Linda Bestwick
-
Content Count
4,115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Articles
Image Comments posted by Linda Bestwick
-
-
2 hours ago, Laurin Rinder said:
Soooooo. what is that.?
Advertising. They are just after people to buy their service to make isolations. Wasting your time, not after a critique as far as I can see.
-
Look down Yoojoe.
-
"Refrain from posting solicitations for the sale and promotion of products, events or services."
-
If you're new to editorial this should help: https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/submitting-editorial-content-part-2-documentary-editorial
-
Quote
- Images featuring Volkswagen vehicles (Beetle, campervan, Eurovan, etc.) are unacceptable for commercial use. No Volkswagen trademarks may be submitted as metadata or in the captions for commercial use content.
- Illustrations or vectors featuring Volkswagen vehicles may not be accepted for commercial use.
- Images may be acceptable for editorial use only with a proper caption.
- https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/contributor-resources/legal/stock-photo-restrictions/
- I presume that's a Beetle!
-
Most likely it is because of the recognisable vehicles. It would need to be submitted as editorial. HOWEVER, you can not do anything more than minor adjustments to editorial images, so it wouldn't be accepted as editorial in it's present state.
-
The sky has much more detail in this one but I'm still seeing lots of noise. Sorry I don't know enough to know why. The ISO is low enough. I don't shoot landscapes, but shooting at f/2.2 seems a bit odd for these types of shots. I could be wrong. Hopefully some landscape photogs will give you better advice. Or join a course or club to really learn how to improve.
-
Listen to the real photogs over me if they reply.
Sorry but the sky is horrible. The whole image looks very noisy to me and you've lost detail in the clouds, they look blown and the details that are there are pretty nasty. The reflections of the clouds are better than the real thing.
You may be better using a filter to bring out the details in the sky. Or use HDR methods to get the exposure right throughout the image.
If you can go back and shoot again, try to get the technical details right and also explore more interesting compositions.
-
5 hours ago, Bernardo Ramonfaur said:
Thank you Linda, your answers were very helpful =)
Your welcome. Good luck, I like what you've done
-
Oh, and a video tutorial on it too
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/shuttertalk-live-presents-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors-101 -
Yes, SS accepts celebrity illustrations. There is a thread here on it that you might find helpful to read through:
This article is probably linked in the thread but just in case... https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/now-accepting-editorial-illustrations-and-vectors
-
Cars can't be sold with a commercial licence without a property release. Editorial images can not be photoshopped. So unless you have a property release (unlikely I would guess) you can't sell this sort of image here.
Is the original photo yours? You can only sell your own work here too. -
The book will get you a rejection for copyright infringement. You could use a blank book with a hand written recipe instead. You might have trouble with the cup too. It's really pretty but you are better using something more generic.
-
11 hours ago, rinderart said:
Artistic??
I did wonder if that was the intention, but thought I'd point it out just in case it was overlooked. You know, like those wonky horizons
-
You can see your reflection
-
Brill, that will be much more helpful now
-
It looks like it works to me? If you click on the image in the comment post it comes up separately and there is an option bottom left to see it full size.
-
Can it not be added here in the comments? So it would all be on the same page? I think it should work as we were adding images on the B&W cat thread?
-
I prefer the colour version, I think it would probably work better for stock, but I would tweak the eyes and nose a bit to make them stand out more from the softness of the rest of the image. There are so many possibilities aren't there?
My quick tweak...
-
Thanks Laurin
-
Hi Laurin, hope you don't mind me asking but is this a composite? It's just that it's playing with my eyes lol. I feel like I'm looking up at the sky and down on the bird. I think it's the lighting. It's beautiful either way, but I'd be really interested to know
-
I'm late to the topic, but just wanted to say I had a recent batch of hand shots all approved without any releases. Judging by mine, yours wouldn't need a model release either.
-
Remember it's about design as well as logos and brand names. If the reviewers think the design is identifiable they will reject it. It might just be because of the red parts. Make them black to make the bag more look generic.
-
You've made the items the main subject of your image, so they will be more inclined to reject for IP.
The design elements of an item, shape, colour etc can be enough to recognise a brand, it's not just logos and names.
If anyone can tell what specific brands they are (regardless of alterations) you'll get rejected. I expect the trainers and the ipod are both problematic in this image.
You need to either use generic items, not have them as the main subject matter (with possible alterations), or submit as editorial.
And also be careful with your title and keywords. Use generic terms such as mp3 player, digital audio player or whatever, but don't call it an ipod, that's Apples brand name and will also cause a rejection.
.jpg.bf3f1c22b64ca96085faea479aed1a2a.jpg)
Bird
in Community Gallery
Posted
Is this your own work? It looks like it's been photographed from a print or something.