Monday November 9
 
10:34
 
How to get accepted by microstock agencies

This is one of the best articles I’ve seen for clarifying the difference between the quality of a sellable photo and an unsellable one:

Are you taking snapshots?

I definitely want to set myself up a proper small studio space with a white background and lighting after reading this. I saw one in Costco last time I was there – complete kit. Probably more expensive than just setting it up myself, but worth considering.

This article is also very helpful and highlights what I suspected – the first photos you submit don’t just need to be stock quality but need to scream about your photography skills:

How to start selling photos on microstock agencies

I’ve yet to resubmit applications – I need to find the time to sit down with Lightroom and really go through my photos.

Tuesday October 27
 
10:51
 
Microstock acceptance and rejection

I’ve had a go at submitting some of my images to microstock photos sites. Actually, this is the second time for me to do this. The first time, earlier this year, my images were rejected. Realising then that I’d need to pay more careful attention to what I uploaded, I put the idea on the backburner until I could find time.

This week I decided to rest submitting three images to iStockPhoto. Again, all were rejected. Frustrating.

The first – the sunset from Pre Rup, Cambodia – I was sure would get through.

The second and third from Banteay Srei I chose because there are only 46 photos of Banteay Srei on iStockPhoto. The second – part human statue with temple detail in the background – is nicely lit and I was sure would get through. The third – the lion detail – was more debatable, but it’s no worse than some of the 46 photos, such as this one which is terribly cropped and lit.

The reply back from iStockPhoto is generic and so isn’t very helpful – in fact it’s exactly the same as I got back in May, so I assume they always send the same rejection mail:

Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:

At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be your best work. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.

Three things have become clear to me from this rejection:

• Firstly, I need to up my game. I need to make sure the photos I submit are the best I can do. The photos above – they had no PP. They were not cropped, no enhancements to blacks, exposure, etc.
• Secondly, from looking at the stock images on iStockPhoto, clearly the standard for getting accepted at first is higher than the general standard of the photos in iStockPhoto.
• Thirdly, my impression of the selection criteria is wrong – at least for getting accepted. I based my submissions on what was a gap in their catalog. Maybe that would be true after being accepted, but clearly it isn’t true for getting accepted.

The frustrating thing is I can’t submit for another 7 days, so lessons learnt from the above, I submitted 10 images to Shutterstock instead. Today I got email back saying 5 were rejected and 5 “potentially OK” – progress, and Shutterstock’s feedback is better so I can understand where they are coming from, but now I can’t Shutterstock for another 30 days. Again though, point #3 was reinforced.

I want the next set to be “right”. I can try submitting 5 of the “potentially OK” images to iStockPhoto and see what happens, but I’d really like to understand what was wrong with the first image I sent to them, because out of all the three images above, that one I can’t understand the reasons. And yes, I’ve read their training materials, etc.

Update: I posted to dpreview to get some feedback. General point seems to be that while we see a sunset, when you look at the photo from a selling point of view, it’s difficult to see what the subject is. Personally I like that it’s a silhouette – but upon stepping back and looking at it, I can see that the outline isnt well defined. Very educational.

One thing that may make it more saleable: if the statue had some warm light on it, maybe from the direction straight onto its face or a bit more clockwise. That could be done with a battery flash and a bit of gel. That way the viewer can see what it is and maybe get a feel for where it is. Even then I dont know if it would be a saleable image. Thing is with stock photography you have to remove your own feelings from the process of choosing images. To you it may be a nice sunset with a statue of something sihouetted in the foreground, to an editor that silhouette is a meaningless non descript shape. You have to think of how someone else sees the image without any knowledge of the subject or even a caption. Not criticising your work, just trying to think how or what to sell that image as, I think with some detail on the statue it would be a pic of the statue with a pleasant sunset background, as a sihoutte it is a sunset with something(??) black in the foreground.

Keep on going though, its an education, and quite grounding when a shot you worked hard on is rejected due to an element which you thought would be cool or had no controll over. Dont take the rejection personally, you will quit before you even start.