chris kolaczan

That article appears to be for end users of photos. Frankly, it is sort of a stupid article to even put on this site. As noted above, you should not upscale your images for submission. Submit the highest resolution you have (or that you are comfortable licensing) Also, image size in inches is almost meaningless. Pixel dimension is much more important. When you see inches mentioned (or cm) it is referring to the relationship between resolution (number of pixels per inch) and the pixel dimensions of the image. If you are doing a fine art print and you want very high resolution you might need 200 or 300 pixels per inch. If you are doing a bilboard which isn't going to be viewed close up you may only need 10 pixels per inch. So an image that is 24MP (6000 pixels by 4000 pixels) would create a fine art print that is 20 x 13 inches or a bilboard that is 50 feet x 33 feet. The physical dimension is something that the end user needs to be concerned with, not you.

If only I had no self respect. But, then again, maybe I'm just doing this wrong and am too dumb to realize it.

Damn, I need to work on getting my portfolio bigger.

Best of luck Phil. You really deserve it.

Or a stuffed anteater: https://petapixel.com/2018/04/30/a-closer-look-at-the-stuffed-anteater-photo-contest-scandal/

So, I sort of fall under the "not ethical" side of this. However, people comparing it to putting humans or dogs and cats in the fridge are 100% incorrect. Refrigeration has vastly different effect on "warm blooded" organisms than it does on insects and amphibians. As noted, early morning temperatures will have a similar effect and the animals are simply not harmed by the process. Some frog species will actually freeze solid over winter (although I suspect they need time to prepare for that process) with no harm done. If they felt pain or discomfort in the process then they feel that constantly. Having said that, once you get into the rabbit hole of ethics you have to start considering ALOT of aspects of photography in general. Some believe that photography is about capturing a pure, unaltered image of the world. If that is your position, great. 99% of photography isn't ethical by that standard though. Would i do it? Probably not. Would I criticize someone else who did? Maybe a bit. At the very least I'd be much less amazed at the image. But I can say that about alot of "wildlife" images as so many are taken under pretty suspect conditions (captive/zoo animals, baited animals etc). For the most part, to each there own. I do draw the line where significant harm is done to the animal though.

So, here is my interpretation of this. If the subject is the racetrack, it needs to be prominent in the image. As is, strictly compositionally, it is an afterthought. It really looks like you tried to get a silhouette / tree/ sunset shot and framed it poorly to include the racetrack. So, having "racetrack" in the title when the actual racetrack in the image is such a minor element isn't going to work. Secondly, the fringing around the trees suggests that you overdid the contrast in post processing or something. It is a technical flaw which will (should) get it rejected. Third, back to subject matter, you have multiple subjects (the racetrack, the sky, the trees, the cars/lights). Look at the best photos (stock and otherwise) out there. They typically have a primary subject and secondary items that work with that subject (complimentary, related, contrasting etc). One thing that sort of screams "amateur" (and don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be top tier by any stretch) is to try to get "everything" in the shot. Competing subjects that appear unrelated (is this a transportation image, or a nature one?) clutter up the image. Finally, think about the buyer. As noted above, they see a small thumbnail. Someone looking for images of a drag strip are going to see some really compelling images; and this one that looks like a bit of an accident. You say that you've sold this "as a freelancer" in a significant way. Doesn't matter if that wasn't 6 figures, if you got more than $100 for it that will likely be more than you will ever get for it on Shutterstock. I'd honestly stick with selling images like this that way if you have that option available to you. Cheers.

Honestly, that is the smart way to play this game.

How does a reviewer know this is an "abandoned" building? How does Shutterstock prove it if the owner of that building sues because of its commercial use? Even if it is "abandoned" How does Shutterstock know you weren't trespassing on this property? " I have posted similar photos in the past and they were accepted. " They probably shouldn't have been.

Bikini models. All day long.

If I needed a picture of a pigeon, I'd go out and take a picture of a pigeon. Would probably be easier than downloading one.

Unfortunately, a few toxic personalities can ruin it for everyone. Cheers Rudy. Your expertise was beyond the comprehension of this place.

If the "Character associated with a place" is something like a dude in a Chuck 'e' Cheese mouse costume, I'd imagine you would need a property release from the organization.

Will the future of stock return to macro? Thoughts? No. Macro will continue to be a source for genuinely hard to produce images (either requiring well above average skills or logistic requirements). For the other 99% of image needs, micro will continue and most contributors expecting a big payout will continue to be disappointed. The technology to produce high (or at least high enough) quality images is ubiquitous. That isn't changing.