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.

This image was rejected for poor lighting.  It is a complete isolation that took me some time to accomplish.  I took this picture explicitly for stock.  The result… I wasted my time.  This is an example of why you should only take the pictures you like, rather than take pictures just for stock.  If you take only the pictures you want to take, only the extra time spent adding keywords will be wasted if the image is not accepted or does not sell.

Interestingly, some time after this shot was rejected I post processed it a bit more and it was accepted.

This picture was rejected, but I can honestly not tell you why.  There are a number of possible reasons – focus, use as stock, etc.  However, I don’t really care.  I took this image as an experiment for depth of field.  It is a close up of the ball point of a pen with a very shallow depth of field.  The shot will not win any awards, but it was an experiment.  I submitted the shot figuring that it was worth a shot.  Since I took this shot for myself, I was not upset that the image was rejected.

This, and another more edited version of the shot, are my best selling pictures for microstock.  I submitted this original shot some time ago, then performed a better edit and submitted that one.  Both shots were accepted by Shutterstock, while the more edited version was rejected by IStockPhoto but the version above was accepted.  Together, this is the best selling shot for Dubai.  I have made over $1000 in income from microstock just for this shot – so with the right shots you can definitely make money there.  Eventually, I expect the money from this shot to pay for one of the nights we stayed there!

This shot was the result of 200 attempts to get a falling drop.  I took it entirely for myself but thought the end shot may sell.  Interestingly, this shot was rejected on Shutterstock but accepted on IStockPhoto.  I’m guessing that the reason is the shot is more artistic.  Sometimes IStockPhoto reviewers will be more flexible about focus and other things if they really like the shot.  In this case, the drop itself is a bit out of focus.  The flash is also a bit too strong on the drop.  Because of this, the shot was rejected on Shutterstock.  On IStockPhoto several copies were sold but it’s not a great seller.

For those who are wondering what this is, it is a closeup of velcro.  The main reason I took this shot was I was curious what it would look like close up.  I got a kick out of the resulting image and thought others may want the photo.  Of course, the reviewers thought otherwise and this was an easy rejection for them.  Still, I don’t mind because I satisfied the main aim of this picture – which was to satisfy my curiosity.

This has long been one of my favorite frost pictures.  Typically when I show this picture off, I don’t hear much of a response.  I have posted this on the web and shown it in presentations and never have I heard “nice shot!”.  After some time, my suspicions are that this is not a great shot in the minds of most others.  This is an example of a shot that I believed was much better than judged by others.  Clearly the reviewer was in the “others” camp as this image was rejected for not being stock worthy.

Although I still like the shot, I do recognize that it would not sell well.  There are just too many different pictures of flowers out there and my other images of frost that were accepted did not sell well.

No related posts.

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

Remember, the questions to consider for each image are

1. Was it accepted?
2. If accepted, was it accepted on all sites?
3. Did it sell?

This photo was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  The main reason it was rejected is the Key Arena logo in the lower right corner.  This is very often a problem in city scenes.  Shutterstock, though, had no issue with the photo and accepted it.  It sells quite well and when I recently checked it, it was #10 out of 473 shot for the Seattle skyline.  My only ask is that you do not flood the market more than it is already flooded with Seattle skyline pictures.

This shot was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  In truth, the focus of the shot is debatable.  Given the texture of the dandelion seeds it is very difficult to tell whether they are properly in focus.  IStockPhoto, when in doubt, generally rules the photos as out of focus.  Shutterstock is usually a bit more lenient.  This image has not been downloaded very often, but did receive an extended license.  Note that this image has a number of emotional keywords – such as “freedom” – defined from the free flowing seeds.  Always make sure to include the best set of keywords possible.

This picture was accepted on both sites and is my best selling insect picture.  I think it sells well because it is of a desirable insect (ladybug) and it has a number of “emotional” keywords – such as predator, prey, life, death, etc.  Interestingly, this shot sells much better on IStockPhoto than on Shutterstock.  In general, the top shots usually do sell better on IStockPhoto because they earn more per download.  You usually make more money on Shutterstock though because the lesser images also sell.  This particularly image was used on the BBC web site.

This is also a good lesson for remembering the “other” English.  Ladybugs are called “ladybirds” in England and I always include both words when keywording.  Some microstock sites will do this logic for you, but this is not guaranteed so I make no bets on it.

This shot was rejected.  As you can see in the image below the end of the beak is out of focus.  While the rest of the photo is in focus, the drop constitutes a key part of the photo.  In general, not all parts of your photo must be in focus.  However, if that part is an important part of the photo, it must be in focus or your image will be rejected.

Even if this picture were accepted, I doubt it would sell well.  There are just too many pictures of swans out there.

This particular shot was accepted on Shutterstock and rejected on IStockPhoto.  The IStockPhoto rejection was for too much post processing.  I rather like the processing here, but obviously the reviewer disagreed.  I do wish that I had toned down the building in the center a bit.  Still, the IStockPhoto reviewer was likely right as this shot has sold only moderately on Shutterstock.  Skylines in general are good sellers but please don’t flood the market with Seattle shots!

This shot was accepted on both sites and is a decent seller.  In general isolation shots do very well in stock because they allow the graphic designer a good deal of freedom.  In this particular shot, it is not a true isolation as you can see the shadows underneath the legs.  For this purpose, though, most graphic designers will accept that and still use it.  For less complicated objects, you will usually earn more by doing a complete isolation.  There are a number of techniques for isolation on the Internet.  I find that different techniques work with different shots.  For me, shooting the image slightly overexposed and then playing with levels has worked quite well.

One thing to keep in mind with isolation shots though is you must get the isolation right.  When I first started these types of shots I would often receive rejections due to bad editing.  In my case I found that practice makes perfect (OK, not perfect but you get what I mean).

No related posts.

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