Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

rtsfoto · Joined: 16 Apr 2012 Posts: 4

I have just had most of my ten submissions rejected, which if I am to be honest, shocked me.
I try and get all my images, correct in camera, I do not like to use Photoshop, because I believe that, photographers who add blue skies or fluffy clouds or saturate any colors or do any major changes are producing a false image,

Perhaps it is because I am from the old school , of film. I have tried to attach one of my images they rejected, but for some reason it wont show on here.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 7:13 am

There are many of us here who are old school photographers who started in film decades ago. We had to learn that stock is a different type of animal and needs to be treated as such. Not all images need to be totally redone and many of us agree to get it as good as possible in camera and just enhance in Photoshop.

Those who add skies are not doing anything wrong they are just supplying the customer with what they want. This does not mean that you must forget your other style of photography because we still do that type of photography as well.

It is best to post your work in the Critique forum. The first post there will explain how to post the images. Basically you need to make the main shot no bigger than 500 pixels on the longest side and less than 247k. Please make sure to post 100% crops of the critical areas so we can check for focus and noise.

pharm · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 9406 Location: Never quite sure

I used to have the same attitude. I felt like "Photoshopped" images were somehow "fake". I started playing with it just for fun and then one day I heard myself saying "Photoshop is my darkroom now". I realized that it was basically no different from when I used to dodge and burn in the darkroom, only it was easier to do in Photoshop. I could also do a lot more.

From a strictly artistic photography point of view, I understand your reservations. When offering images for sale/license, as Dave said, we have to produce what they want, not necessarily what WE want. If a buyer wants an image of a beautiful lake scene but he/she wants a huge duck flying over the lake, then we can provide it, even though it's not real. Our goal, as is Shutterstock's, is to make money. It's a business and to keep up with "the times" and stay alive, a business has to be willing to change and offer what their customers want. If they want images with pretty blue skies and fluffy clouds, but they also want to see the lake that we shot "naturally", then we have to adjust, work a little magic in Photoshop, and let them have what they want.

Also, if your images were rejected, it's because they didn't meet SS standards. They may have had uneven lighting or noise, etc. It doesn't mean they're not good images, just not the kind of images that SS customers buy. It was an adjustment for me, and a lot of submitters here, to have to watch for noise, even lighting, etc. but my photography skills (even without Photoshop) improved greatly because of it.

Anyway, hope that helps a little.

rtsfoto · Joined: 16 Apr 2012 Posts: 4

Another thing, I submitted two images of a Roman soldier and a Old Thai man, both in focus and as I thought nice portraits, but oh no they said i required a

Model release form, so for example if I took a image of Tom Hanks or Brad Pitt, who by the way are over here in Malta, filming on a regular basis,
should I then, approach them to ask them to sign, my model release form.
If I should submit the image to SS.

There seems to be one rule for them and one rule for us.

rtsfoto · Joined: 16 Apr 2012 Posts: 4

Thanks pharm
I understand what you are saying, but it gets so frustrating sometimes. I take photographic images to the best of my ability, some of the images that I submitted to SS, have been praised by many different photographers .
But yet they have rejected them.
One in particular is Reflections in the Night
i captured this image by chance, the image that you can see, is the image that I caught in the camera,
Natural light, nothing added nothing taken away.
Please have a look. wwwrussellswindlehurstphotography.com

hhltdave5 · Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 4:30 pm

hhltdave5 · Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 4:34 pm

mauijon · Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 4279 Location: Maui, Hawaii

I took a look at your port as listed. Most of the shots either require a model or property release (or editorial submission.) Many have the subject centered, spoiling the composition (see Rule of Thirds) and many are taken at the wrong time of day and have heavy shadows.

Most of these, sorry to say, have little stock value and do not further the idea to enhance or sell a product or concept. Think about the future use of your images. They hopefully can be used by a designer whole, or parts of the shot can be lifted and put into another image which would tend to sell a product.

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 4:55 pm

Since you have them on a site it is easy to post them here.

But we need to see a full size image and a 100% crop of the image at no larger then 500x500.

Dave explained where you can do that.

Also Hanks and Pitt are submitted as Editorial anyone else unless they fall into the editorial category will need a model release.

This one has copyrights all over it may have noise in the sky has uneven lighting and looks OOF.

rtsfoto · Joined: 16 Apr 2012 Posts: 4

Thanks everybody for your help and advice, I appreciate your feedback.

With reference to the shadows, as you can imagine here in Malta we have a lot of sunshine and I am restricted to the time I can shoot, if I am covering an event, I can only shoot when the event is happening.
Obviously I cant stop everyone that I am photographing and ask them to sign a MRF.

It looks like I will have to change my style of photography if I want to submit images to SS.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:41 am