pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Does Shutterstock care what we think or post about?  (Read 15457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 08, 2014, 08:49 »
0
Would you care to show me the butterfly pictures? I have a special interest in that kind of pictures.


Sure. Always happy to show off my work!  :D

You'll find those five Taxiles Skipper images (right next to a new series of Horseshoe Crabs) in the "latest uploads" section on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_info


And if you'd like to see four images of a Common Checkered Skipper, look for them on bright yellow flowers on this page:

http://www.dreamstime.com/marthamarks_more-latest-adition_pg1


Ss is always bothered if large parts of the image is out of DOF, and it can easlily be with a small butterfly on a large flower taken with macro.


« Reply #76 on: August 08, 2014, 09:29 »
+1

Ss is always bothered if large parts of the image is out of DOF, and it can easlily be with a small butterfly on a large flower taken with macro.

That may well be true. However, with subjects like insects in their natural setting (as opposed to half-frozen in a studio set-up) it's a common situation.

See the four butterflies-on-yellow-flowers images that SS did accept just a few weeks ago, on the 8th line down on my "new images" page:

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=508327&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=1

Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.

(As an aside, FWIW, the yellow flowers in both the accepted images and the rejected ones are only about 1 1/2" in diameter. They're native Coreopsis ("Tickseed") plants growing in pots on my balcony. The tiny-tiny skippers are frequent summer visitors. From inside our house, you almost can't see them as they take nectar from the flowers.)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 09:31 by marthamarks »

ShadySue

« Reply #77 on: August 11, 2014, 21:58 »
0
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2014, 22:04 »
+2
formally enough, i dont think SS gives a da**.

« Reply #79 on: August 11, 2014, 23:18 »
+1
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D i think u r being too kind;
i don't think their curating-cluelessness (a class of its own) only applies to wildlife pics   ;)

i recall someone here who said they got rejections on images lit by  setting sun 3400K being rejected for wrong WB .   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 
Q :
how do u expect 5600K from 3400K? 
A: have eyes like a certain breed of SS reviewer(s).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 23:31 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #80 on: August 12, 2014, 09:04 »
+1
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.

ShadySue

« Reply #81 on: August 12, 2014, 09:07 »
0
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.
Depending on the photo, that indeed can be all that matters; but I've heard of SS rejections for d-o-f where the eyes were perfectly sharp.

« Reply #82 on: August 12, 2014, 09:22 »
0
All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.

That's my observation too. It's one of two things I will automatically reject my own images for. The other is if there's no catch-light in the eye.

Without a catch-light, the image looks dead, no matter how sharp it may be otherwise.

« Reply #83 on: August 12, 2014, 09:41 »
0
The search in the forum doesn't work, it always goes to a white screen.  It's been happening for a while, any plans on fixing that?

Valo

« Reply #84 on: August 12, 2014, 11:24 »
0
There will be a new moderated forum in about two months.

« Reply #85 on: August 12, 2014, 11:33 »
0
There will be a new moderated forum in about two months.
I haven't seen an announcement for that do you have more info?

« Reply #86 on: August 12, 2014, 12:22 »
0
Actually, it's a common situation with "wildlife in nature" images, especially when you're shooting with a long lens at 4 or 4.5. You can see several other examples on that same page and many more throughout my SS portfolio. In the past, they haven't rejected many for that reason.
I've read others saying their shallow-dof real wildlife pics were rejected at SS for that reason. I always assumed they were inspected by clueless-about-wildlife studio togs.

All they care about is the eyes being sharp, from my experience.
Depending on the photo, that indeed can be all that matters; but I've heard of SS rejections for d-o-f where the eyes were perfectly sharp.

Right. It would depend on the photo and the reviewer's judgment. I don't do them very often, but occasionally I'll do an insect macro or something outdoors where all I could get was the eyes in focus, and they've been accepted. I do a lot of natural light portraits at f2.8 or f4, and in those, only the eyes are sharp. Same thing with animals. I have a portrait of a police dog where the snout is out of focus, but the eyes are sharp and it passed. I've never had an issue as long as the eyes are sharp.

Sometimes I get a shot where one eye is sharp and the other eye is out of focus because I ran out of depth of field when the subjected turned a little. I generally reject those myself.

« Reply #87 on: August 15, 2014, 16:18 »
+1
Well, speaking of butterflies today SS accepted 5 of 6 Western Tiger Swallowtail images that I uploaded last night:

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=508327&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=1

Yesterday morning, this gorgeous creature happened to land on a pot of orange zinnias on my balcony. This morning, he's a great addition to my portfolio. Sweet!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3718 Views
Last post December 09, 2007, 22:51
by ChrisRabior
Care for a Cup of Tea?

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1411 Views
Last post October 25, 2007, 04:52
by Istock News
16 Replies
3026 Views
Last post July 04, 2013, 16:34
by franky242
10 Replies
2293 Views
Last post April 03, 2017, 04:23
by Pauws99
5 Replies
410 Views
Last post May 25, 2019, 14:05
by obj owl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results