MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Been trying to get in for months now...  (Read 5754 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 24, 2008, 16:47 »
I have tried getting on that site for a few months now. Applied well over 5 times by now.. Can someone help me pick the right photos? I was able to upload everything I have ever down to 123RF. Any kind soul willing to go through my gallery and pick out the 10 they think will help me get in? Please :(  :'(

My 123RF Gallery:

Could you pick out your 10 that you would submit to Shutterstock?? Please :)

« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2008, 17:13 »
Why are you being rejected? If it's technical, then picking images from another gallery won't help.

« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2008, 17:20 »
I won't help you with portrait shots, but as far as those architectural photos are concerned, my guess is that a lot of them would be rejected by SS because of "poor lighting setup, bla, bla, shadows or incorrect white balance". On my first attempt because of that they rejected 5 pics,  which had been accepted by IS. I addressed this issue and on my second attempt 9 were accepted.
My advice is: go out on a nice sunny day, shoot some simple but technically perfect pics, avoid shadows, then in post-processing increase saturation a bit (they seem to like juicy colors), get rid of all noise, downsample to a little more than 4 MP, and that should do it. At least that did it for me. What camera do you use?
« Last Edit: May 24, 2008, 17:25 by Tom »

« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2008, 17:22 »
My friend, your work looks fine (although i cannot "zoom" view it at the moment as 123's zoom seems to have crapped the bed). SS proved to be the toughest for me to get into while not yielding the profits that most seem to experience here. Recommend waiting another month and trying again. Their reviewers play musical chairs like most of the sites and perhaps you'll get a more "reasonable" person on the next pass.

« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2008, 17:30 »
One more thing: it might be good to diversify your initial submission, a couple of portraits, architecture, nature, still life, etc. Some folks say it helps.

« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2008, 17:54 »
As far as the model shots, this is the only one that jumps out for me as being a good seller

The model shots are pretty mundane and they don't allow for creative space.

In this one here, the white balance looks horribly off

I noticed some coffee cup still life shots. They do not pop at all and would probably be rejected for poor lighting/white balance. You might want to try for a look more like this - I just picked thia one at random. Not great, but there are nice shadows, and there is a nice highlight on the liquid from the cuo

Not trying to be cruel, but 123RF is not a good barometer for quality. Out of 200+ submitted there, have had one rejection.

Without seeing what you actually submitted and knowing the rejection reasons, hard to advise further.

Hope this helps you out.

« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2008, 20:59 »
This is what they always send me:

In order for Shutterstock to maintain the high standard of our photography collection, new submitters must receive approval on at least seven (7) of their first ten (10) images to continue uploading. Unfortunately, while some of the images you submitted may meet our guidelines, we are unable to approve the requisite number and have temporarily disabled the uploading function on your account. This decision was based on concerns about quality, composition, lighting, or other features of your initial batch of images and we have listed the reasons below.

I know a lot of the images are not great, but I was hoping to figure out what they like so I can get in, any help?

« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2008, 21:06 »
also what about models and objects isolated on white, is it good?

« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2008, 23:12 »
Did they list actual rejection reasons next to the photos that failed? The rejection reasons are important and may help indicate where your weaknesses are. If the reasons are noise/artifacts, you may have to adjust some things. If the rejection reasons are consistently lighting/white balance, then in their view, your exposures and color balancing are not quite right, or the strobes may be too hard on the subject.

The isolated on white look ok in the small size, like this one

but it is hard to see how you handled the edge detail in the small views.

The model shots overall are average. Again it is very hard to tell the overall quality in the small views, but you seem to have a lot of lighting issues.  I like this one in the way that you composed it, but the lighting, meaning the shadow cast from the arm, does not work especially with the warm color background

Same deal here - good photo but the lighting kills it

I like the look of the model and the way you handle pose and space in both shots.

The bikini shots are pretty poor and are limited in their marketabilty.

« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2008, 00:06 »
What about the models that are on isolated white backgrounds??

« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2008, 01:40 »
Without seeing the full size it is very hard to judge because the technical accuracy of the isolation work is an important component. Aesthetically, nothing jumped out at me as being overly good or overly bad.

Just a few comments

Here clothing does not complement model. flesh tone looks too blue, crop too tight, and nasty reflection on eyeglasses. Sidelight from left just unnatural. Can work in some photos but does not work here.

Here crop too tight, possiblly blown highlights, nothing interesting at all in the pic. I can also see a reflection of possibly a shooting umbrella in the bottom rim of the glasses, and the glasses may be a proprietary design.

Here the choice of the golden yellow fabric or blanket casts nasty color tone on the model's lower body half, while the torso skin looks balanced towards blue color temeperature. Face looks like too much flat makeup, washed out, or possible over Photoshopped, Model has good body tone though, but I think her look is more suited to athletic theme rather than boudoir attempt. Nice shadows shows body dimension, but that yellow blanket should not have been used. Throws off the skin tones and takes the image out of balance.

This one is just plain bad. It looks like she has a body part missing because the hand at left is blown in addition to being awkwardly posed.

Really we could play this game all day.

I suggest and take their lighting courses there. They are free. The Lighting forum over at DPReview used to be pretty good and the guys there pretty honest in their  critiques.

I can't give you magic formulas for acceptance, nor can anyone else here. Submit your very best work. Look at the variety of what you are submitting. Perhaps shoot one or two new just to show variety in subject matter.

Include a clear and concise business image instead of models trying to play coy to the camera and not succeeding. Here is one I like on SS that I picked at random. Maybe look at this guy's port and get some ideas. I don't know the photog here, but if I were buying and saw this, I would look at the rest of his stuff too. BTW, I think the image is nicely lit here, even showing the folds in the black fabric of tthe suit.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2008, 01:56 by snurder »

« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2008, 01:52 »
I understand there are some images that are bad, but the point of this post was to figure out what is good that I can submit...

« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2008, 02:20 »
I have given you all the help that I can. And you have still failed to answer the question regarding the reviewer's comments flagged against the individual images.

Were the rejection reasions for

1. Noise/artifacts

2. Lighting/white balance

3. Other


I have gven you a few good image possiblities in my previous posts. Your job to come up with the rest. If you want to make the $$, you need to heed decent advice and do the work. N one can do it for you.

« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2008, 02:23 »
Only a few on the last batch have a reason and the couple ones I submitted they spoke about noise.

« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2008, 02:27 »
also if they do not give a reason does that mean they would have accepted it?

« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2008, 03:03 »
If noise if the reason, then you need to look at the quality of your files and your workflow. Not knowing what camera you have and also not knowing if you shoot raw or jpegs, had to advise. If they stated noise, in 99% of cases they are right. So you must learn how to better analyze your files for technical flaws. No amount of picks of your pics by someone else will help that.

If no reason was given, it is "possible" that it would have been accepted. If they marked off the first 4 of the batch for noise though, they might have just grown tired of looking at it. Not trying to be disrespectful here. My brother was rejected by SS many times, along with a friend of his, and from a little analysis, thats what we concluded.

Shooting Raw files helps your subnission chances, because much of the noise factor can be eliminated in the raw processing stage.

« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2008, 12:31 »
I have the following equipment

Nikon D200 50mm 1.4

Shoot everything in raw (studio - 100), outside - 200-400 ISO

Tripod, remote release.. and so fourth :)

« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2008, 12:40 »
I have the following equipment

Nikon D200 50mm 1.4

Shoot everything in raw (studio - 100), outside - 200-400 ISO

Tripod, remote release.. and so fourth :)

I don't know what the d200 is like but I know my older generation Canon 1Ds (which shoots a great 100ISO file) really starts to suck at the 200-400 ISO range. I never use mine there. Newer cameras are better but you can still end up with bad shadow noise there.

To be honest, at some point you need to stop trying to salvage older material. I tried this in the past myself and its usually a waste of time. Slip that stuff through in batches later, once you get accepted. I would go forth by planning several shoots, take an image or two from each one, make sure the subject and content vary as much as possible, Once you have 500-1000 great images, pick the cleanest 10, stylistically and technically. Acceptance will be near guaranteed plus once you deluge them with the rest of your available portfolio you will enjoy a quick spurt of income.

« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2008, 15:54 »
Great post Zeus!

I try and get most of the noise out in raw processing using the Detail tab in PS CS2. I will adjust further in post processing if needed. Usually I don't have to.

The D200 can be a bit problematic with noise if your exposures are not spot on to begin with. It's just the nature of the sensor in the camera.

« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2008, 18:28 »
Yeah i agree.  I used an old 1Ds for a while and the images were great at ISO 100 but get up to even 400 and they were very grainy.  I upgraded to a 5D and ISO 400 images can easily be submitted as stock if they are not over processed... so yeah, newer cameras are definitely better.

i don't know if you would have to wait til you have 500 images though... but 100 perhaps and I think you should get in pretty easily.

« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2008, 01:43 »
I agree with most photos ozbandit choose, except isolated shots and landscape. Lighten up those shadows on the face of a model lying on the grass. Generally, they like bright faces and warm colors in those type of images. Diversity and good concept are main factors I think. I tried three times until I got in. One good man helped me to understand what is important.

« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2008, 14:18 »
sorry, what does amp it up mean?

« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2008, 18:29 »
amp it up generally means to improve color, contrast and white-balance in an image


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
Last post May 19, 2014, 16:50
by Batman
17 Replies
Last post July 27, 2015, 15:43
by etudiante_rapide
60 Replies
Last post October 31, 2016, 10:08
by gyllens
46 Replies
Last post March 22, 2017, 16:36
by Pauws99
64 Replies
Last post August 26, 2018, 10:45
by rinderart


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle