Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - newly rejected and would like some constructive criticism

weags77 · Joined: 29 Mar 2012 Posts: 10

Hello all, I am new here and just got all of my photos rejected due to LCV and composition issues. Would like to get some opinions on what I need to work on...All suggestions wanted...I have no actual training other than reading a few books and experimenting...I may not even grasp what stock photography is...I am sure it shows but I would like to get better and any help is appreciated. Thanks

weags77 · Joined: 29 Mar 2012 Posts: 10

a few more...

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:30 pm

Composition is where you cut things off also study rule of thirds. And leave space for a designer.

The DOF is too shallow on these and forget anything to do with cars recognizable or otherwise they are copyright/trademark protected.

As well as anything that is art must have a release by the artist.

And we need the 100% crops to check the focus but i will bet that they are OOF because of your use of a shallow DOF.

weags77 · Joined: 29 Mar 2012 Posts: 10

Thank for the informative reply. Here are a few 100% crops...I think.

Thanks again and I will try to get more learned in the technical aspects you mention.

I don't mean to sound stupid but as far as the art copyright goes, would the mask and/or indian statue be subject to the release too? They were bought at a flea market and there is no copyrights that I can see.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 3:00 pm

The main thing that you are missing is what a good stock shot is. It is one that will help sell or promote a product, concept or idea. Look in magazines that deal with life such as Family Circle, Good Housekeeping, Food and Wine, Fitness, Business, Travel etc. The ads in those magazines are mainly stock shots. You can also find them on billboards, the sides of some buses and trucks and in travel brochures.

A good stock shot also needs to be done technically well. Tack sharp focus in the critical areas, good use of depth of field, good composition, good lighting and exposure and good commercial value.

From looking at your shots you need to work on focus and depth of field. Notice in some of your shots where the front is badly out of focus? That is due to a shallow depth of field and that OOF area is where the eye is drawn. You want the DOF to draw the eye TO the critical part of the shot so the OOF areas cannot be overwhelming.

Here is an article I wrote for Shutterstock that is geared toward the newcomer. I hope it will help give you an idea of how to proceed with stock photography.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/115/article2.html

Also if you go to You Tube and search it with Rinder Smith Photography you will find a number of videos that should help you.

rinder99 · Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:12 pm

Agree with the reviewer on these.These are opposite of stock Im afraid. keep shooting, Search the site, search our ports. you'll start to see what this is about. good luck.The competition here is VERY,VERY high.

jeffbanke · Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:39 pm

As the guys have already stated, stock images are an animal unto themselves, in that they support a concept, technique, service or product. They are very rarely used as they leave our computers, and in some cases become almost unrecognizable as our original image. Often they are added with other images to make a composite. They need to be clean, simple images of very high technical quality.
What is often not understood by many newbies is that many people have been at this game for a number of years. Many of these people may have started with a low end camera possibly even a point and shoot, but as time has passed the skills of the contributors has increased as has the level of the equipment they are using. What this has done is to create an uneven playing field, in that your competition as a newbie is much greater than it was when many of the long term folks started. I am sure that if you look into the portfolios of anyone already here there is some of their earlier work that you might say "I can do better than that!", but look closely at the image numbers, and you will see the progression of their work.
You must also understand that many are using Photoshop CS5, and as such their skills and speed in processing images has accelerated.
Some are also using the highest end computers to futher accelerate the processing time, and complexity of image processing.
Some are using high end cameras of the Nikon D3 class, or even in the case of a few of the top performers, HAssleblad cameras with 36 or 50 Meg digital backs. Some employ 6 people and have made this a true business.
This is yuor competition!
Hopefully this explains why it is increasingly more difficult to get accepted, and with 270,000 contributors, increasigly more difficult to make a business out of providing stock, as the size of the pie decreases with every new contributor, and because buyers tend to have specific contributors they go to for images, which means that all the other contributors are playing second fiddle. :-)

weags77 · Joined: 29 Mar 2012 Posts: 10

Thanks to all that replied. I certainly didn't grasp the full concept of stock photography. You all have pointed me in the right direction. I need to get more familiar with todays stock photos and go back to basics and really get the technical aspects of photography down. I cannot compete with the top guys as far as equipment goes, so getting the technical aspects and post processing down seems to be one of the many steps needed to succeed in this field.

Once again I really do appreciate you taking it easy on me but being straight up and to the point. All comments were extremely helpful. Thank you

weags77 · Joined: 29 Mar 2012 Posts: 10

Ok I am pretty sure I have many technical flaws in these other photos, but are these more in the direction of stock photography, just so I have an idea of a direction to take with my photos as I practice. I may not be grasping leaving a photo with extra space or keeping it simple while still attention grabbing.

weags77 · Joined: 29 Mar 2012 Posts: 10

one more

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:45 am

_DSC9883.jpg underexposed

_DSC9566.jpg Underexposed

Landscapes Need to be of a familiar tourist attraction that is a recognized area.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:29 am

Ok, here is what you do. Think of yourself as a person who is planning a vacation and you are wondering where to go. You pick up some brochures and take a look at the images. When you look at the last few you posted do you think that they would make you the potential tourist want to go to those places? (the last one is heading in the right direction).

I specialize in food and landscape photography. When I do a food shot what I want is the viewer to look at the image and want to ram their head through the monitor to get at it and eat it.

The same holds true for landscape photography. You want the viewer to not be able to control themselves and to run out and book a trip to the place where the images come from.

Don't take a shot just for the sake of taking a shot. Each one you do should have a purpose to it. When you combine the technical skills with the right scene you are then heading in the right direction.

Also don't think that you need all kinds of expensive equipment to do this. Having quality equipment makes the job easier but if you know what you are doing you can work magic with basic equipment. The thing you want the very best you can afford are your lenses. A camera is really nothing more than a box that captures light. What is important is how good the glass or lens is that lets that light through.

rinder99 · Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:41 am

One guy can have a $45,000 Hasselblad, The other guy can have a $800 Camera. The guy that understands Lighting and exposure and the ability to capture it and tell a story WILL ALWAYS WIN. It ain't the camera My Friend. It's the guy hitting the shutter. Always has been and hopefully always will be.

jeffbanke · Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:14 am

I agree with Dave and Laurin, I only mentioned the Hassleblad (Yuri's camera) and D3 (Laurin's camera), simply to illustrate from a technical stanpoint the bar has been set very high! And yes there are still people submitting and getting images accepted, taken by relatively low end cameras.

I also mentioned that from the skill standpoint many have been doing this for years, have increased their skills with ALL the tools avaialble including software, digital cameras and applied the skills they had previously from film days. Others who started here a few years ago, have learnt those skills which has also increased the bar height, making it increasingly more difficult for a newbie.

rinder99 · Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:16 pm

well said.