I am very frustrated with my acceptance rate at SS (and seem not to be alone), and especially about their bogus reasons for rejections, which do not warrant any improvements, as they are completely unhelpful most of the time.  So, I though why not gather in one thread the things that people have found to work for images at SS and have it as a reference for current and future submitters?

Two things to be aware of though:

1. Lets not get lost in generalities, of course all photos need to have sharp focus, be free of noise, have good lighting, good subject, etc. etc. These are general terms that do no help anyone improve a particular image.

2. No one is asking for 'trade secrets' if such exist; I understand how those would be closely guarded, though I don't agree with that. I do believe in leveling the playfield and fairness though.

That being said, this is what I've found out in my (admittedly short) experience with SS:

1. Bump the saturation and vibrance. They seem to love oversaturated images. I never got a rejection for 'overfiltering' as istock does often

2. Avoid generic architecture shots. Architectural details seem to fair more than generic architecture.

3. 'Uneven lighting' usually means white balance is not percieved as being correct.  Fixing white balance in PS helps, but I still haven't solved this satisfactorily. 

4. If you cannot find any artifacts after close examination at 100% of your image, most probably it was rejected for not being percieve 'stock worthy', artifacts are often used as umbrella, and you can spend hours looking for non-existing artifacts.

Hmmm.. that's about what I have so far.. Any more thoughts, comments, flames?

BG

Reading the threads in SS heading here, I think many people have expressed grievances similar to mine. I don't want to make this thread about a particular image, but about things that apply to larger groups in general,

I'm surprised that you feel SS reject images for bogus reasons, in my experience their reason for rejecting an image is usually valid.  If SS reject an image for artifacts, noise, focus or uneven lighting/poor white balance then this is the genuine reason.

PecoFoto --  I gotta say this first.... it is rare, rare, rare that I disagree with folks here.... but my friend.... I have to here. 

Also, let me say this... I'm in what may turn out to be my BME at SS. I like SS and it is my  highest volume seller and my #2 money maker (behind IS)

In spite of all that,   I very often feel that my SS rejections are wrong. Especially ones on 'focus where we think it ought to be'  and often, noise.  Many of those rejected are currently selling on IS.....  or at DT and BigStock.  I think sometimes the reviewers at SS may be a bit too zealous or haven't really looked at the image. 

All that being said....   oh well..... It's their site and if that's the way they feel, so be it.  I don't agree with all their rejections. None-the-less, I still like 'em and I continue to  'feed the beast'.  =tom

My experience with SS is that their reviewers are quite fair but they obviously favor images of certain types resulting in different requirements for different shots.

For example generic nature pics are subject of very close examining whereas industrial shots criteria are much less strict.

My advice: submit in small batches. If you have 50 images to submit you will normally stand a better chance to get them accepted if you submit them in 5 batches of 10 (waiting till each batch is reviewed before you submit the next one).  With large batches, if you are unlucky to get a reviewer that doesn�t like your images, he/she may reject a lot of them. With smaller batches they will more likely be reviewed by different reviewers, thus getting a more objective review of your images.

Most ppl have trouble with SS, surprisingly I have much more problems with DT. My average acceptance at SS is about 70%, last 50 pics got only 2 rejections.

I do it this way:
1.) noise filter with NeatImage, using autoprofile
2.) clean the rest of "noise" (eg skies) with blur tool - 65%
3.) oversaturate
4.) resize to 4MP
5.) add IPTC data
6.) upload via ftp

The whole noise and resize procedure is because of SS "noise-everywhere" issue. I have older Olympus E-300 which simply always have some little noise in the sky even with iso100. They pay the same for all pic sizes downloaded so I really have no reason to upload large images if I can avoid many trouble uploading smaller ones without getting less money.

Never got single image refused for noise or artifacts. Most refusals are "poor light/wrong WB" or "focus". In most cases it seems to be just excuse for "we dont like this". Poor light usually occurs with more creative images and out of focus mostly happens with shallow dof images. I must admit that about 30-40% rejections were correct reasons - the rest was obviously nonsense.
So better avoid any specific or creative light conditions or shallow dof, they seems to go beyond "SS reiewer guidelines" and become rejected.

Quote from: PecoFoto on February 27, 2008, 19:22

I'm surprised that you feel SS reject images for bogus reasons, in my experience their reason for rejecting an image is usually valid.  If SS reject an image for artifacts, noise, focus or uneven lighting/poor white balance then this is the genuine reason.

PecoFoto --  I gotta say this first.... it is rare, rare, rare that I disagree with folks here.... but my friend.... I have to here. 

Also, let me say this... I'm in what may turn out to be my BME at SS. I like SS and it is my  highest volume seller and my #2 money maker (behind IS)

Its my BME on SS this month one photo has helped me more than double my sales there this month

I can only comment as to what my experience is with SS, my acceptance ratio is 82% and I'm happy with that,  I suppose we all have different experiences with each site.

Quote from: MikLav on February 28, 2008, 05:20

I think your are focusing on a wrong point with your question. Instead of thinking on how to get more pictures at SS, it would be more useful and efficient to work on "how can I produce better photos". Just MHO.

Quote from: basti on February 28, 2008, 05:12

Never got single image refused for noise or artifacts. Most refusals are "poor light/wrong WB" or "focus". In most cases it seems to be just excuse for "we dont like this". Poor light usually occurs with more creative images and out of focus mostly happens with shallow dof images. I must admit that about 30-40% rejections were correct reasons - the rest was obviously nonsense.
So better avoid any specific or creative light conditions or shallow dof, they seems to go beyond "SS reviewer guidelines" and become rejected.

These two quotes tend to run directly counter to each other, especially if one considers themselves a "photographer" and not a "microstock photographer", as the use of creative lighting and selective focus/DOF effects are primary elements of good photography in general.  I don't really consider taking every picture at an aperture of f/36 just so I have maximum DOF to be good photography, I consider it sterile photography, though it still has applications in normal photography...

We are all photographers, but when taking photographs for microstock agencies then you need to have your microstock photographer hat on.

If the photograph you are submitting is more fine art and of a creative style you are limiting it's use.  Designers like something to work with so a sterile image may well be more suited to them.  In my view the more arty type of photograph would be better submitted to Photoshelter, myLoupe or a similar agency.

...
Also, IMHO, advice to 'improve' your photography skills is not helping either, as I think everybody here is a pretty good photographer, and the overwhelming consensus seems to be that yes, there ARE specific things that you can shoot/edit/do that will increase your acceptance specifically at SS.
...

No, not everyone here is a 'pretty good photographer'. Some of the work I've seen is commercially quite poor, and the advice to 'improve' your photography skills should not be lightly dismissed.

If you are experiencing weak sales you would do very well to take an objective look at what it is you are doing. The fault for poor performance in this market does not lie with unreasonable reviewers, unfair search engine protocols, or uneducated buyers ... it lies with the photographer and his/her failure to understand and/or produce commercially viable microstock images. Furthermore, concerning yourself with getting images accepted is pointless - the only thing that matters is producing images that sell.

My ultimate goal is to thoroughly enjoy myself while producing images that I like to make. That I can be paid well for doing something I would gladly do for free is serendipity found.

My ultimate goal is to thoroughly enjoy myself while producing images that I like to make. That I can be paid well for doing something I would gladly do for free is serendipity found.

First of all, outstanding post.

The enjoyment of it, the fact that it is a hobby that produces income and not a primary occupation will always keep the photographer had on first, sure microstock is on the mind, but producing a great photo is job #1.  Like a lot of people my biggest struggle will be finding my way in the market, the age old question "what is a good microstock photo?".  I can spot a wallhanger in the blink of an eye, and the technical aspects, though daunting at first, really aren't that difficult to grasp and overcome, there are a heck of a lot more difficult things out there than taking a technically flawless picture.

Like Tom said, I'm not retiring on microstock sales, but it is a nice way for me to earn a couple of bucks on the side to support my photography habit, to supply the best equipment for me to take the kind of pictures that I enjoy.  And getting better at MS photography already has noticeably improved my photography in general IMO, definitely not a bad thing.

With that said, I think that there are two kinds of images when it comes to microstock, "Wow is that one gonna sell like hotcakes," and "I hope this one can pass the inspection."  Sometimes you're wrong when you do you're own evaluation (objectivity is a great thing to have, detachment from one's work), but it seems that inspectors can spot the first category even better than you can often times (sure they might miss one that will sell 5-10 times, but I doubt many inspectors are gonna miss a 100x seller), when they see a technically perfect photo that honestly isn't that great as a MS photo, they are gonna look long and hard for a good reason to deny it.  There really isn't much reason to be trying to take pictures that might pass inspection and sell 1 or 2 times other than improve your skills technically (using the MS reviewers as critics), taking shots that are going to be 100x sellers is really what you should be gunning for, but channeling the creativity and technical know how into making one of those pictures is the real challenge.  I think that I have the ideas for a few 100x sellers simmering in my head, been pondering the angles, lighting, dof, setting, props, etc... for a while, eventually I'll get around to shooting them, a far cry from some of the crap I found when out and about and thought "this may make a good stock photo," took a technically perfect photo, and hoped it passed inspection.

Fred: That might be also result of subscription model and not best reviewers. When you have 25 downloads daily available, you just browse and download what you like even if you dont need it right now.

Like akatom Im nature/landscape/travel photographer and I have my own reasons why I will not submit any photos with ppl to microstock. I know its not selling so good as business, fashion etc. but my sales are growing so I dont complain 

Its true you must do pics that sell. And you mut do pics that earn! Making stunning pics like Yuri does with studio and super camera is nice but do they pay fot themselves? How many thousands downloads you need to cover your expenses? How much is good revenue for you?

What I am saying is that getting good quality photos that will be accepted at most microstocks is more efficient approach.  I am talking about "good quality photos" meaning "photos suitable for microstock". If you understood "good quality photos" as blurry/grungy/out of focus "creative" pictures - this is your problem, I didn't say that and I didn't mean that. If you understood that as "sterile" images made with F32 (which is technically challenging with most lens being not so sharp when completely closed) this is also your problem - I didn't mean that.

Creativity aside, there are two specific things that many agencies, SS especially (from my limited experience and the wealth of knowledge shared by others), will deny for, that are aspects of many good photos, the use of shadow as a compositional element (poor lighting denial), and isolating the subject of the photo from the surroundings to a degree using DOF (out of focus denial). 

The first one can be frustrating as it is something that you seek out.  I have seen many a shot, and taken, where I thought "oh man, taken at this time of day when the shadows are doing this would be 10x better"  I will often see one, take a quick snap, than plan a journey to go back and get a good capture when the light is just right. 

The second category is at the time of capture, where a shot may look great with DOF isolation, even just somewhat (not a total blur) so that the gist of the setting remains but it lacks the sharpness to detract from the subject.  For many lenses this is often in the peak performance range, from f/5.6 to f/8.  This too micros don't seem to like (thus buyers as well as the discussion had veered to), for these subjects you just have to close up the aperture to the minimum (well beyond the point where sharpness degrades) just to get the DOF the micros are looking for, or do something radical like put on a tele and start backing up (not always possible).

I do find with isolations, to get an object sharp from front to back (sharp as in no DOF effects) I have to close my aperture well into the 20's often times, even then I have gotten DOF rejections.  Maybe I'm doing something wrong?  Generally I shoot as far away as I can frame the shot with my tele at 300mm allows.

I have to agree with Mikhail

Here are some examples of creative use of shadows in nature/landscape -

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-8578651-light-through-tree.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-3509315-low-setting-sun-in-green-park-casting-long-shadows.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-7305613-foggy-morning-in-park.html

and shallow DOF -

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9329668-a-glass-full-of-flowers-with-special-focus-technique.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-9110167-super-macro-shot-of-orange-gerbera-flower-petals-with-dew-shallow-depth-of-field.html

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-6301921-ripe-orange-on-a-tree-close-up-shallow-dof.html

They are all cracking photos, pity none of them are mine