Another handy guide Brasilnut

By the way "Rejection reason No. 1: Poor Lighting: Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions,
and/or incorrect white balance."

can also include blown pixels and clipped shadows (at least with Shutterstock)
even a single blown pixel will get you this rejection.

It doesn't seem to be a problem with other agencies.

Since Shutterstock reviewers are only paid 5 cents per image they inspect, to make UK minimum wage which is equivalent to $8.70, they would need to review 174 images an hour (almost 3 images a minute) There's a huge margin of error, especially after taking into account fatigue after hours of doing this repetitive work. 

Perhaps they also have a quota of rejections they must meet (i'm speculating now).

 

But most on this site are your competitors. If you are looking for buyers, wouldnt your writings be geared more towards buyers, and posted on forums where buyers hang out?

That's a good question. I'm also posting on Linkedin, although less about technical stuff and more about the business side. My first article about how much i've earned over 3-4 years is generating a nice discussion with most photographers calling me naive and ego-driven to submit my images RF for pennies.

As for competitors, I don't see them that way. I think we should all be here to help each other and when I was starting out I would often post my images for review and got great feedback. This isn't a zero sum game.

The wording from the second poster reminded me of an advert response. Like ones where they say I use to spend hours chopping onions but with my onion pro 2000 I now have tonnes of time to relax.   Thanks so much mr onion pro you're a lifesaver.

Didn't mean to offend

No worries, didn't offend. I think this business is making everybody, including me, so cynical as it's cut-throat.

I rather give stuff like this away for free than try to sell. This way I'm setting myself up for a bigger reward in the long run.

I forgot to include this in the guide as I think it's relevant.

This image has never been accepted into my collection for a focus rejection and I've must have re-submitted it 5 times and always rejected. It's a pity because I really like it and was a special moment. It's frustrating having to walk away for an image that perhaps isn't technically excellent but has good commercial value, it's too bad reviewers won't see it that way.

Here i've also included the 100% crop.

Brasilnut

Wow, thank for the guide. These happen to be my common rejection reasons too.  Thanks for providing before and after fix comparison. Hopefully, we can automate some of the fixes with AxonGuru soon.

You're welcome! I didn't include other common rejections such as Trademark, keywording, dust spots, Chromatic aberration as the article would be too long but they are still stuff we have to be careful with when submitting. I'll include them in the larger guide, just need a bit more time + energy to draft away.

Good luck,

Brasilnlut

I feel really frustrated sometimes seeing several insignificant (IMO) topics in a row on this forum and wrote all that above at this time.

I hope you will find this more interesting:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/newby-discussion/guide-of-five-most-common-stock-photography-rejections-and-how-to-fix-them/

Sorry there's a few typos as I put it together late last night

Brasilnut

Initially I though tldr but though I'd give it a try.  I am afraid jo ann is correct. I couldn't continue after the first paragraph.  You've made too many factual errors to draw any conclusions.

Ok, I appreciate the feedback. Onto my next article!

You definetely have too much free time. Too many people here are complaining all the time about lack of sales instead of some shooting and keywording or useful technique discussions on this forum. I don't know why anybody should get into complicated analysis, b***s*** comparisons or discussions on some stock agency staff rearrangements while not even having some share of those companies. Now I'm wasting too much of my time on writing this instead of keywording.

No worries, good luck with key wording

In 2001, Istockphoto launched a unique business model consisting of crowd-sourced Royalty Free (RF) microstock photography. Anyone, anywhere could join and contribute to the growing image bank and earn a percentage on the sale, usually 15%. Istockphoto set the prices of images to an average of just $1 and allowed users to buy credits that were exchanged for imagery. Selling RF for such a low price was not the norm at the time. Overnight, Istockphoto changed the rules of the game.
Royalty Free vs. Rights Managed

Without getting too technical, �Royalty-free� refers to a licensing method under which image rights are sold at a flat rate for almost all purposes. The price for the image is often dependent on the image size (high or low resolution). On the other hand, the traditional photographic model is of Rights-Managed (RM) licensing, when an image license is priced based on how the image will be used. RM licenses has the added advantage that protects both the photographer and buyer as they usually come with usage restrictions, including length of time, regions, image size and often exclusivity. Therefore, due to these restrictions, it is with no surprise that the images are generally pricier for the buyer.

Advances in technology

The early 2000s were a highly-profitable time for market leader, Istockphoto and upcoming competitors such as Corbis, Alamy, Shutterstock (focusing on subscriptions), Fotolia and Dreamstime. Advances in technology meant that most photography enthusiasts were finally able to afford powerful PCs & large monitors, fast bandwidth, entry-level DSLRs and post-processing equipment.

The sites sold a business-model fairy-tale. The mere thought of earning �passive� income, from a fun & creative outlet, while working at home in pyjamas was enough to attract a fair number of photographers, including myself. Even if in reality the remuneration was �inadequate� for the time invested. So what if it didn�t earn so much, the alternative was for those images to gather digital dust. Ego-driven photographers could brag to your friends & family that they were �real professional photographers� earning �passive income�. Microstock entrepreneurs knew this psychology and exploited amateur contributors by literally throwing pennies at quality images. 
Many amateurs with particular niches did well and honed their craft. Those amateurs who thought it was easy and shot pets, flowers and rainbows either adapted or outright gave up. I was stubborn in that I initially joined in 2009 but gave up after a few rejections. Even then I would have been behind the curve and by the time I gave it a serious go, in 2012, I had no choice but to play catch-up.

If you can�t beat them, join them

As the microstock business model matured, more professional photographers began contributing to microstock sites as they saw the potential to get on the bandwagon and earn on quantity rather than quality. Many of these established photographer had to bite the bullet and accept the new reality of selling their images from $200 RM to $1 RF. Those more experienced contributors who adapted with the new times generally did well for themselves and made a side income to cover some costs.
However, many were not enticed by the low pay-outs. They didn�t jump on the bandwagon and continue to despise the microstock model for arguably destroying the profession along with the contributors that led to its demise. 

A rocky relationship

Microstock agencies� business model is such that they need contributors to profit, just like a plant needs water to survive. The relationship between contributor and agency is often rocky with many contributors accusing agencies of making deals that only benefit themselves, such as an 80:20 split towards the agency and significant licensing changes.

In 2006, Istockphoto, since owned by Getty Images, caused an uproar by allowing consumers to embed millions of its photos for free for non-commercial use on websites, blogs, and social media platforms. In 2011, there was further fury triggered by Getty�s decision to change its contributor agreement, thus allowing the right to include all royalty-free content in its subscription package. Getty also removed the right for contributors to block Getty selling any of their images on a royalty-free basis.
Serious contributors were/are faced with tough choices. Put up with the changes and keep contributing, stop contributor, or most drastic of all � pull out their portfolio entirely. Many did pull out completely and migrated towards fairer models such as those provided by Stocksy on an exclusive basis, established in 2013 or Alamy with their 50:50 split on RM material. 

The microstock superstar, Yuri Arcurs, summed it out best when he said in his blog �At some point the professional gets tired of selling 12 course testing menus at 0300AM at burger prices.�

A wider trend

There appear to be similar patterns in other seemingly unrelated service industries. In our information age, the only way any developed economy is going to get richer is by becoming more efficient. Here are some examples where greater efficiency is challenging the status quo and consumers have never had it so good:

�   Music: Most people used to buy CDs before Napster & file-sharing � many now listen to Spotify for free, with ads. In June, 2015, Spotify had more than 75 million active users, including about 20 million paying customers leaving many artists and labels reeling at the effect on sales;

�   Films: Remember Blockbuster? Cinema audiences are down - all thanks to online-streaming such as Netflix and Amazon Prime;

�   Hotels: Why pay for a hotel if you can fine cut-price holiday accommodation?

�   Mobile chatting: Whatsapp, the messenger app, has disrupted the telecom company�s bottom lines as consumers rather text or make data-based calls;

�   Dating: Even some prostitutes are up in arms over Tinder taking over their business!

�   Online poker: Back in 2006, serious poker players, including myself, were once able to make a nice profit from low and middle stake games. Ten years on, there�s less easy money around, even at low stakes, as either bad players have quit or have improved;

�   Low-cost airlines: Now competing head-to-head to with standard airlines on short distance flights.

Uber, the ultimate disruptor
 
Uber, the popular ride-sharing service, is in my opinion, the ultimate disruptor since the service was set up seven years ago in San Francisco. Recently, in dozens of city, there have been many instances of taxi drivers and their respective associations, blocking roads and unfortunately being violent and/or verbally abusive to Uber drivers and their passengers. Regulation, as often is the case when it comes to technology, has been slow to catch up to level the playing field.
Similarly, with microstock, most Uber drivers are unhappy with the deal they receive. At the onset a 25% doesn�t seem much, especially comparing to microstock which is closer to a 60-75% cut but drivers face significantly more costs including taxes, petrol, insurance, maintenance, etc. The site, notcooluber.com gathered significant statistical evidence on LA Uber drivers and their conclusions are that drivers only earn an average of $2.89/h and that�s before car maintenance fees. Uber drivers accuse the company of misrepresentation on the reality of running a successful business.   

Average Microstock earnings are likely to also be below minimum wage and photographers also incur substantial investments, at the very least: time and equipment. It�s no wonder that so many photographers and Uber drivers quit after only 6 months, with a bitter taste in their mouths. It�s just a bad business model for contributors.
On the other side of the coin, the consumer has never had it so good. For example, Shutterstock now boasts a 100 million RF portfolio - that�s a lot of cats! High quality images at dirt cheap prices.

Adapt or die
 
Nothing productive comes from feeling nostalgic for the �good old days� of selling stock images for Rights-Managed $500+. Except for a select few, those days are gone and won�t return.

A solution is a compromise: promote the most talented microstock contributors to the major collections within niche boutiques. These new premium images could then be sold at substantially higher returns. These would have to be new images as no buyer will be willing to pay more for an image that has been sold thousands of times for peanuts. Stocksy and Shutterstock�s Offset are interesting and I have applied to be contributor at both.

In addition, I would like to see a microstock sites allow contributors to submit RF mobile phone photography. After all, the Instagram square look with filters has proven popular with many buyers.

The world is changing fast and as serious photographers we must adapt accordingly. Good luck.

Alexandre Rotenberg
Fine Art Travel Photographer
www.arotenberg.photoshelter.com

At this point, uploading 50/month, you're not at this full time I imagine?

Do you have intentions of shooting microstock full time?  If you were to, what would be your weekly/monthly/yearly goals?  Do you only shoot photo, or do you also do video, timelapse, sounds, or graphics?  Do any of us here do stock audio or graphics?  Are those other pursuits worth doing?

Nope, I've never been full-time but some weeks sure feel like it since as soon as I get home from work I'm either shooting or post-processing! Also weekends I was doing a lot of bike trips around northern Italy with the intention of shooting. I was in Rio for the whole of the Olympics and shot quite a bit there but much of my stuff isn't selling hmmmm...

I don't have any intention to devote all my time for microstock as the returns aren't significant enough for the effort. I'm devoting more time to my fine art stuff and trying to get galleries to exhibit my work. Also doing some interior property shots even if I'm not crazy about it but pays ok.

My monthly goals aren't so much about uploading x amount, I rather stick to quality than quantity. As I mentioned in my article, just that one refugee shot in Budapest amounts to 10% of my total earnings out of 2050 images. Add another top 5 best sellers and that's nearly 50% of my total earnings. Half of my portoflio doesn't sell and probably never will, a lot of windmills from when I was living in Holland some random beach shots in Rio which these sites are saturated.

I only shoot photography.  I can't comment on other pursuits.

Good luck

P.s I put together this short guide and it's on the newbie forum. I trust you will find it useful:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/newby-discussion/guide-how-to-take-criticism-to-improve-as-a-commercial-photographer/new/#new

Alex
www.arotenberg.photoshelter.com

Hey all,

I've put together this attached pdf guide which I trust most will find useful, particularly as you are trying to hone your craft.

Please feel free to comment.

Thanks

Brasilnut

I assume you are generating income elsewhere because given the equipment you have invested in you are running at quite a loss.

I'm probably breaking even just now after four years but yes I have also had a full-time job other than photography