but I'm a lot more confident now than when I first posted on this forum. At least there was no mention at all of dust or other 'orrible things....

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 19, 2013, 20:01 »

Many thanks. Very useful info. I've got a lot of work to do to bring my work up to stock standard - and I've got to rethink the subjects of my images - but at least I know where I'm going wrong!

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 19, 2013, 13:47 »

OK. Useful. That can be fixed

The De Havilland was shot years ago with a small Fuji - SP1500 or something. I don't use that now. The others were shot with a Nikon D80. 18-200 VR lens which stays on the camera pretty much all the time. However the dust must have got there somehow so the sensor will need to be cleaned. Sounds like a job for Nikon.

The noise is probably because I used a high ISO rating - it was the fist time I'd attempted to shoot fighter aircraft and you don't get a lot of time to faff around because they're gone in an instant. To minimise camera shake and so on, I wanted a fast shutter speed. I had to focus on something static at approximately the right distance, then pan as the aircraft came in. No time to focus on an inbound aircraft and autofocus is totally useless for that - way too slow. Except for the De Havilland which was shot at Duxford, the other aircraft images were handheld shots at RAF Coningsby.

Given all aircraft have logos of some sort, even on parts such as the wheels, tyres, prop, etc or are recognisable by their design (e.g. Boeing windscreen, 747, Airbus and the like) then obviously aircraft images are no good at all for stock photography. That's good to know. I'll submit them to aircraft mags. I've had stuff published in mags with no problem and I've got an option to submit some railway images to a mag so I don't have a problem there. It's just the stock stuff.

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 19, 2013, 13:14 »

Hmm. Dust spots. That troubles me because they are digital images. Not scanned. I had that problem with scanned transparencies but I've only ever submitted digital images. The lenses (two cameras) are clean - spotless. Very small particles of dust on the lens would probably be too out of focus to show up. What do you think would cause dust spots to show on a digital image?

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 17, 2013, 20:24 »

One two of my aircraft images can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/powfoto/8567413658/#in/set-72157633022896332/

Noting fantastic. Just a basic handheld stuff...

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 15, 2013, 14:39 »

Many thanks to all... I'm not bothered by rejection per se and I certainly do not want any old rubbish accepted because that's no use to anyone - least of all me, although Alamy's policy of rejecting an entire batch is a bit naff. It's down to me to bring my stuff up to the required standard so more effort required. However, enough moaning. Moving on.

I contacted Picture Nation to ask why they don't publish details of the best selling topic each month and happened to mention I've not made any sales with them as yet. Only expecting an answer to the first part - which was pretty much as I expected, i.e. if they publish monthly stats they get inundated with images of that subject and not much else - Jane also replied to the second part. She said there was nothing wrong with the quality of my portfolio, it was the subject matter - no people!! Buyers want people. So it was pretty much as I expected. Her advice was to include people and go for the hard to get image not the easy stuff. (Perhaps I should consider becoming a papparzzi

) ). Anyway, that seems to be the problem re sales with PictureNation - I'm shooting the wrong stuff. And that will apply to any agency, unless they specialise in supplying images for a very specific market.

Next was the Shutterstock issue and why hadn't I received the 'confirm your account' email. Then it struck me. Idiot! Check my junk email folder! Lo and behold, there they were. All three of them. So, job done. I've now submitted 10 carefully chosen images, all of which fully adhere to the guidelines, to Shutterstock for assessment. If they get accepted I'll go back and try Alamy again.

Taking all the helpful forum comments into account and the advice from PictureNation, plus a day's research on the web to understand more about what stock agencies need (I've a bad habit of doing things back to front...) I'm having a rethink about what to shoot. So, thanks again and here's keeping my fingers crossed. Onward and upward as they say.

Pete

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 14, 2013, 13:54 »

I'm too embarrassed now! Thanks for the advice though. I'll try the suggested sites and see how I get on. I think the problem is I'm shooting the wrong stuff. From looking at what's on offer almost all images include people. I tend not to - I was once told that nothing dates an image more quickly than clothes (i.e. people) and cars so I've tended to keep away from both. Alamy is difficult because if only one image in a batch fails, then they reject the whole batch out of hand - and a failure means you have to wait weeks before the next batch is checked by QC. I think I waited something like six weeks for the second batch to be assessed - which failed - so I gave up with them. Life is too short to wait weeks and weeks for half a dozen images to go through QC and when struggling to get through QC it's pointless uploading more because of the time wasted.

Thanks again.

Newbie Discussion / Re: New to microstock

« on: March 14, 2013, 13:08 »

Nope. Not one. Failed them all. Can't even so much as register with Shutterstock. I must shoot crap and the quality must be rubbish as well. I've got some stuff with PictureNation but haven't sold anything.

Thanks for the info tho' - I might give them a go.......

Newbie Discussion / New to microstock

« on: March 14, 2013, 12:03 »

Never mind commission rates, which stock agency is best and so on - as far as my 'career' as a stock photographer goes, it's a non-starter. Shutterstock doesn't even allow me to register, never mind getting past QC and actually selling anything. I completed the first part of the application, filled out the usual details and requested a confirmation email to be sent but the 'confirm registration' email never arrived. I checked I'd not made a mistake with my email address and tried again and again but still no email. I tried Alamy but never got past QC so after several failed attempts (and each failure means the next batch will take weeks to be assessed), I gave up. The last rejection reason was 'orientation' - I was a bit mystified by that so had a scout around to see if anyone else had suffered a similar rejection and came across an Alamy forum where it was alleged there was a problem with the CS5 orientation tag not being read by Alamy software - something like that. I can't remember the exact details. Time to move on I think.....

Pages: [1]