This is a panorama of the Jerusalem city walls at night.  The taking of the shot has an interesting story itself.  I took this with my Sigma 80-400 4-5.6 OS at 400mm and 5.6.  When I first submitted the shot, it was rejected due to softness.  I was quite surprised at this because I used a tripod, mirror lock, and a remote shutter release.  The tripod itself was on sturdy concrete.  How could it be soft?

To my surprise, when I examined the shot at 100%, it was soft.  The simple fact was, the Sigma was too soft at 400mm and 5.6.  As a result of further investigation, I sold this lens because I could no longer depend on it.  Eventually I will buy a new telephoto, but right now I rarely need one and I’m waiting for Canon to improve on their 100-400mm lens.

The next step I did was shrinking the size of the picture down.  This often works when the shot is a bit out of focus.  Shutterstock accepted the picture and it is a good seller.  IStockPhoto rejected the shot – and it is an interesting point why.

They rejected it for two reasons.

First, they had an issue with the lettering on the buses, which could be copyrighted.  Here is the bus with the best viewable lettering at more than 100%.

Even though I think this is a bit too obsessive, it is easy to remove in Photoshop.  The other issue IStockPhoto had with the picture was the keywords.  According to the reviewer, archeology, Jewish, and tourism are not relevant keywords!  I have noticed in general that my Israel pictures are vetted more closely for keywords than for photos of other places I have been.  In a recent shot of an Ibex near the Dead Sea, the shot was rejected due to the keywords “Dead Sea”.  I changed the title to indicate that the picture was taken a few hundred meters from the Dead Sea itself and the shot was accepted.  I likely will do something similar for this shot – after I Photoshop the buses.

This shot was rejected from both sites, but for different reasons.  Shutterstock rejected the shot due to limited commercial use.  IStockPhoto rejected it for poor lighting.  I’m not sure I agree with the “poor lighting” rejection, but the limited commercial use rejection is plausible.  Many microstock sites will not accept most flower pictures.  Although I rather like this shot, I agree that it is not much more impressive than the millions of other flower shots out there.

This shot, of Petra at night, was accepted by Shutterstock and accepted on IStockPhoto.  On Shutterstock, it is a very good seller and one of my coworkers recently saw it in an advertisement.  The problem I had when taking this shot was it was extremely dark there.  The candles simply weren’t that bright and the monument is huge.  I used by Canon 16-35 2.8L II lens to take the shot but I still needed to take it at f/2.8 with an exposure of 30 seconds at ISO 800.  Because I took the shot at ISO 800, it had noise.  I used Noise Ninja to remove the noise and Shutterstock accepted the picture.  IStockPhoto rejected it due to the use of noise reduction.  I tried reducing the amount of noise reduction, while still removing the noise, but it was to no avail.  IStockPhoto simply didn’t take it.  Still, this is their loss – as the photo is a very good seller on Shutterstock.

This one is actually a trick question.  I have not submitted it to IStockPhoto yet, but Shutterstock rejected it because I had too many similar photos.  Ironically, IMHO this photo is a bit better than the other similar ones that Shutterstock accepted!  The similar ones have sold rather well and I intend to submit this one soon – once the rejected image is deleted from their database.  This isn’t a bad tactic to use, because if all of the shots were accepted at once they would all slow down at the same time in terms of sales.  Spacing these shots out over several months will enable me to get the maximum sales from them.

This shot was rejected due to the poor lighting.  In this case I agree with the reviewer, but thought it was still worth the shot.  Even if it were accepted, there are so many shots of flamingos out there that it would have been unlikely to sell well.  In general, bird shots do not sell very well on the microstock sites – similarly for insects.

This photo was rejected on Shutterstock but was accepted on IStockPhoto.  Shutterstock rejected it due to limited commercial use, but in my experience bee shots are decent sellers.  Compared to other insect shots they sell quite well.  The key thing to remember is that you are at the mercy of the reviewers.  Don’t take offense when you get a rejection you don’t agree with.  Just move on to your next shot and take solace that you don’t have to do their job.  Also remember that you took this shot for yourself, and no reviewer can take that from you.

First I must remind everyone that I am posting these shots here to help you get started in microstock photography.  Please do not steal my ideas – in particular this one.  If I find that these ideas are being used in other photos, I will not continue series like these.

It should be obvious what the problem with the shot is.  The lighting is horrible.  I eventually do plan to retake this picture with better lighting, but I decided to submit this version anyways.  IStockPhoto rejected it due to the lighting – but added a nice comment that the reviewer loved the shot and that I should retake it.  Shutterstock accepted it and it has sold decently well there – even an enhanced license.

This just shows that thinking outside of the box can often have good results.  Try to find ideas and shot that others have not taken, and you will often see good results.

This is the end of the my series on microstock photography.  I hope that at least some of this info has proven helpful and that you are able to earn yourself a bit extra with the microstock sites.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.