|
rgeorge911
|
 |
« on: September 01, 2008, 01:28:25 PM » |
|
I just submitted my initial ten images to Shutterstock. They require that 7/10 get accepted for you to continue submitting (you can try again in one month if you fail). I submitted a mix of images, including digital, and scans from 35mm to 4x5.
Now, I'm reasonably thick-skinned, but they didn't approve even one of my ten images! All are marked with the comment "Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size."
I could believe that I oversharpened some - I'm a stickler for detail, and usually turn the noise reduction way down or off. However, there are some images in there shot on my D200 at iso 100, and I just cannot see any noise or artifacts.
Anyone else submit to them? I'd love to get a second opinion on a few of my images. This isn't a pride thing (mainly). I just don't want to have the same problem in a month when I try again.
Thanks,
Reed
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
rgeorge911
__________
Sticks and stones may break my bones... but I like to take pictures of them.
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2008, 05:01:09 PM » |
|
Dunno, Reed. I might submit to them m'self. If'n I do, and get summarily rejected (which is more probable than possible), I'll post it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jake
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2008, 07:12:02 PM » |
|
Judging from the site, they seem to be looking for a rather antiseptic style. Perhaps you need to remove your soul first. :mystery:  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rgeorge911
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2008, 06:13:52 AM » |
|
I have a friend who submits to them regularly. He has his workflow down, and it's considerably easier than mine. It includes noise reduction with NeatImage, and "auto-levels" for goodness sake. I sure go deeper than that in my post-processing.
I think NR will be the key.
And maybe, just maybe, I should lighten up on the post-processing and sharpness that I'm always pixel-peeping for, and let the NR make my images a little more painterly (if that's a word).
I'll try submitting again in a month.
Reed
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
rgeorge911
__________
Sticks and stones may break my bones... but I like to take pictures of them.
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2008, 01:04:24 PM » |
|
Well, Red, I tried submitting to Shutterstock. They require (as you know) either a credit card or a scan of a driver's license for validation. Reluctant to give anyone my DL number, I opted for the credit card validation. They see if the card matches the billing address, and call you a grown-up. Fine. Got to that page three times, BTW, and only once was the page secure. Not impressed yet. Anyway, went through the whole process and never (in a couple days) got a validation email, so I can't submit. Went through the same harrang at iStockphoto, and they, too, want a scan of the DL. What's up with that? I may scan it, blur out the number and anything other than what I've already given them, and see if they'll take it. Anyway, in the mean time, I registered at photographersdirect.com. Gave them a small portfolio ( http://webpages.ursinus.edu/scperry/spp/), and got approval. It's not a microstock agency, but rather kind of an online database of sorts. You can either pay them a subscription fee, or give them a commission. I opted for the latter, as I doubt I'll ever sell picture one. Anyway, they send want lists regularly, and you can put up a portfolio. Scott |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rgeorge911
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2008, 05:26:06 AM » |
|
Scott, Thanks for that lead. I'll check it out, too. I got my invite from Shutterstock to try again. Just have to decide whether it's worth my effort, and whether that's really a facet of photography that I want to explore. I'm over the (small) pride thing, but stock may not be my bag of chips... Reed ( not Red ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
rgeorge911
__________
Sticks and stones may break my bones... but I like to take pictures of them.
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2008, 05:31:12 AM » |
|
Doh. I know it's Reed. Sorry for the mistype. :banghead:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rgeorge911
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2008, 05:58:51 PM » |
|
No sweat, Scott. I was just teasin...
Reed
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
rgeorge911
__________
Sticks and stones may break my bones... but I like to take pictures of them.
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2009, 10:23:38 AM » |
|
Resurrecting an old thread, I know, but anyway...  I'm out of work. Money's tight. Gots me the digicam. Thinks me, "I'll get into stock/microstock for spare change!" Yeah, that'll work. Got accepted to Alamy a couple months ago. Not only have my few photos not seen a sale, but I've only gotten four views! I know stock's a volume game, and I haven't been shooting much (school's almost over, though...), but I'd have expected a few more views. Get to thinking about the business Alamy's in. They're like microstock, but pay closer to real stock prices. With the prevalence of RF images, I'm thinking microstock, and the pittance they pay per image, may be an alternative. I'm devveloping some websites for people, and they're only interested in RF for imagery. Thinking that they're representative. So, today I submitted to Big Stock Photo and Shutterstock. And more to Alamy. Sit and wait time. Chewing my nails, as I have no hair to pull out... To be continued... Scott |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2009, 02:56:36 PM » |
|
Well, there ya go. Heard back from Shutterstock - 3 of 10 accepted. Three flower pictures. The 7 insect pictures all got rejected as being out of focus or poorly lit. Hmm... Still waiting on Big Stock Photo... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Scott
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2009, 09:00:47 AM » |
|
Quick update: I've got six images online with Big Stock Photo now (ten awaiting approval), three just got accepted by Fotolia (two previous had been rejected, but those were accepted by BSP... ) and thirteen online (with two awaiting QC) with Alamy. I'm shooting everything I can see and submitting it now - only a handful of views, and no sales as yet. Will resubmit to Shutterstock next month. Alamy is a more traditional stock agency, selling licensed and rights-managaed images. BSP and Fotolia are microstock agencies, selling RF images. Surprisingly, or maybe not, the microstock agencies were harder to get in to. The workflow is kind of slow - shoot, import RAW, save as JPG, upload, label, and wait - but it's not as drawn out as shooting slides was. Scott |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Reinders
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2009, 10:57:39 AM » |
|
I tried one a few years ago - cannot remember which one, maybe shutterstock? Anyway - they liked 3/10 My wife convinced me my photography was worth more than 25 cents per image and I have not looked at those sited since. I have been tempted though! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
