DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Stock Photography >> Stock Frustration
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 11 of 11, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/13/2006 01:37:59 AM · #1
I came home tonight to 3 rejected photos from bigstock.

All three shots were flowers. I know that most agencies feel that they have enough flower shots, but to me these aren't just snapshots of a commonplace subject. They're shots that I've taken the time and effort to compose and create.

This was the first time I've had a shot rejected from a stock site and it hit me hard. Not because I won't be making quarters from them, but because I had decided I wanted to.

These images are worth so much more than that to me. I feel like I've robbed them of their value.

I know my camera doesn't allow me to submit to macro sites because of it's 3.2 megapixel size, but I've just realized that micro sites aren't for me.

It's seems so silly to me that they reject my image for not being good enough when it's going to be sold for a dollar. A dollar! How has it become that a technically perfect image that has been made using all the skills at one's disposal is worth only a dollar?

I will never submit another photo again, I'm going to wait until I get a better camera and start submitting to macro sites.

Opinions?
08/13/2006 01:59:54 AM · #2
That sucks. You seem to make really good stuff with that camera, but 3.2mp kind of limits what you can do with the images... They'll probably accept more when you have a camera with a better lens and better colors/more DR/higher res in the sensor.

I tried submitting some stuff to shutterstock yesterday, how long does it usually take them to decide if it's good?
08/13/2006 02:00:24 AM · #3
I just deleted all my photos off the sites I was on and feel good about my decision...

Why is it that I can get 50 replies to whatever random crap I post, but the threads I actually am interested in and really want responses to I get nothin'?

*slightly agressive bump*
08/13/2006 02:02:21 AM · #4
Originally posted by MadMan2k:

That sucks. You seem to make really good stuff with that camera, but 3.2mp kind of limits what you can do with the images... They'll probably accept more when you have a camera with a better lens and better colors/more DR/higher res in the sensor.

I tried submitting some stuff to shutterstock yesterday, how long does it usually take them to decide if it's good?


For stock sites it usually takes about a week.

And when I have "better colors/more DR/higher res in the sensor" I will take my high megapixeled bum over to macro stock because the size of my file will match the photo quality I already have.
08/13/2006 02:04:42 AM · #5
I read your post but I'm not sure exactly what kind of opinions you're looking for. You seem to have made a decision not to submit to microstock. Okay. That's a valid choice. The truth is, enough people are submitting to microstock sites that they can be picky, regardless of what they are paying you for the photo. You say you feel good about your decision so...good for you. That's all that matters.
08/13/2006 02:04:54 AM · #6
Hey monica...

Cheer up...
I've given up with Bigstock... they're crap..

Have you tried upsizing your pics to 4mp for the other sites yet?

Eric

08/13/2006 02:24:35 AM · #7
I haven't done stock but are you sending them stuff that they are asking they need? That should increase your odds of getting photos accepted.

Also, as a stock buyer and graphic designer I tend to prefer photos that have backgrounds that are easy to remove. In other words, backgrounds with solid colors are most preferred. So if you do change your mind and submit keep those things in mind to maximize your sales potential.

Message edited by author 2006-08-13 02:25:42.
08/13/2006 04:18:59 AM · #8
I'm a little taken aback with your post. I don't use BigStock, but I do use Shutterstock, Fotolia, and I'm trying to get in with Istock. With Istock, all three of my application shots were rejected. On Fotolia, everything I've done has been accepted.

On Shutterstock, I currently have 39 images. I easily have either equal to or more rejects than acceptances. I can't imagine getting all flustered over a few pics of a flower not getting accepted.

I don't mean to sound rude... but if you are so dedicated to taking good shots of your flowers, perhaps you should invest in a more suitable camera. I know that sounds harsh, but it's not meant to be.

-Lisa
08/13/2006 09:02:18 AM · #9
There is oftentimes no logical reason for rejections. One image can be rejected on one stock site and accepted on 7 others. Images can be approved on one site and rejected on 7 others. Some stock sites are more picky than others, some have a more limited range of subjects they will approve. Some will accept pretty much anything. Instead of mourning the 3 rejections be thankful for the ones that are approved. Learn from the rejections and just continue uploading everything to everywhere and let the sites decide what they want to keep and what they dont.

Some sites just dont want flower shots as almost everyone and anyone can and do upload those. I find if you include the name and the proper latin name for the flower it can help. Generic things like 'a pink flower' are a dime a dozen but Bleeding Heart (Dicentra spectabilis) is more appealing.
08/13/2006 09:58:04 AM · #10
To me, it is more sad when I upload something and it does get accepted and then it doesn't sell. Not only did I waste my time, but I also wasted the inspector's time and the buyer's time by clogging up the search with unwanted pictures.
How did you plan on your picture being used? What kind of buyer did you target? How many pictures like yours are already available?
Those three questions are valid for each and every stock site. It doesn't matter whether it's macro or micro. If you can't answer them, you probably shouldn't upload the picture.
Edit to add the last ? and changed the number
edit: I'm an idiot, changed the second paragraph

Message edited by author 2006-08-13 10:22:16.
08/13/2006 10:06:04 AM · #11
Originally posted by yanko:


Also, as a stock buyer and graphic designer I tend to prefer photos that have backgrounds that are easy to remove.


Most of my best sellers are simple shots of objects on white backgrounds, so I believe you are not alone in what you are looking for as a designer.

From my experience, the simpler the shot the more potential it has for sales.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/18/2021 02:34:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/18/2021 02:34:13 AM EDT.