[me222]

Last Sunday I went to a concert of Roger Waters. I was lucky to be completely in front and took some marvelous pictures.
I decided to submit them to shutterstock. You need to submit 10 pictures as a new member. If 7 of the 10 pics are approved, you're fine. If not, you have to wait another month for a second chance (very stupid rule).
Not one was approved. Supposedly the quality was not good enough (they're very good) and/or the commercial value was too low (probably checked by a youngster who doesn't know what Pink Floyd is, let alone who Roger Waters is.)

Does this look like a bad picture?

On top of everything, I posted my frustration about this on their forum.

I'm new here and thought I'd submit some of my best pictures I took last Sunday - a concert of Roger Waters in Landgraaf.
The quality is good as I was in front (couldn't have been closer)and has great commercial value but apparently shutterstock has a different opinion...

Not one picture was approved.

Well, if Shutterstock thinks I'll come back next month to re-submit more pictures, even if they'd pay $1 per download, I prefer to pass and look somewhere else.

And of course I was banned.

[KoolAidMan]

Originally Posted by me222

If 7 of the 10 pics are approved, you're fine. If not, you have to wait another month for a second chance (very stupid rule).

I might not even bother with them then.

Originally Posted by me222

(probably checked by a youngster who doesn't know what Pink Floyd is, let alone who Roger Waters is.)

You'r theory is probably right.

Originally Posted by me222

Does this look like a bad picture?

Not bad at all. Your pic is far more appealing than the 5 they have in their archive. All 5 are pretty much the same as this one:

I just did a search for their most popular celebrity pictures; looks like your best off submiting celebrity images that have been done a million times over.

Cliches such as;


Warholian collages of dead rock stars.

...or simply take a copyrighted image, apply a PhotoShop filter to it, and sell it as your own.

...and of course you cant go wrong with a pic of Elvis or Che Guevara.

[KoolAidMan]

hmm can't seem to edit my post... I'd just like to add; it would probably be best when submitting for the first time to include a wide variety of your best work. Different subject matter and styles. Treat the same as you would a portfolio submission.

[me222]

Originally Posted by KoolAidMan

hmm can't seem to edit my post... I'd just like to add; it would probably be best when submitting for the first time to include a wide variety of your best work. Different subject matter and styles. Treat the same as you would a portfolio submission.

That's what I did: A wide variety of my best pics (agreed, all from the concert). I took a ton of pictures; the one I posted here is not even the best one...

Not one approved and then the ban me???

Then I read from their stupid membership there were other reasons why they didn't approve it (totally wrong) and I can't defend myself.

TE, take that amateur-site away from the "money"-making sites. It's worthless.

[me222]

This is an approved picture:

Ok, well, if you have a digital camera and if there's a wall in your neighborhood, just make a picture and submit it to shutterstock. You're guaranteed to get it approved. There's never been an easier way to make money...

[Ryz]

Lmao! After reading your story and seeing the picture above, I'm tempted to do just that. Maybe it's time to travel around the ol' neighborhood and take some random pictures of "small city" life.

How much would they pay me for 7-10 "approved" images of random buildings, anyway?

Oh, and by the way, your first picture (in 1st post) was great!

[geoff01]

I think your picture is absolutely great. What on earth are they looking for if they say that photo isn`t good enough quality? Weird.

[okosh]

Originally Posted by geoff01

I think your picture is absolutely great. What on earth are they looking for if they say that photo isn`t good enough quality? Weird.

Story may sound ''weird'' to some but others may call it ''karma''....

[me222]

More "bad" pictures:

And here is a "good" picture from their "Top 50 images ever" (number 45):

They seem to be a lot into ... walls. Make pictures of ... walls, guys and you're on your way to an early retirement.

[KoolAidMan]

I hope you don't mind receiving little constructive criticism and suggestions from an art school drop out...

Your pictures are really good. It would be a shame if you gave up on submitting them to any of the other stock photo sites out there... Your angles are great, images are in focus, color and exposure look good to my eyes. I just have a few suggestions concerning the way you framed your shots.

I think your first shot was awesome, my only real criticism is the way the way you chopped Rogers legs off at the knees. I would have left as much leg as possible and included the floor monitor in the shot. I'm not sure if what you posted was an unedited shot or if it was cropped in Photoshop... If it's still posible to get some more leg in there, I would.

I'd maybe crop out most of the blank space . From a news publishers perspective, blank space is probably considered waste of money so it might as well go. Stick with the old "rule of thirds". I'm not sure if you know what that is; for the sake of those reading this that don't, I'm going to try illustrate it. I don't mean to come across like some know it all wanker, I'm just writing this up as a small guide for anyone who might be interested. I'm by no means a photographic expert. It's all subjective anyways...

Rule of thirds:

Basically when your taking a shot you divide your space into thirds and place your main point of interest (in this case Rogers face) on one of the intersections circled in light green. Usually its best to go with one of the ones on the right side because most people read an image from left to right... unless your from Asia... anyway...

This is how I might try frame the image:

(The dark green arrows indicate how my eyes tend to move across the Image when I look at it.)

Your second photo is my favorite. Again the Angle is fantastic, etc. It might need up the brightness and contrast brought up a bit, thought my monitor might just be out of whack. THe only thing I feel absolutely needs to be cropped out is the mike poking out from the left side of the frame. I really dig the candles trailing of into the distance... which might be problematic in this case. The candles are your main point of interest, they are to my eye anyway. My eyes should be drawn to Roger, he's the subject. Instead when I read the image I start at the mike and my eyes skip right past Roger and get lost in the sea of candles. Either that or I start at the elbow and my eyes zip across that diagonal line and out of frame... or I get fixated on the candles again.

If I didn't want the canldes being my main focus point, this is how I would frame it up:

framed this way, my eyes go strait to the subjects face, take a nice like stroll along the flames, across the PA, take a break and admire Rogers mad skillz, and then return back home to his face.

Anyways, That's all just my humble opinion. If I were you I'd post 'em on a photography forum and get some feedback from the pros of stock photography, if you haven'y already done so... or just go and there and start taking brick wall shots like mad. I might jump on that bandwagon myself.