Shutterstock 'tough cookies?' - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/04/2006 08:14:40 AM · #1

Hello everybody

This is my first ever posting. So im a newbie. But ive been reading the discussions for a while now.

The subject is �Shutterstock� (the stock image micro site). I submit images to �dreamstime� and �Istock�. (I find Istock a little more fussy than dreamstime.) I have about 50 images DT and 35 on IS. (so relatively small portfolios. I started submitting a couple of months ago)

My success rate is about 80% i.e. about 80% of the images I submit are ultimately accepted. I have tried the initial �10 Photo� submission at shutterstock three times now and they have rejected 100% of my photos. It�s a little demoralising the only consolation being the other sites where I am selling my images gives me a bit of a boost.

Here I am on istock [user]//www.istockphoto.com/peterclose[/user]

I know some of you are experts with a lot of success and experience of these sites. Why are my images being rejected by shutterstock? Are they just not very good? Or is Shutterstock just a tough cookie?
I can take any constructive critique. In fact I welcome it.

Pete

ragamuffingirl

Sony Alpha NEX-5N

10/04/2006 08:17:58 AM · #2

I stock with Bigstock, Istock, Fotolia, and Dreamstime. I can't get my stuff accepted my Shutterstock for love or money.

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

10/04/2006 08:27:33 AM · #3

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

I stock with Bigstock, Istock, Fotolia, and Dreamstime. I can't get my stuff accepted my Shutterstock for love or money.

I submit to all of these and by far, Shutterstock gives me the best return so just keep trying and you will get accepted. You just need to learn what they are looking for. I have about 90% accepted there. Every site has there own way of reviewing and to tell the truth I don't agree with any of them but that�s just the way it is so you have to play the game if you want in.

Pixelstate

Fujifilm X-T3

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/04/2006 08:29:07 AM · #4

Hmmm... I would have thought Shutterstock easier to submit to than iStock.

I have about 350 images up there and most are really just snapshots... I have had some knock back lately... and the reason has been because there were deemed to be not commercially viable. (The same images were accepted by iStock and even Alamy)

Perhaps the type of picture you are posting is a saturated subject at Shutterstock, if they don't need more of that type they may therefore reject...??

Chris

TomH1000

Olympus E-3

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

10/04/2006 08:30:06 AM · #5

Originally posted by peterclose:

Can you post some samples of what you are trying to submit? Maybe we can help.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/04/2006 05:22:19 PM · #6

I could post a few of the images but i dont know how.
the insert image command asks for a URL address? I havent got a URL address. Ive tried to drag and drop.

nico_blue

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/04/2006 05:36:05 PM · #7

Thats a bit strange, I always remember shuttterstock being sort of a dumping ground of images that weren't accepted elsewhere. They must be raising their standards a lot. I looked at your istock portfolio and judging just from the thumbs i would have said that it wouldnt be too hard to get into shutterstock, but apparently not. Do they give you any reasons for the rejections? What camera are you using and can you post a 100% crop of a few of your shots?

Sunniee

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

10/04/2006 05:41:39 PM · #8

I cant get istock to accept me as a contributor... they have rejected every image so far...Im on my 3rd try ... :o(

mist

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/04/2006 05:42:58 PM · #9

Originally posted by peterclose:

I could post a few of the images but i dont know how.
the insert image command asks for a URL address? I havent got a URL address. Ive tried to drag and drop.

You'd need to post them online somewhere and link to them.. .

.. or pay for a membership here and put them in your portfolio ;)

love

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/04/2006 05:46:03 PM · #10

Originally posted by nico_blue:

Thats a bit strange, I always remember shuttterstock being sort of a dumping ground of images that weren't accepted elsewhere. They must be raising their standards a lot....

either that or his images stink : )

pineapple

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/04/2006 06:01:04 PM · #11

The key to Shutterstock is do your own self-rejection. In other words, scrutinize every image at 100% and reject anything that is soft, poorly lit. If in doubt, reject it. Be your own worst boss.

TG73

Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200

10/06/2006 05:29:43 AM · #12

Pineaple has a very good point. Before you submit, view your photo at 100% and go over every little bit for imperfections. I get far better results with SS than with any other microstock site out there so it's worth it.

good luck!

Leok

Pentax K10D

Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG for Pentax

10/06/2006 09:26:08 AM · #13

In my limited experience with microstock I have found the approval process to be almost random - a best selling image on one site won't be accepted by another. They also don't seem to know the difference between focus and depth of field....

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

10/07/2006 02:28:06 PM · #14

Thanks for the replies

TomH1000 has suggested I post some of the rejected photos to be examined.

First I had to subscribe. Done that! (probably a good thing I suppose, gives a little support to this great site)

Here are four of the ten images submitted to shutterstock (all were rejected). Two of which have the reasons given and the other two just said �not approved�. The images are in my portfolio (they are the only ones in there)

peterclose

Be honest. Where am I going wrong. Any comments gratefully received.

Shutterstock comments:

Asian2: Not Approved: Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping and/or composition.

Boots: Not approved

Worry 1: Not approved

Castle: Not Approved: Noise, film grain, artifacts, or pixilation at 100%. Try noise reduction software.

vxpra

Pentax K100D

10/07/2006 03:53:29 PM · #15

I just got into micro-stock myself. I have about 35 images approved on Fotolia in the oast week and am waiting to hear from Shutterstock on my first 10.

One of my local photography buddies convinced me to get into it- he makes about 10-15k per year and only devotes about 10 hours per week to it. He thinks if he treated it like a 40 hour a week job he could probably do about 40-45k. Of course his wedding photography buisness nets him about 60k a year- so don't think he'll give that up too soon.

Anyway- he told me that of his first hundred images submitted to Fotolia and Shutterstock they turned down about 35% of them. Then once he crossed that line it seemed like they were approving everything. He also said though "I might have just figured out what they were looking for and did more subconcious self editing". The first 10 he submitted to Fotolia were the same 10 that he had sent to Shutterstock- Shutterstock accepted 9 of 10. Fotolia only took 5.

He looked at my 6 that Fotolia has turned down to date- he said he could understand 3 of them (2 were technical the other 4 they deemed not commercial enough). He agreed with 1 of the technical DQ's and was kind of lost on the other 5 images. He pulled up one of his images that has been downloaded about 65 times and said the my shots were more commercial that that one. Maybe it depends on exactly who does the review.

10/09/2006 06:14:38 PM · #16

Maybe someone can take a look at my images and let me know what they think and why shutterstock rejected them.

Like i said at the begining of the thread. Ive put 4 of the rejected 10 in my portfolio for anyone to view.

Any comments welcome

livitup

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/11/2006 10:26:37 PM · #17

Peter,

My only comment is that they seem like really great work! I don't do microstock, but if I were an image reviewer anywhere, I would accept those. :)

Perhaps the boots one is a little too "artsy" for their taste? You have to think as a buyer when you are shooting stock... who would use that photo? The worry one seems like it would be a great sidebar illustration in a magazine or on a website... asian is fine glamour photography, and the castle shot seems like it would be a perfect fit for travel.

So my only comment is "I have no idea." :) Sorry to not be much help, but possibly a little validation? :)

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

10/12/2006 04:51:39 AM · #18

It's hard to be sure; I could see a 'limited commercial appeal' against the boots, but then they've accepted shots from me that were equally limited in appeal.

The castle one (which I think you said was rejected for noise?) looks fine, but it would be impossible to say without seeing a 100% crop - I'd bet that the sky has a hint of noise and frankly microstock are getting increasingly fanatical about natural noise that's perfectly acceptable to anyone half-way sane.

Of the four, worry looks to be good solid stock - although again, without seeing a 100% crop it's impossible to know if it's clean and sharp enough for them.

pineapple

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

10/12/2006 06:42:08 AM · #19

What's perceived as useful commercially differs from reviewer to reviewer and from stock site to stock site. Photos rejected by IS as being non-commercial are (sometimes) accepted by SS and vice versa. Photos decreed non-commercial that get accepted by another site often sell better than one might think. That's why it is useful to deal with two options, with regard to selling micro-stock. In my limited experience, I find SS provides a constant flow of small sales every day while IS provides infrequent sales of larger images (therefore at higher prices). Each site has a slightly different focus, dare I say.

Acts7

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

10/12/2006 10:02:52 AM · #20

Here's my critique of the images as stock worthy.

Boots:
I think this was said already but appeal is a big deal here - what is this image conveying? You would have better luck masking out the image of just the boots.

Worry:
For all intensive purposes a great image. But as a professional user of stock images, I would not want this image (again for stock purposes). It needs to be more pedestrian. What I mean is - this photo says - "Oh that's Bill Fraquenubian. gosh he sure looks worried!" (name made up). It doesnt say "worried man in tie, or worried business man". Meaning it would be great as a photog. How can you make it "stock-able"?
Do anything you can to make him less recognizable. Thats what I want as a stock photo user. Big wrinkles - okay. but the wrinkles that make this man - him - get rid of those. The freckles, sunspots and skin pores - clean those up. The slightly imperfect hairline, clean that up with a simple mask (Im referring to the outter rim of his head on the right how the hair is not a smooth line.

Asian2:
Again too recognizable. Not to me - I dont know her. But its very definately that one and only person. The hair has frayed ends. There are a few orphaned strands of hair in the middle of her forehead. Also under the large groupings of hair on our left (her right) there are strands of hair that didnt cooperate. they are going the wrong way. Fill that in with more hair (clone it if you have to). Her skin does not "glow". What is the relection in her glasses a patio door or a treadmill. See the problem with this photo is it SCREAMS fashion but then its just lackluster. It doesnt deliver. And BANG and SHIZZLE are what you're competing with when you submit an image like this.

Castle:
Your main image is too close to the edge for one thing. Secondly your colors are again lackluster. This is almost monocromatic with a sky gradient thrown in for good measure.

See people what you have to keep in mind: When you are shooting for your own purposes, you can be creative and do what you want. If you want deliberately dulled images, if thats who you are - by all means go for it. BUT when you are submitting stock photos you are working for a client. You aren't doing what you want you are doing what the client wants.

One last thing that will always kill you with portrait submissions for stock photo sites - you are submitting the model release correct?

Well I hope this helps. You can pm me if you need further assistance.

moswyn

Canon EOS-7D

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC for Canon

10/12/2006 10:21:01 AM · #21

FWIW, I have been submitting with Shutterstock for two months and had an 85% - 90% approval rating. However! My last three batches have done really badly. One was 33%, one was 50%, and one they denied EVERY SINGLE PICTURE! I don't know what the deal is; whether they're getting stricter with their approvals or what. I can't imagine that my photography has fallen off that badly in two months. So. Good luck!

Message edited by author 2006-10-13 09:31:00.