rejected woes by shutterstock etc pls advise

[Sion]

Please dont take this the wrong way, but thats utter crap. I know many photographers on Shutterstock that shoot solely compact cameras and there stuff is way better than most peoples.

So for the one hundredth time:

ITS NOT ABOUT THE CAMERA, ITS ABOUT THE FINAL PICTURE

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ukenny123.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-uPaul_Lewis.html

Alot of the photos in those galleries are all from compact cameras. And these guys do alright!

This is true. Most microstock sites require only 3MP.

I have a friend who submitted to most microstock site with a 5Mp compact.

He was trained in a commercial photography college in Tokyo. His works have a professional polish about them. Unfortunately he didn't pursue a career in photography after returning home.

Having said that I would consider DSLR a more productive and easier option than a compact to produce stock photos if you do high volume of shots weekly. The price of a DSLR is getting much cheaper these days.

Because of the questionable and inconsistent standards among QC inspectors, you just don't want to give them any excuse to reject your hard work.

 

[marios_pittas]

In that case alot of others before me also posted crap when we advised the ts why submitting as a compact gets him no business.....

I wouldn't say it so. Your advice is sensible. However, you only use what you need, especially when a photo is to be used for the web, you can get away with "lower" quality standards. Yet, it is almost impossible to define lower quality, how low can one go right? So if a photo is in a subject area where their is demand and not much supply then you probably can get more $ per photos (which is why I agree with the suggestion of shooting with asian people in the photos as that is not a market fully developed in my opinion - just make sure you have model releases if that is necessary).

But when searching for images (at least I know I do), we first search for the subject especially when there is so much available nowdays. So a subject high in demand would "probably" yield better returns. I say probably because a subject high in demand would probably (!) attract more photographers, after which quality does come into play, the need for an isolated subject or not will also come into play after that (e.g. less work to isolate by the designer).. Thus shooting more than one variation, angle etc can be as important as finding the right subject. I know with micro sites I often check to see what other photos and variations the photographer has uploaded.. also useful..

leobox1, maybe you need to show some samples to some of the people who responded to you (not to me). I am aware that Sion has been in this business for a long time and his work is very adorable (!).. so bug them till you have learned enough.. Persistance is also important here..

-- Marios

 

[viix]

Before these thread goes any deeper, I would like to point you guys to another perspective.

I am a heavy user of stock photography, paid royalties and creative commons, both on a daily basis. The subscriptions I've paid is hefty. Easily amounting to a few grands a month on projects for my clients.

Now, as their user, I have high expectations of the work, and most times, to the extent I have liased with the photographer for specific shoots/special rights and most have delivered on time, on budget.

Now, not downplaying on the quaility or standards of CSer work, most shot I use in my work and the shots my clients require are not your run of the mill macro or people/landscape shots you see in the critique sections of CS. We usually require photos so detailed that only a specific clothing, at a specific position/angle, lighting and even location is accepted.

My expections as a client/end user is very high, so I do not see why the expectations towards you should be any less. We often feedback to them what we require and hence probably affected most of the usual contributors' requirements also.

Stock sites takes in stuff that sell.. not your everyday photo collections.. it's just business.

 

[marios_pittas]

Before these thread goes any deeper, I would like to point you guys to another persective.

I am a heavy user of stock photography, paid royalties and creative common on a daily basis. The subscriptions I've paid is hefty. Easily amounting to a few grands a month on projects for my clients.

Now, as their user, I have high expectations of the work, and most times, to the extent I have liased with the photographer for specific shoots/special rights and most have delivered on time, on budget.

Now, not downplaying on the quaility or standards of CSer work, most shot I use in my work and shots my clients require are not your run of the mill macro or people/landscape shots you see in the critique sections of CS. We usually require photos so detailed that only a specific clothing, at a specific position/angle, lighting and even location is accepted.

My expections as a client/end user is very high, so I do not see why the expectations towards you should be any less. We often feedback to them what we require and hence probably affected most of the usual contributors' requirements also.

Stock sites takes in stuff that sell.. not your photo collections.. it's just business.

True, but not every project has the finances to support $500 per photo. Some are only willing to pay $2 per photo At that end of the market, sites such as http://www.fotolia.com/ operate in a slight different manner with more flexibility..

 

[viix]

True, but not every project has the finances to support $500 per photo. Some are only willing to pay $2 per photo At that end of the market, sites such as http://www.fotolia.com/ operate in a slight different manner with more flexibility..

May I add also, the vast amounts of creative commons photos available on flickr that are of high standards that can readily be used for commercial purposes. There are a few flickr members in there that has become my steady suppliers that we even exchanged assets and projects.

Well, I ain't throwing the wet blanket here, but rather hope we understand the market better to provide where there is demand instead of shooting everyday stuff that has no commercial value, whether free or a grand a pop.

For the TS, general rule of thumb is to shoot something no one has easy access to, and shoot it better than what you can google/flickr from.
The Singapore public transport/road networks shots seems to be an area I'm always in need of good stock pictures, and that are very limited.

 

[JacePhoto]

May I add also, the vast amounts of creative commons photos available on flickr that are of high standards that can readily be used for commercial purposes. There are a few flickr members in there that has become my steady suppliers that we even exchanged assets and projects.

Well, I ain't throwing the wet blanket here, but rather hope we understand the market better to provide where there is demand instead of shooting everyday stuff that has no commercial value, whether free or a grand a pop.

For the TS, general rule of thumb is to shoot something no one has easy access to, and shoot it better than what you can google/flickr from.
The Singapore public transport/road networks shots seems to be an area I'm always in need of good stock pictures, and that are very limited.

Hi Viix,

I have been trying to shoot that subject for quite some time, but runs into IP and Trademark issues. All the buses, SBS transport, has a distinctive patterns to it and would definitely face issues when uploading. Same goes for buildings which require property releases.

Any advice to this?

- Jace

 

[hazmee]

This you have to check with SBS transport yourself and seek permission. With all the trouble you have to go through, I'd rather sell these pics as editorial and rights managed to stay clear of these legal mumbo jumbo. Been there, done that.

 

[wildstallion]

Hi Viix,

I have been trying to shoot that subject for quite some time, but runs into IP and Trademark issues. All the buses, SBS transport, has a distinctive patterns to it and would definitely face issues when uploading. Same goes for buildings which require property releases.

Any advice to this?

- Jace

Clone out the logos and patterns, then upload.

 

[Darcy.Zhou]

:thumbsup:

May I add also, the vast amounts of creative commons photos available on flickr that are of high standards that can readily be used for commercial purposes. There are a few flickr members in there that has become my steady suppliers that we even exchanged assets and projects.

Well, I ain't throwing the wet blanket here, but rather hope we understand the market better to provide where there is demand instead of shooting everyday stuff that has no commercial value, whether free or a grand a pop.

For the TS, general rule of thumb is to shoot something no one has easy access to, and shoot it better than what you can google/flickr from.
The Singapore public transport/road networks shots seems to be an area I'm always in need of good stock pictures, and that are very limited.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

 

[nemesis32]

I think when it comes to rejection rate, sometimes we need to look at our photos and be more critical. I think if we are more critical then the success rate will be better. A portfolio of say 10 excellent shots is still better than 50 good to excellent shots.

 

[Sion]

One thing if you deal with the QC inspectors especially Shutterstock and Istockphoto, after a while you would want to take their judgements with a laugh.

For example:

1. One inspector approved you on the strenght of your submissions. The same photo may be later rejected by another inspector because of a quality issue.

2. Photo rejected by one inspector would be accepted by another one if you submit it again. However this practice is being discouraged by Shutterstock. It would earn you a warning.

3. One microstock site would reject your photo because of no commercial value. But it would be accepted by another one site and earn you some downloads.

4. Not too long along a rogue Shutterstock inspector has rejected loads of photos because of the reason of "No Commercial Value". There were a long list of protest against this person in their forum. Thankfully the inspector was taken out. Whatever he rejected was later being accepted.

5. There have been accusations that inspectors have potential conflict of interest because they are photographers of the site too. If one such inspector has a strong portfolio of roses, he could reject many other roses photos so to reduce competition. Or if he sees a photo with a great concept he may reject it and then copy the idea himself. However these are only rumours that I've read a few times in the net.

6. The photos of a prominent and successful Getty shooter by the name of Don Farral were recently rejected by an istockphoto inspector. This is his site:

http://www.lightworksdigital.com/

And this is his studio:

Conclusion: Rejects are part of life and learn to live with them.

 

[eastwest]

The microstock sites are no longer places where you can 'learn' photography. Probably up to a year ago, keen amateurs were able to upload ten shots, taken with a prosumer non-DSLR and be accepted. They then progressed from uploading what was on their hard-drive, to taking some stock shots, learning through rejections and then buying a DSLR, again learning through rejections etc etc...

The sites don't need photographers of this standard now as they already have image banks of 3 to 4 million images.

My advice to any budding young stock photographers would be to learn the skills needed to succeed BEFORE trying to submit. The agencies are no longer schools for photography skills - you need to know them before you get accepted.

I was lucky, I joined when the new microstock agencies just started, was accepted with some mediocre images and learned along the way. It just isn't going to happen like this for anyone anymore.

 

[JacePhoto]

wow, thanks for sharing...

i was suspicious. at least, now i have it answered...

One thing if you deal with the QC inspectors especially Shutterstock and Istockphoto, after a while you would want to take their judgements with a laugh.

For example:

1. One inspector approved you on the strenght of your submissions. The same photo may be later rejected by another inspector because of a quality issue.

2. Photo rejected by one inspector would be accepted by another one if you submit it again. However this practice is being discouraged by Shutterstock. It would earn you a warning.

3. One microstock site would reject your photo because of no commercial value. But it would be accepted by another one site and earn you some downloads.

4. Not too long along a rogue Shutterstock inspector has rejected loads of photos because of the reason of "No Commercial Value". There were a long list of protest against this person in their forum. Thankfully the inspector was taken out. Whatever he rejected was later being accepted.

5. There have been accusations that inspectors have potential conflict of interest because they are photographers of the site too. If one such inspector has a strong portfolio of roses, he could reject many other roses photos so to reduce competition. Or if he sees a photo with a great concept he may reject it and then copy the idea himself. However these are only rumours that I've read a few times in the net.

6. The photos of a prominent and successful Getty shooter by the name of Don Farral were recently rejected by an istockphoto inspector. This is his site:

http://www.lightworksdigital.com/

And this is his studio:

Conclusion: Rejects are part of life and learn to live with them.

 

[viix]

Hi Viix,

I have been trying to shoot that subject for quite some time, but runs into IP and Trademark issues. All the buses, SBS transport, has a distinctive patterns to it and would definitely face issues when uploading. Same goes for buildings which require property releases.

Any advice to this?

- Jace

Avoid shooting a full building facade or an iconic landmarks. Don't even bother with capturing the whole public transport vehicle.. These will require plenty of touch ups.
What I meant was photos that are generic, with or without people, where the pictures do not promote a specific corporation or government agency (which we usually DI away anyway), but rather display a signature of Singapore. Google or flickr transport and you should get what I mean.

 

[orsonsurf]

Hi there, if you have problems with accepting your photos on Shutterstock, read this article: 10 tips for photographers how to get accepted by ShutterStock.

I hope it will help you!

 

[KaroNowo]

What I could advice you is to have a try on another microstock websites.
The biggest websited like: istockphoto or shutterstock have allready collected such a huge amount of images, that it's really difficult to get your images accepted.
Try to submit to some "newer" microstock websited that are not so picky.
I have some pics on 123rf that were rejected on dreamstime and istock (Their explanation: It's a very well covered theme in our data base...) and they are acctually selling quite well.

 

[btrenkel]

I think we're mixing 2 things a bit in the discussion: 1) Producing technical quality, which is what inspection is about, and 2) quality for design, which is suitability for stock.

1) you can learn quickly, so it is not difficult to pass inspection. It's not about topics being covered in the big libraries. I've never had a rejection for that, but many for technical reasons
2) is very difficult to learn. Some have an eye for design, some learn it over time, and some never get it

My own experience: technical solid pictures are easy to do, really good pictures are difficult to pull off. But it is fun. Also see the latest post from Yuri 'Stock buyers are geeks...are you?'

 

[sprintist]

What I could advice you is to have a try on another microstock websites.
The biggest websited like: istockphoto or shutterstock have allready collected such a huge amount of images, that it's really difficult to get your images accepted.
Try to submit to some "newer" microstock websited that are not so picky.
I have some pics on 123rf that were rejected on dreamstime and istock (Their explanation: It's a very well covered theme in our data base...) and they are acctually selling quite well.

but its not necessary to change to another stock site just because you failed once, only shows the lack of determination and motivation to create new ideas. just keep trying, like zac08 always say on cs, keep shooting keep learning

 

[j4ck1nth3b0x]

I gave up after 1 try. Heh.

Not worth the extra time and effort.

 

[gnohz]

I think istock is even worse, stricter than shutterstock. Sometimes we are very attached to our photos such that we are unable to look at them in a critical way. But it does make us rethink about our own photos and make us a better photographer. (in terms of commercial photos )