Jump to content

Steve Bower

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Steve Bower

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Photography, woodworking, travel,

Recent Profile Visitors

1,571 profile views
  1. Steve C. I agree with everything you said. I worked for a large corporation for nearly 34 years and saw this kind of thing repeated over and over. With each change in CEO (they don't last very long) they attempt to correct the errors of the past making different administrative errors instead, until they too are fired when the company and the stock price begin to tank. The company moves on to the next ego maniac that thinks he knows it all and the process starts all over again. All decisions are made based upon the bottom line with no concern for integrity or doing what is right.
  2. Karen, To answer your question, "do you find inconsistencies in acceptance and rejections"? Absolutely!!! The reviews are now done by Artificial Intelligence as stated by SS's CEO and it is obvious that the system is not very intelligent. Reduce the resolution of your images and resubmit them at least once. If you choose to submit images with substantial bokeh I would suggest you include some reference to "shallow depth of field" in your title. This may help but there is no guarantee it will get these kind of images through the review process. Artistic imagery is not real
  3. William, As many have already stated (to include SS's new CEO) reviews are now done by artificial intelligence and as you have learned, there is no consistency at all. More than once I have submitted focus stacked images that were rejected for focus. They were in focus (everything in focus) but the "artificial reviewer" was unable to determine that, as it was not what it had been "taught" to expect. The same kind of thing happens when unexpected grain appears (i.e. sand, snake scales) in an image. The "reviewer" assumes it is grain and you get a noise rejection. The focus standar
  4. Hendy, If I'm not mistaken, this ("Rejected, because motion blur") is part of the rejection description for an image that is "out of focus". As far as an image with motion blur, you're probably going to have a problem getting these images past the review process. If you do submit one, make sure you include in the title "intentional blur" or something to that effect. This might help but nothing can guarantee that your image will get past the Artificial Intelligence process which Shutterstock uses for reviews. In my opinion, the problem is not that the image was created through a "
  5. Mugu99 Welcome! What kind of help are you looking for? I don't see any uploaded images so a critique is not possible, If you are looking for general info, I would suggest you read the current post as well as past threads in this section (Introductions and New Contributors Questions) as there is some good information here.
  6. John, First off, I would suggest you go out earlier when the wind is usually much calmer. Secondly, I would suggest you use flash when shooting macro and by flash I mean a separate flash unit not your pop-up on camera flash. Third suggestion, Use f/16, no higher (i.e. f/22 or f/32). Number four, always focus on the eye of the insect. The lens is by far more important than the camera body but the lower end bodies may create more noise than a pro or prosumer body. You might also find that using a longer macro lens (i.e. 90mm or 100mm) will allow you to get a close up image without
  7. I'm not sure what you are talking about, however, if the number of megabytes of the image is lower after the background change that might be normal if the new background is less cluttered. If the pixel count (I.e. 5184 X 3888) is reduced slightly that is probably the fact that the background had a smaller dimension than the original. If the size is dramatically different, I would assume you are doing something, other than just changing the background. Check all of your settings. We probably need more info than what you have provided to be of any real help.
  8. NohSense, I think you'll find that the majority of contributors would be in total agreement with you, however, the offenders think they gain some benefit from keyword spamming (and they probably do). The real problem lies with Shutterstock. They have rules against it (spamming) but SS makes no (or little) effort to enforce those rules. There is no real way for contributors to communicate with management and even if there was, it appears that they have no desire to listen. The Bottom Line is the only thing that drives decisions since they went "Public". As a buyer, you have more
  9. Expert jnk, I think the first thing you need to know, is that if you plan on shooting flowers you're in for a lot of competition. Everyone shoots flowers and they have to be something special if they're going to sell. Yours' are good but I wouldn't call them "Expert". The next tip is that stock sites were set up so that companies, and individuals could obtain images that would help them sell their product, place or idea. They aren't generally looking for just pretty pictures. There are other demands for stock photos but the majority are sold for some kind of promotion. IF your
  10. Evgeniia, Just to clarify, is your lack of enjoyment in photography the result of your tendency to over analyze an image (due to your knowledge of photography) or the "dishonesty" seen in the unbelievable images produced today in Photoshop? I suffer from a little of both. However, I still can admire a well composed image that has been effectively post processed to enhance the positive aspects of the image. Admittedly, micro stock photography does not cater to this type of image. It, like a lot of things today, suffers from a lack of "truthfulness", something that seems to permeat
  11. lonndubh, Pete, was a little more blunt than I might like but he's right, I started this thread nearly two years ago to help new contributors. When and if I come across something that might help new photographers, I resurrect it. I would like to limit the comments to those topics that might be of interest or help to contributors that need a little help. Thanks for anything you might add that will assist them.
  12. clivewa, I didn't know about the lens issue with infrared images. I thought the conversion was the first and only "problem" you had to deal with. That's definitely the kind of thing we contributors would like to know. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
  13. Rudy and Pete, I still haven't been able to find the Golden Spiral as an Overlay. It must be my ancient version of Photoshop. Thanks anyhow. Rudy, I have a much higher opinion of you than that!
  14. clivewa. Great images! This is something that I have never tried. Is your camera capable of shooting infrared or did you have one of your old cameras converted to shoot it? Do you ever upload any infrared shots? Do they sell? Any further information would be much appreciated as I'm sure other contributors would be interested as well.
  15. Pete, Thanks for honing the fine points. Your correct, they are guides not rules. If you know them you can apply them when appropriate. Doing so may just mean the difference between a sale and another zero day.
  • Create New...