MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Flashback of "no flowers"?  (Read 4100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 06, 2008, 11:17 »
0
Just a little bit of curiosity. Couple of my flower shots somehow got in with original submission. 3-4 from the same set (and quality) were later rejected because of "we do not need this". But... First two continue to get couple downloads per day. Is this just a customer hunger for no/little new flower shots?
I see the same policy on several sites, does it mean that soon nobody will be able to get flower picture that is not couple years old?


« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2008, 13:52 »
0
I keep on uploading flowers (every once in a while, but still...) and most of them pass rejection. Not that they are so high-class, but I don't know, they seem to good enough. And they are not best-sellers but steady ones. I think, they do have very much flower pictures in stock - because it is so easy to shoot. But it must be also a subject that sells good. Because a flower can be a symbol for many occasions, so it is kind of a multilateral thing. AND almost everybody likes it.

So as long as you just don't walk into your garden and shoot whatever comes in front of your lense, flowers will have a chance... I always try to bring the flower into a context with other things, so that it gives a symbol for love, happiness, easter, marriage - whatever

« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2008, 14:04 »
0
Just to give an example -

"Bestseller" - http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6599690/red-and-yellow
Rejected for theme - http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6599656/red-tulip-dale

Another pair (bestseller - rejected), though here I can buy difference in composition
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6471416/tulips
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6599710/red-transparent-tulips

I just do not see a lot of difference in terms of "marketability"  :)
« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 14:56 by UncleGene »

« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2008, 19:37 »
0
Just a little bit of curiosity. Couple of my flower shots somehow got in with original submission. 3-4 from the same set (and quality) were later rejected because of "we do not need this". But... First two continue to get couple downloads per day. Is this just a customer hunger for no/little new flower shots?
I see the same policy on several sites, does it mean that soon nobody will be able to get flower picture that is not couple years old?

I find them hit and miss for rejection.  a chyrsanthemum I took got the we dont need this, but sold same day on both canstock and BigStock.

I dont do a lot but find it helps if you can name the flower rather than just "flower"

Phil

« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2008, 23:38 »
0

So as long as you just don't walk into your garden and shoot whatever comes in front of your lense,

You say that, but I've had two extended license sales (iStock) on flower shots that I just literally took when spending ten minutes shooting whatever I could for stock in my garden.  They are wanted, they just have to be technically perfect!

DanP68

« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2008, 23:38 »
0
Just to give an example -

"Bestseller" - http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6599690/red-and-yellow
Rejected for theme - http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6599656/red-tulip-dale

Another pair (bestseller - rejected), though here I can buy difference in composition
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6471416/tulips
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/6599710/red-transparent-tulips

I just do not see a lot of difference in terms of "marketability"  :)



I like your shots, but lets be forthcoming.

Define "Best seller."  You only have 3 sales lifetime at Dreamstime, and 3 sales lifetime at iStockphoto.  How many sales can that flower shot realistically have?  I don't mean to be harsh, but I think saying Shutterstock is turning down best sellers is a bit misleading.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 00:16 by DanP68 »

DanP68

« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2008, 23:44 »
0
There is a clear difference in your first example between the two photos, and I completely agree with the reasoning of the reviewer.

The first effectively doubles the color palette, and it shows a strong contrast between the colors.  This makes the image far more interesting, and a much stronger story.

The second picture on the other hand is simply a bunch of tulips, taken from an uninteresting perspective.  While I wouldn't have been surprised if it had been let through, I seriously doubt it would have sold as many times as the first photo.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 23:52 by DanP68 »

« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2008, 00:55 »
0
By "bestseller" I mean it sells best on _SS_ (we are in SS's section of forum), not others. The same shots rejected in other places - absolutely no questions. And yes, I can buy your explanation.

BTW, both go head to head n SS.

P.S. I admit that I'm new to the game and just trying to learn the rules

P.P.S. DanP68 - congrats with editors pick! Well deserved!
« Last Edit: March 07, 2008, 02:24 by UncleGene »

« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2008, 21:52 »
0
UncleGene you've got a point there  :)

"I see the same policy on several sites, does it mean that soon nobody will be able to get flower picture that is not couple years old?..."

A better policy would be, or at least that I would adhere to if I were an editor, is that a great shot is a great shot, period. 

The reality of things though is that the flowers are readily available to most, and a very high percentage will be submitted especially by those starting out. To be competitive in the microstock model, the agency needs to offer a variety of goods with a good portion of that subject matter being beyond the bounds and/or capablities of the "company guy who has a camera". The flower shots need to be technically perfect, and should also have that "little bit extra" that makes it unique. Not bashing flower shooters, because I love to do it myself, but I only send in the very best, and even some of those are bounced, so I delegate them for greeting cards etc which I offer to some local stores and some other uses.

One of my orchid shots bounced by shutterstock last year just took a $500 prize in a competition over last summer. Oh well, I guess their policies aren't perfect!  :)

« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2008, 05:44 »
0
Flower shots are discouraged, because of the sheer volume the sites receive.  A surprising number of flower shots I see as a reviewer everyday are ordinary, run-of-the-mill snapshots that should have been scrapped.  Personally, I only accept the best of the best of common flowers (roses, sunflowers), and give some leeway to unusual or native wildflowers that aren't photographed as often.   


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
5328 Views
Last post June 11, 2007, 07:55
by Bateleur
2 Replies
4341 Views
Last post June 17, 2007, 21:20
by litifeta
1 Replies
4685 Views
Last post July 06, 2007, 19:41
by HughStoneIan
0 Replies
3340 Views
Last post July 08, 2007, 04:06
by rjmiz
2 Replies
6366 Views
Last post September 11, 2007, 02:14
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors