Jump to content

Jan Pohunek

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jan Pohunek

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/03/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Today I noticed my photo in a store shelf on a cover of an annual special issue of Czech gardening and DIY magazine "Cabineer - Cottager: A Year at Cottage".
  2. Well, as this is a local importance editorial image, I wish them the 0,25 per five years they might get with a generic description 🙂
  3. Here is a full resolution link: Google drive.
  4. I have just got a negative review for both noise and out of focus for this editorial image. Can you, please, try to have a look at it andpost an opinion where the problem is? Most images in the batch got the same review although being shot at different places with diifferent setting, light conditions etc. Thank you.
  5. Just my 2 cents and an observation from a fringe: I started uploading to Shutterstock this January, but had my contributor account there for a long time, because I have loggged to SS out of curiosity like 10 years ago. At that time, however, there was a sort of entry test and I did not qualify, mostly because my photos of various locations and industrial ruins were deemed not important. So I declined from contributiong and forgot about that having 0 photos here. Recently, I was writing tourist guides and noticed that the politics probably changed because the guide book editors used similar "unimportant" local photos from SS to accompany my texts. So I decided to give it a try again and logged back into the old account and started uploading. My port mostly composes of older photos I took in the past 10 years and uploaded recently, many of them editorial and of local importance, but sometimes used by local newspapers or tourism-related agencies and web pages. I treat SS more as a hobby that sometimes produces some earnings, but I am not dependent on it and my earnings are small. In the future, I want to experiment more with taking stock-worthy photos to improve my general photography skills and would like to use SS as a sort of feedback. As I started uploading in January, earnings and downloads were slowly rising with a noticeable trend where I gained a reliable amount of monthly downloads per number of photos in the portfolio. This has, however, stopped since August. From August on, I have a more or less constant number of downloads while increasing size of my portfolio in the same way, both repurposing some old photos and taking new ones on my travels. Earnings are still rising as I got more downloads on demand and less subscriptions, but that could be a fluke. So from my point of view, something has changed in August - but a longer observation is necessary.
  6. Just found one my photo in a German crime article: https://www.lr-online.de/lausitz/senftenberg/polizei-sucht-zeugen-oder-weitere-opfer-attacke-in-senftenberg-mit-_brause_-die-das-hirn-benebelt-39316105.html?bild_id=1&pgnr=0
  7. Hello all, I have recently posted a silhouette of a baroque statue of St. John of Nepomuk (a quite typical kind of statue that is non-identifiable by silhouette only as there were dozens of them by various artists) against an evening sky and was rejected for: "Missing Artwork Property Release: An artwork property release is required for this submission but was not provided. Content containing works of art, such as paintings and drawings, require a property release from the artist of the work" However, the statue is at least 200 years old and the artist is probably unknown and certainly long time dead. The description was "Black silhouette of a typical historic baroque statue of St. John of Nepomuk against an evening sky after sunset." How do you recommend to update the description? Should I explicitly state that it is over 200 years old when "baroque" and "historic" were not enough, or do similar things get rejected anyway?
  8. I doubt this has anything to do with GDPR as GDPR is not concerned with sporting or music events specifically. It seems more probable that SS reviewers can not easily find out whether photographing was permitted by organizers at one event or another (and they know that it is banned in some cases), so they banned everything just to be sure. That is unfortunate, leads to further uncertainty for editorial contributors and is also somewhat lazy.
  9. https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/czech-republic-may-03-2018-tombstones-1320573212
  10. https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/abandoned-slovak-shepherds-cabin-broken-roof-1348907057
  11. I understand, but the same kinds of characters were accepted in like tens of other images, including images in the same batch, so I think the problem might be elsewhere. Concerning what people care about - this can be, but my downloads are often from local customers who promote tourism-related things, in this case mentioning a location might be useful.
  12. Hello everybody, recently, I had a series of commercial landscape shots rejected because of description. However, the attached note is too broad for me to identify the problem correctly. It states that the "Title must be descriptive of the subject matter and must be in English. Titles cannot contain special characters, spelling/grammar errors or repeat words/phrases in excess". The landscape shots I post can theoretically fall into some of these cathegories by accident (I shoot places that sometimes have unusual characters in their name and English is not my native tongue) BUT I never had problems with descriptions of editorials, even if they included some non-English place names. Can you ask for your opinion on why some of the images might have been rejected while others (with similar description) were not? For example, on the first attached screenshot, the lower image (Two trees standing on an edge of a hill ridge. Ground is covered by yellow, partly mown grass. Shot in Doupovské Mountains, Czech republic. Krušné Mountains and Měděnec hill are on the horizon.) was not accepted, while the upper one (Granite rock formation "Klepec" (Also known as "Slouha") near the village of Skřivany, Czech republic. A night shot.) was accepted in the same batch. Another example is in the second screenshot: Accepted: Ruins of former waterworks in a forest with several rusty pipes, a small lake and a waterfall. Close to Scheibteich, Czech-German border. Not accepted: An ancient linden tree (Tilia Cordata) standing on a small hill, accompanied by other trees. Shot in Nepomyšl, Czech republic. Sometimes it also seems that reviewers dislike too specific/detailed place names for commercials (But I consider this to be an important part of description, as you probably do not want to use a landscape image shot in Europe for an ad promoting Asia...) and do not like things that are in the picture, but can not be seen by naked eye (I got some rejections for places with "former military range" or "a castle used to stand on this rock" in description). However, for me (well, I have a degree in archaeology, so maybe that is the difference :-), a former military range is still a military range, just transformed (for example, different plants grow there, its emptiness is unusual for cultural landscape in the region...), and a rock with former castle is still different from a purely natural object - there usually are smaller traces of constructions and has a different tourism value. Also, such information has importance when sellling photos to tourist portals, guidebooks etc., which often happens to me. As I have said, I had no problems with editorial descriptions even when I inculded same types of information or non-basic characters from non-English languages. I was thinking that I can upload some landscapes as commercials as there are no objects requiring a model release in them, but I am getting those rejections, so the standards must be in some way different. Any ideas? Thank you.
  13. As I look, I have also added "Shot from Vyšehrad Castle" to the photo, maybe that was the problem. The Vyšehrad Castle is public ground, a hill with a former castle and a fortress, now a park - but it might not be clear to the reviewer. I will try to specify that more clearly the next time.
  14. Hello everybody, I have recently noticed that some of my cityscapes of Prague historic city centre were rejected because of missing property release requirement. For example the attached photo. Alright, I can license such scenes as editorials. However, while browsing similar images, I noticed that many quite similar images are listed as non-editorial, for example here: https://www.shutterstock.com/cs/image-photo/lobkowicz-palace-on-cloudy-day-prague-412618756 Where is the difference? I tend to be more specific when naming buildings that can be seen (In the case of the linked image, it was the Prague Castle, Church of St. Nicholas, Church of Our Lady Victorious and a water tower of the Lesser town). All of them are 19th century or older (for example the castle is medieval, but the cathedral was finished in 19th century, the churches are baroque and the tower is 19th century). Could it be that only more generically named photos are accepted ("Cityscape of Prague at Night"), or does it depend more on reviewers and their guidelines (which may change in time)? I have also noticed that churches tend to be rejected for commercial release more often than castles or abandoned industrial monuments, are possibly guidelines for religious objects more strict? Best, Jan Pohunek
  • Create New...