Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

rinder99 · Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:42 pm

The shot you posted is an effect. It's not supposed to be sharp. it shows Movement. don't confuse a static image with Motion. Honestly we really can't do the work for you by typing Nor can we teach you Photography, we are here solely to help you get accepted , You must do the work, Just like we had to Long before the internet, You need to have a full understanding Of DOF,Composition and exposure, That can take months or years, It depends on you. We will give you tips and advice But Really....Go Take a class, Or join A camera club and shoot till your finger bleeds, Thats what we did.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:09 pm

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2749 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

Sometimes blur is a nice effect to show motion and speed, but you need to be able to tell what it is. Blur for blur sake, like what you have, isn't going to work. Telling the story of a street car would work better with panning, which would allow the car to be in focus and the background to blur, creating the impression of speed. Also, when you compose a moving subject in a photograph, you generally want to leave the space ahead of the subject so it has room to move through the frame. The street car is so blurred, I can't tell if it's going left to right or right to left.

I think you have promise with a good eye for creativity. I gave you a reason for the sunset shots. In context of stock, they're not going to be great sellers, and that's why they aren't good for your first ten. I personally like the vertical shot, and I could probably fix the noise issues with an image like that easily. You could possibly get it approved. The chance isn't great, so that should exclude it from your first ten. I'm trying to help you avoid waiting a month to get in and submit your sunsets.

mauijon · Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 4282 Location: Maui, Hawaii

This is just a cheap and dirty fix, but I can see a use as background for the tram in motion, as below, without some distracting elements.

rinder99 · Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:11 pm

Motion Blur.

evetodew · Joined: 24 Feb 2012 Posts: 139 Location: Sweden

Thank you again! :) I know that until I get accepted I will bother you with tips and help.
As for the tram, I was simply experimenting, and was actually holding the camera (not using a tripod) and to my surprise it went out pretty well. I didn't intend to use it among the 1st 10 because I realise it has effect, but nothing more. I wanted to know some details, which I compared to the sample shot accepted by SS.
Nonetheless, your advice are always welcome!! I really love reading through the entire forum. I can't read all of course, but try as much as I can.
I will post another image, with children not on focus, the focus is in front, and gives an atmosphere of freedom and playfulness (maybe a bit dreamy) but you'll tell me. Personally I like it. Maybe it's a bit artistic, but I don't know what you guys may comment on it. I'm at work now and don't have the image here to post 100%. Only small format. Can you tell me if such composition is ok, or I shouldn't ever use such ideas (all objects are strongly OOF)?

(I have a coloured version but not here. I don't remember why I converted it to tritone, but I like it like this too.)

P.S. If I do such photos in the future, would I need model release although these children are unrecognisable?)

semmickphoto · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:22 am

Yes, if someone can recognise themselves in the photo it needs a Model release, even if its body parts.

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:22 am

Composition is no good you have people cut off and going away from the camera and the Lighting is very bad as well as the focus is OOF.

rinder99 · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:04 am

This qualifies as the "Opposite" of a good stock shot.Everything in this image is wrong.

evetodew · Joined: 24 Feb 2012 Posts: 139 Location: Sweden

:)) Yeah, I thought you'd say that. I liked it because it's arty, but anyway - thanks, I'll know better next time. :)

hhltdave5 · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:14 am

evetodew · Joined: 24 Feb 2012 Posts: 139 Location: Sweden

They are all after I joined SS. I'm constantly trying to apply the 'stock' in each image I see or think that has potential. Sometimes I get distracted and shoot for pleasure, but unfortunatly everything I shoot with stock in mind turns out worse than those for pleasure. That's why I don't know sometimes why it happens so, I guess I'm very far away from stock, yet I try and want to achieve the quality you achieve here. I watch nealy perfect shots and think "I must get that, I can do it too".. And repeat to myself that a professional can make a very good photo with a not that good camera (although mine isn't bad either) and lense. Probably I'm just progressing slowly. :(

semmickphoto · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:22 am

Eve, I was like you when I joined stock sites. I shot for fun, and a bit artistic, but that is not always suitable for stock sales.

I only just started but have a variety of photos, most of them shot for fun, on a hike or at home fooling around with items.

Also search the site for their best sellers and then determine how you can get your shots to look like that. Popular photos are photos of people doing something, food shots, or photos to promote travelling destinations.

Dont give up, I think your photos are great, just not stocky enough for stock sites. But keep reading and learning, you will get the hang of it. The experts here were able to teach me, so there is hope ;-)

evetodew · Joined: 24 Feb 2012 Posts: 139 Location: Sweden

Thanks a lot...

semmickphoto, I PM-ed you with several questions :)

Otherwise, I'm not yet giving up! I'm 100% determined to get in! And sooner or later will do so.

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2749 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

A working shot of the roller skater would have been a sharp isolated image of the skater in the upper right third quadrant, using the sidewalk as a leading line while letting depth of field blur the rest, in color and with a model release for the skater. A shot like that would have been more "arty" AND more useful as a stock image all at the same time. You could also do a side-to-side panning shot, or a low angle with just the skates in focus above you. There are a thousand more "creative" and "arty" ways to capture that subject while still having them useful for stock.

I don't understand having the ground be the only thing in focus in that shot. What message are you trying to convey with that?

There are reasons for composition rules in art. You can break the rules, but you should know why each time. The first purpose of art is to tell a story without words. That has been the case since the first caveman dipped his fingers in pigment to paint a cow on a cave wall. Tell a story with your photo, and you got a stock image.