Jump to content

GregDPhotos

Members
  • Content Count

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GregDPhotos

  1. I concur with above; based on my read of SS policy, the above image should be accepted as editorial. Whether or not the identifiable people (or property) are in a public place doesn't matter in some jurisdictions when it comes to commercial use. For travel photography, as with wilderness photography for me, I would recommend carrying SS model releases and being prepared to ask people to sign them. It's not always appropriate and it's important to be careful, but editorial photos pay even less than commercial photos, so having the flexibility is ideal.
  2. In the market analysis world (part of my background), that's a very complex question. But in a nutshell, I would say that a single photo shoot (a much better measurement than a single image) is worth it financially (there are other measures of worth) if the first year's income from all shoot images combined covers the shoot costs and pays $10 or more per hour you put into the shoot. If you'd like more details than you probably want, you can message me through my profile.
  3. One of the first things I would do, if you haven't already, is read Shutterstock's Contributor Success Guide. Second, work with the suggestions made in previous responses. Third, unless your goal is to make your living at stock photography, focus on the photography you want to do while not being closed to new ideas and opportunities. Fourth, continue with limited-investment (time and resources) shoots until you have a really good feel for what works and what doesn't. Nothing like putting days, nights, and lots of money into one project and having 50% rejected.
  4. My hunch, along the lines of several previous comments, is the use of special characters. My experience has been that there are definite differences among reviewers and various rejection factors. I would review this article on rejection for title issues and look for any specific rejection reasons that match in addition to use of special characters: Why was my content rejected for Title? As a general rule, I would spell Skřivany "Skrivany." Even though it's technically wrong, it is the same basic spelling without any special characters.
  5. I didn't join the forum - just looked for answers to questions I had - until I happened across a question a couple weeks ago I thought I could contribute to. That's why the year-plus discrepancy. As for Tom's question, I imagine you have a lot more experience with contributor support than I do.
  6. In my 16 months at SS and decade in photography, I've learned a few things I don't mind sharing. However, I would almost always defer to long-time members on SS-specific subjects.
  7. I would check out SS article on rejection of content due to invalid model release: https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/en_US/kbat02/Why-was-my-content-rejected-for-Missing-or-Invalid-Model-Release?q=why+was+content+rejected+for+model+release&l=en_US&fs=Search&pn=1 If nothing in their list of specific rejection reasons fits, I suggest contacting SS Contributor Support on "content review" here: https://submit.shutterstock.com/contact. Sometimes they'll give specific explanations, sometimes more general but still might be helpful.
  8. As for what keywords to use, think about the person who would download the image. What phrases or keywords would they search for? Use those. If you're still not coming up with at least 30 keywords, I would definitely suggest using the keyword tool available through your contributor dashboard. Also, if you're using a pattern done by someone else, be sure to have them sign a Shutterstock property release!
  9. I would think this way: If I were to use photos to tell people what the village is like and why they would want to visit, what images would I want? People (be sure to get model releases), landmarks (be sure to get property releases), everyday life. The things that make this village different from others.
  10. The problem? Out of focus; no context or clear purpose; dark. The solution: Search Shutterstock for the types of photos you take, and look for patterns in what makes those photos good. Then study, practice, then study and practice some more. And don't let any of us discourage you.
  11. Definitely the second, plus a little more fixing I could do with my raw image. Thanks for the point.
  12. Do wildlife photos sell on Shutterstock at all? If so, what types (in-context, close-in, etc.) and from what regions of the world? As a landscape photographer I have some wildlife photography opportunities, but none of the wildlife photos have had a single download. I am anticipating some unique wildlife photography opportunities, and want to know if there are certain types of photos I would do well to try to get.
  13. Can only speak for in the US and I'm not a lawyer but have familiarized myself with copyright law here (which I understand is generally reflective of international copyright law). In the US, if person A takes a photo of person B, person A can use that image for editorial and certain other non-commercial purposes without permission from person B. A model release from person B is required for the photo to be used for commercial purposes. Second, model release issues aside, no one other than person A (the photographer) can use the image for commercial purposes - including sell it on Shutterstock for commercial or editorial purposes - without the photographer licensing that image for that specific purpose.
  14. Great photo. I would suggest two things: 1) subtly darken the sky; as it is the eye is drawn to the bright sky rather than the water. 2) Title your image with specific location information. My experience has been (generally) that people search for landscape photos by location. Almost all of my landscape images state the location/landscape subject. You can see how I titled and keyworded a similar image here: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sailboats-anchored-on-lake-washington-sunset-1221201580?src=4os6kb7wEMVBpb-ejcpzyg-1-0.
  15. Generally, this comes down to style. I don't have any recommendations for completely eliminating the specs. If your style calls for showing the scene "as is," I would recommend leaving it. If your style involves "purifying" images to only show certain elements, I would defer to a photoshop nerd who could provide you with sufficient instructions. As far as commercial viability, that largely depends on the market segment your photos generally attract and what they want.
  16. GregDPhotos

    DSC_0391.JPG

    Great composition. I would recommend bringing out the texture in the shadows, and subtly increasing the contrast in the sky. In this case your medium aperture seems to have worked, but as a general rule for landscapes I would strongly recommend f/14-f/18 and being sure to focus at the hyperfocal distance (somewhere around the middle of the first ridge, in this case).
  17. GregDPhotos

    Abby.jpg

    I would have had the women in as sharp of focus as the landscape. As it is, the eye can get confused because it is drawn to the most prominent subject but can't gather much information. If the goal was to have the city as the main subject, I would have used an unobstructed view. Here's an example of what I did with a similar image: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/climber-on-summit-east-pacific-north-773843806?src=2BO-CZ98KLCIQkGYxYo81w-1-10. Now that I've given you multiple long-winded comments, please keep in mind that almost any feedback you receive on this forum - from me or others - will have an element of personal bias, no matter how hard we try to remove it.
  18. As silhouettes go, I like this image. At the same time, the sun and sky are what draw the eye's attention; the dark and hazy city go almost unnoticed. That is perfectly fine for a photograph made for artistic purposes, but I think it is unlikely that much, if any, commercial value will be attached to it. I think that a photo with more balanced light would be more viable on Shutterstock - but that's a guess. I've attached an edited version of your photo that is more along this line (but messed up because I was editing a JPEG). My only technical feedback is that regardless of the purpose of the image or the effect you're looking for with the city, the sun is WAY overexposed.
  19. I like the goal of this image. The challenge I see is that there are very distracting "lines" to the left and right of the subject that lead the eyes away from the subject. On top of that, the brightest areas of the image are around the edges, further distracting the eyes from the darker subject. The shallow depth of field is a good start, but the branch to the left of the flower is apparently at roughly the same depth. I would recommend subtly darkening everything except the subject and reducing the contrast in those areas (see the edits I attached). You can also check out what I did with an image with similar issues here: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/spring-velvet-flora-1085686379. Hope this helps; keep at it!
  20. Agree with above. Here's one idea for improving the composition if you have the opportunity to try again: Move to the left, get the big rocks out of the picture, and see if you can line up the rocks further out to form a line that "leads" to the background. Not sure how this would ultimately work out, but I manipulated your image (see attached) to illustrate the point.
  21. Agree with Laurin; I can't give any helpful feedback on technical elements without a larger image. As far as composition, I have a starting question before I would give any feedback: Are you trying to sell this as a marketing image (for use with text/in order to sell something), example image (to illustrate someone's point), or display (to show the subject-matter)?
×
×
  • Create New...