Author Topic: Tips on shutterstock acceptance? (Read 6064 times)

modellocate · « **on:** August 30, 2007, 11:26 »

Hi. I'd like to hear from people who have been accepted to Shutterstock (I'm trying). I've been on istock for quite some time-- but SS is a bit more difficult.

First attempt Nikon Coolpix 8700 (not the best camera, I know) 6 of 10 accepted -- I was hopeful, needing only 1 more to make it.

Next attempt Nikon D2Xs (this should do it, I thought) -- 0 of 10 accepted! Mostly for noise issues...I had shot them at the highest quality JPG, but not raw...

I only submitted images that were selling very well on IS.

My next attempt, i will use similar images, but be sure to shoot in raw (NEF) format to reduce noise, I will also try to choose more dramatic images, and shoot with prime lenses...I will also try to avoid any images that look like pinup...

Another major change I will make is to downsample my 12.5 MP images to increase the apparent quality.

Here are what my shots look like: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=667505

Any other suggestions on being accepted?

Pixart · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2007, 12:09 »

Sorry, no advice, just a comment. Your work on Istock is very good, so I'm surprised you didn't make it through to SS. If you invest in noise reduction software it will definitely pay for itself in a short time at SS if you have a noisy camera. Also, be careful if you use it on a photo for SS, you may want to submit a non-noise-reduced file to IS.

I use noiseware from imagenomic, but also popular is noiseninja.

sharply_done · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2007, 12:15 »

Here's an easy tip: Submit images to SS at their minimum requirement of 4MP. SS will "upsize" the shot to their "super size" for you. This may go a long way in reducing noise and blurriness for you.

Smithore · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2007, 14:12 »

Yes, the trick is to downsize images and it's works!

for me:
First attempt to shutterstock :3/10
second: 10/10, after acceptance, i upload images at maximum size except for some little noisy.

modellocate · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2007, 14:21 »

Thanks for all the feedback! Not sure I deserve "very good" but thanks anyway.

I don't think the D2Xs is particularly noisy, as Nikon's premier DSLR it better not be

I have often wondered about why anyone would pay for an up-sampled image, since they can just do that themselves -- upsampling adds no image data, and thus no value that I can see -- but that's a different topic.

With some luck I should be on SS when I try again in 30 days (or 60, 90 without as much luck!)

hatman12 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2007, 14:50 »

The D2Xs is a wonderful machine; you shouldn't be getting any noise so long as you turn the in-camera settings down to 'low'; that's sharpness, saturation etc. If you are getting noise it's because you are not exposing properly. Learn to 'shoot to the right' and 'shoot to the left'.

Also, that camera produces fantastic quality jpegs, so you don't need to use RAW unless you prefer to.

You've made quite a jump upwards in cameras; note that the better the camera quality, the more it will show up ANY mistakes in your picture taking; focus, exposure etc; you will need to spend a lot of time finding out how to get the best results from that machine.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2007, 15:28 »

I noticed a lot of your photos on iStock had blue skys. Blue skies tend to have more noise.

dbvirago · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2007, 15:33 »

Are all of the images you submitted on istock? I would be curios which ones you submitted the 1st time and which the 2nd time.

hatman12 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2007, 17:11 »

I had a look at your iStock portfolio. My first observation is that nearly everything appears to be underexposed - that includes nearly all the pictures of the girls.

Also, you have lots of uneven lighting, even in studio conditions. What lighting arrangement are you using?

If you are going for white backgrounds, you must make sure that they are lit to achieve an even RGB 255 - that will require at least two strobes aimed solely at the background, and for full length shots you'll probably need four to achieve an even spread.

Use your camera's histogram to take a reading of a plain white board positioned where your model will be, and adjust exposure so that the white falls exactly at the right hand edge of the histogram.

If you habitually underexpose you'll generate noise, which is what is happening.

Hope this helps.

hatman12 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2007, 17:16 »

Ummm.... I don't usually show my work here. But here's an example of 'girl with white':

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-4697458-young-woman-in-a-blue-dress-leaning-against-a-plain-white-presentation-board.html

Hope this helps.

sharply_done · « **Reply #10 on:** August 30, 2007, 17:32 »

Quote from: hatman12 on August 30, 2007, 17:11

I had a look at your iStock portfolio. My first observation is that nearly everything appears to be underexposed ...

I concur - good call, hatman12!

Your images may benefit from more "curb appeal", something easily done by adding brightness and "pop".

modellocate · « **Reply #11 on:** August 31, 2007, 09:37 »

Thanks for the exposure tips. I never do commercial stuff -- my real photography is for artwork, so the rules are different. Microstock is an attempt to learn something new.

I did neglect my light meter when I started to work digital, I will dust it off and put it back into action.

What I had been doing is exposing until the highlights burned out, and then reducing the exposure to bring them back in. I think more even lighting is going to be key.

Right now I use 3 light positions:
* strong side light, 3 strobes (450w/s total) behind an 8'x8' diffuser (about 30-40 degrees stage left from the model)
* Fill light, soft box fill (300w/s) (about 5 degrees left/right from strait on the model)
* background light on a boom, sometimes with a gel (150w/s) about 2 feet above the frame, about 2 feet from the background.

The above is comprised of a 600ws 4-strobe Novatron system, and a 300 ws mono-light.

My studio dimensions are 20x25 feet, really too small; making good even lighting a challenge. Ceiling is a generous 17 feet.