pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Submitting to Shutterstock....  (Read 11273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 12, 2007, 20:28 »
0
I tried countless of time, trying to get approved at Shutterstock.
I have been accepted at some the Big 6 but for some reason they won`t accept my submission at Shutterstock...

10 of 10 (rejected).

I mean come on! 6 of those image are doing really well at other agencies. What is it that they don`t see?


Anyone else having trouble getting in?





« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2007, 21:03 »
0
I have applied to SS twice and both failed. 10 out of 10  first time, 4 out of 10 rejects
second time. I got to IS on the first try.

vphoto

« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2007, 22:02 »
0
Submit illustrations (not vector), they accept anything.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2007, 22:06 by Kngkyle »

vonkara

« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2007, 11:02 »
0
I was accepted at my third time. One month waiting is long, but since I'm accepted, they accept about everything I submitted to them. But the best thing, it's the huge amount of downloads.

I like them even if there's just 0.25$ for each download...so keep submitting. Your effort will be rewarded.

« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2007, 19:23 »
0
Same here, rejected for the first time mainly because of noise issues.
I'm a mediocre photographer but I know what noise is as I often do retouch work for pro photographers and when people said they are super picky on noise I assure they REALLY are (one of the rejected image was a rendering faking a giant LCD screen and they took the screen pixelation as noise, LOL).
I assume that they want very polished images. I think you have to pay attention to use contrast curves or the usual hi-pass sharpening with images with fine bokeh for example.
It seems that they are also very picky on shadows and illuminations. At least in the first ten images.
In my next attempt I'll use a different post-production path, shooting with very diffuse illumination, no post sharpening and selective use of noise reduction.
Every site has a different approach, you have to change your products according to it at your very start, it's normal procedure like with every job.

« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2007, 05:54 »
0
After months of almost 100% acceptance, I hit the "crazy reviewer" too, and a batch of 5 was discarded as non-commercial. Funny, since it sells OK at DT. I don't get rejections for noise any more. I did 2 years ago.

You just have to learn the "trick" what SS likes. I don't use NR over all the image, just where noise is visible. SS still likes crisp images, but no noise in skies, skin folds, hair, dark areas. I routinely do NR on a second layer and then selectively erase those areas, with a 50% soft brush, keeping the well-lit parts crisp as they are.

That's what SS likes ;-)

Every site has a different approach, you have to change your products according to it at your very start, it's normal procedure like with every job.

Correct. But if you keep it crisp where it needs to be, you can upload to all other MS sites without any special treatment. As I do it now, I postproduce the shot for the toughest agent (SS) and then I'm sure that same shot will be accepted anywhere else - technically spoken. Of course, the second hurdle is to make the reviewer believe the shots is sellable, and opinions may vary in that respect...
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 06:02 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2007, 21:42 »
0
I was rejected the first time using all photos that had been accepted at BigStock or DT. I am currently awaiting the 30 day period before resubmitting ...

Any advice?


Mrk


Mark Payne's original photos, digital photo art, and graphic illustrations are currently available at the following links. Mark's approved online images, have met strict stock photography standards and are available for individual download, graphic design purposes, commercial or other uses with the purchase of special licensing rights.
 
http://www.dreamstime.com/resp384346
 
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account/gallery/view/189832
 
Thank you for your support.

« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2007, 23:36 »
0
I was rejected the first time using all photos that had been accepted at BigStock or DT. I am currently awaiting the 30 day period before resubmitting ...
Any advice?

If the rejection was for noise (I bet it was since your landscape portfolio at DT is very impressive), do an additional noise reduction on the noisy parts of the shots (especially the skies). Or resize to 4MP. Then resubmit.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2007, 23:44 by FlemishDreams »

« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2007, 13:01 »
0
Someone allready suggested to try illustrations, i'd say that's a good tip.

Shutterstock is really, really tolerant on illustrations in my opinion. So you could send in 10 basic illustrations for starters and then switch to normal photographs after your accepted. Otherwise.. kinda odd that your not getting accepted with good selling pics.

vonkara

« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2007, 14:16 »
0
I'm very lucky to don't get this crazy reviewer. Since I submit to Shutterstock, my approximative approval ratio is simply the highest from all. For Istock and Dreamstime, it's always seem like the guy is checking my approval ratio and reject or approve to keep me at the same place.
Do I paranoid??

« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2007, 17:19 »
0
I was rejected the first time using all photos that had been accepted at BigStock or DT. I am currently awaiting the 30 day period before resubmitting ...

Any advice?
Downsize everything to 4MP to minimum noise and maximize sharpness.

« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2007, 17:30 »
0
Hello all,

Since this thread is opened I have a question about submissions in SS.
Browsing some portfolios, I came across different variations of the same picture : for example a picture of a door where color was red on one and yellow on the other.Is it ok to do that on SS, I though it was not ?

Thanks
L

« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2007, 20:51 »
0
Hello all,

Since this thread is opened I have a question about submissions in SS.
Browsing some portfolios, I came across different variations of the same picture : for example a picture of a door where color was red on one and yellow on the other.Is it ok to do that on SS, I though it was not ?

Thanks
L

I've done that with different subjects.... and there's not been a pattern for me as far as rejections.  In fact, I have never been flagged for  "same thing different color"..   I have one particular pic of chrome mechanics tools and an original red tool box.  I have altered the color of the tool box to 4 other colors.  One site took them all (at different times-don't submit them all the same batch). Another site took two and rejected two others for focus which I found humorous. Same pic. 
  The point.  I haven't been shot down for it.  One more point, it has sold in more than one color... go figure.  8)=tom

« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2007, 21:05 »
0
Thanks Tom I was a bit afraid of the flagging for that it is good to know  ;D
Cheers
L

« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2007, 23:38 »
0
You should also consider making versions with different framing: horizontal, panoramic, square & vertical. I've been contacted by buyers with "Do you have something similar in a panorama?" questions.

« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2007, 14:33 »
0
Thanks for the tips Sharply Done
I looked into the horizontal-vertical thing already here:
http://microstockexperiment.blogspot.com/2007/11/experiment-4-horizontal-versus-vertical.html
Panoramic is a lot of work ! ;D

« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2007, 15:13 »
0
Thanks for the tips Sharply Done
I looked into the horizontal-vertical thing already here:
http://microstockexperiment.blogspot.com/2007/11/experiment-4-horizontal-versus-vertical.html
Panoramic is a lot of work ! ;D

Hey ldambies, I was going to leave a comment on your blog but I can't seem to sign in.  It's google.... It tells me I can't create an account because my e-mail is already in use, and then I try to log in with my e-mail and it tells me it doesn't exist.   Anyhow - interesting analysis.  Will be interesting to see results a after a few months.  I read somewhere that magazines buy mostly of vertical photos.   I'm not sure we sell much to magazines, and I haven't flipped through many lately.  I need to start blogging... so many hockey and ringette photos in the can to process and every year this time I get so many Christmas card shoots.... I'm the worst blogger of all time....  


« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2007, 16:56 »
0
Thanks Pixart:) It is true all of this takes an awful lot of time !
yes it will interesting to follow the trend of v/h. I plan to do the same with the same photo with different colors now.
I will post tomorrow my earnings so stay tuned:)
and please call me Laurent  ;D
L

« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2007, 18:07 »
0
You're welcome, Laurent ;)

« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2007, 20:43 »
0
Interesting exchange of views about picture formats.  Not something I have considered before.

« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2007, 00:34 »
0
Ditto!!  I was just rejected 10 for 10 and 8 were noise and 2 were lighting.  9 have already been accepted at other sites.  Although I'm sorry for those who were also rejected, I'm glad I'm not alone.

Do they look at these in a way I can't?  I looked at each one at 100% before submitting and trust me I wouldn't have submitted photos with noticable noise for my 1st 10!!

Smiles,
Connie

« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2007, 14:46 »
0
Ditto!!  I was just rejected 10 for 10 and 8 were noise and 2 were lighting.  9 have already been accepted at other sites.  Although I'm sorry for those who were also rejected, I'm glad I'm not alone.

Do they look at these in a way I can't?  I looked at each one at 100% before submitting and trust me I wouldn't have submitted photos with noticable noise for my 1st 10!!

Smiles,
Connie

Connie, there's no rhyme or reason.... I'll give you a perfect example.... just now before I came here I checked my mail only to find my last batch at SS  was totally rejected.
Here's why I just sit back and laugh about it.   One of the pictures rejected was for  "focus... not where we think the focus should be"
Okay....your opinion.    However,  that picture is already on IS where it has sold 65 times in the last 8-9 weeks.  And it has sold in XL..... evidently the focus was where those 65 buyers thought it should be...  as do those that buy it on 5 other sites......

A second picture was rejected for noise.  The exact same picture is already on SS  AND it's sells.  All I did was flip it horizontal and cropped it for a bit different look.  It's the same file!!  Even though it sells there already.... now it has noise....  guess it was sitting around on the hard drive too long and collected dust or something...maybe it mildewed... maybe the mice were walking around on it... i don't know....

Personally,  I think the rejection  "not focused where we think it should be "  is .......lame.    I know exactly where I wanted the focus. Why would I post a picture that I thought wasn't focused?

But.... in the end... I really don't care that they were rejeceted.  I don't own SS.... It's their site, and they make the calls. And that's fine with me.... not a problem... no sweat, their reviewer called it.... it's out of focus....

 I suppose IS will just keep selling the heck out of it!! As will the other 5.   

That's why there's so many micro sites....   if one doesn't want to sell it,   another one will....     LOL
               8)=tom
« Last Edit: December 01, 2007, 14:48 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2007, 16:01 »
0
when I first applied to SS I received an e-mail saying that I had been rejected but I was really disappointed with the outcome as I was confident with the work I submitted. then I decided not to apply again because I was too crossed with them  but a few days later (miraculously) I got another e-mail telling that I'd actually been accepted and initial e-mail had been sent due to  some sort of error.

I am glad I am on SS as it has always been among my top earners.

good luck with your next attempt I wouldn't give up if I were you.

« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2007, 21:25 »
0
Thannks guys (too funny Tom!) I'm so glad I found this site to help with my confidence.. at least a little.  ;D  Now off to submit to IS and FT.

Connie

« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2007, 19:30 »
0
Sharply_Done,

In regards to your comment above ... "Downsize everything to 4MP to minimum noise and maximize sharpness."

After converting my Tiffs to the highest quality .jpgs, I then run all of my images through Neat Image for noise reduction. This has been working well on DT, BigStock and FT

I am just trying to prepare the best I can for my next application to SS which should be coming up soon.

Mark




CCK

« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2007, 10:21 »
0
99% of my submissions rejected by SS is because of noise - I certainly can't see that noise at 100% view (and I know what noise looks like!) Yet I have a higher rejection rate at FT where all my rejected photos were accepted by all the other major agencies where I submit.

« Reply #26 on: December 16, 2007, 06:09 »
0
Hello!

I'm really dissapointed now too - the did rejected 3 pictures and the rest: "7 out of 10 have to be approved"...

some of my tries:
newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4315677_bauble_on_gold_background.php?id=4315677 [nonactive]
newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4607627_asian_beauty.php?id=4607627 [nonactive]
newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4854911_christmas_cookies.php?id=4854911 [nonactive]

Have a good day, Martin


CCK

« Reply #27 on: December 16, 2007, 10:11 »
0
My tips for getting past that initial 7/10 hurdle with SS:
Forget about picking images you think will be good sellers, rather go for photos that are technically good. I'm not sure if they are stricter with the first ten - I got 10/10 accepted and later a lot of photos rejected, but you will have lots of opportunity to upload good sellers later. Look for something with natural lighting because it lessens the possibility of problems with white balance. Even if you are satisfied with lighting of the photo, make sure the histogram also tells you its good. I sometimes get the impression some reviewers look at the histogram rather than the photo itself. Make sure the light source was behind you, reviewers tend to find more noise in shadows or back lit images. Don't sharpen photos at all. With SS I never make any adjustments in Photoshop, except for levels and selective noise reduction. Look at every part of the photo at 100% view, and if anything looks just remotely like there could be noise or jpeg artifacts, enlarge that part to 200% and get rid of the problem, or don't submit.

« Reply #28 on: December 16, 2007, 14:47 »
0
Thanks CCK.

My latest application is in with them. I will keep your advice in mind because if they reject my lates batch, that will have meant that they've rejected 30 images which have been previously approved across an average of 2-3 sites including the big 5 sites.

Mark

« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2007, 17:49 »
0
got approved today 10 out of 10. Quality of images become better as I got some CS2 skills.

vphoto


« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2007, 18:35 »
0
Congrats vphoto on getting approved at SS.

I am still trying :(

Mark

« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2007, 18:46 »
0
before I did not remove noise. with last submition I have removed noise with Noise Ninja plugin for CS2 and also sharpened with  Smart Sharpen filter in CS2 ( I did not do that before either).

vphoto



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
64 Replies
33082 Views
Last post November 20, 2009, 12:19
by leaf
16 Replies
6727 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 07:44
by scottbraut
8 Replies
5755 Views
Last post October 05, 2010, 14:34
by gubh83
38 Replies
8264 Views
Last post October 04, 2016, 03:23
by gyllens
33 Replies
6723 Views
Last post April 16, 2020, 03:42
by 08stock08

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle