Can't sell images

Justin1971

Justin1971

Messages
252
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been trying to upload some of my photo's to stock web sites to (hopefully) sell my images.

Thing is they keep being rejected due to 'on or more of the following reasons'...

Then there's a great list of problematic areas which I'm sure mine don't fall into.

Basically is an 18-55mm or 55-250mm kit lens good enough to take 'tack sharp' images or do I invest in some better 'glass'?

I've even used a tripod on some to make sure they are as sharp as possible, haven't resized them (as this is a big no-no apparently), and done little or no PP...

Any ideas would be a big help please (preferably from someone with this kind of experience) :)

Justin
 
Upload the images in question.


There are loads of reasons they may be rejected. One dust spot is all it takes.

I have about 150 on Alamy and 30 on Getty, plus some on fotolia.

Very few get rejected from Alamy now, although my first submission was.
 
MWHCVT said:
I've got a few on stock but not got any real experience, it may help if you post some up with links to full size images for us to have a look at maybe help with why they were possibly rejected (y)
Click to expand...

I'll see what I've got left (full size) as I may have deleted them in a sulky moment lol

So do you reckon kit lenses are worthy of such shots?
 
TCR4x4 said:
Upload the images in question.


There are loads of reasons they may be rejected. One dust spot is all it takes.

I have about 150 on Alamy and 30 on Getty, plus some on fotolia.

Very few get rejected from Alamy now, although my first submission was.
Click to expand...

Do they sell? and what kind of income do you receive from them? I understand if you don't want to say on here...
 
justinminns said:
What site is it and what are the problematic areas?

If it's Alamy and one of the images uploaded fails then they fail the lot so try uploading the best one on it's own and see what happens.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of Alamy - the ones I tried where fotolia, shutterstock and one other I forget the name of... something like depositphoto's...

I'll keep snapping and keep trying, and also give Alamy a shot (pardon the pun)...
 
Without knowing your camera, some agencies require a minimum file size too which could be a problem depending on how you are editing the photos.

All the agencies have fantastic 'how to' sections, try and join the forums of the stock sites for some detailed help. The biggest problem with micro stock sites is that they are saturated and it is very difficult to upload something that is unique. many customers of stock go to the same photographer on the agents books so you will notice a successful stock photographer will have a huge portfolio which is incredibly diverse.

Good luck.
 
Justin1971 said:
Do they sell? and what kind of income do you receive from them? I understand if you don't want to say on here...
Click to expand...

Yes they sell, anywhere from 20p to £200 per image. You need thousands of images to make any real money. All I get is pocket money.
 
I used to sell stock photos in the film days,they were all shot on Kodachrome
64 rated at 80 also shot with top glass.

Its a hard market to make a full time living from,it also depend on the sought subject you are shooting :)
 
mattd85 said:
Every time I upload to Alamy I get "no definition" rejection message?
Click to expand...

What are the images of? Are they sharp, is the a clear subject? Post an example. Could also be the metadata has been stripped and they are rejecting it in those grounds.
 
Just echoing other folks... It's impossible to offer much advise without seeing the shots and also the list of rejection reasons...
 
Alamy now accept images from Mobile Phones, Getty sell blurry pictures from Capra, Cartier-Bresson etc. so your Kit Lens/Camera must be real bad if it can't beat a Mobile Phone.
Run a check on the number of images these Libraries hold, its in the Billions, and decide if your time might be spent on other things.
 
Hardly - the ability to take a decent shot is what matters - you can get a great shot with an Iphone or a crap one with 5ks worth of DSLR
 
Rankbadyin said:
Alamy now accept images from Mobile Phones, Getty sell blurry pictures from Capra, Cartier-Bresson etc. so your Kit Lens/Camera must be real bad if it can't beat a Mobile Phone.
Run a check on the number of images these Libraries hold, its in the Billions, and decide if your time might be spent on other things.
Click to expand...

Again it all depend on what the image is of :)
 
Different agencies have drastically different preferences as well so you need to "learn" them.

iStock really hates processing on images for example whereas Shutterstock prefer processed, vivid, cropped "final" style images more. Alamy seem to accept absolutely anything as long as its technically OK and lets the buyer decide commercial value.

Its perfectly possibly to get sharp images with those kit lenses if used within their limitations.

Ideally the images you submitted, what agency you submitted to and the rejection reason(s) you got would help.
 
Selling photos is easy, making a living from it is nigh on impossible these days.

If you are seriously intent on making some cash, the best thing you can do is sell your photos as prints at local arts fairs and the such, or local shops.
 
Alamy have accepted many of mine taken with an ancient 28-300 sigma lens. Normal kit lens should be fine at middling apertures.

Maybe they're getting more fussy now? I had my first rejection from them recently. Previously everything was accepted.
 
wuyanxu said:
was reading this thread and thought to give stock photography a try.

so Alamy thought this shot was "Soft or lacking definition". What do you think?
Click to expand...

I am not sure about soft but it has dust bunnies and the sky is artifacted.
 
It does look soft to me. With stock you have to have something sharp and of interest that is immediately noticeable.
 
so need a picture that works both blown up large or tiny thumbnail?

what do you mean by artifacted? what are those?
 
tiler65 said:
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/glossary/g/jpegartifacts.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I'd thought compression artifacts shouldn't appear in the 100% Jpeg quality, non-resized image I sent over.

It's probably due to dust bunnies and the ducks moved during the long exposure giving impression of blurry shot. Or perhaps it's not interesting enough, either way, I'll find another more interesting one to submit.


With test submission, only this shot got failed with a reason. the other 3 just marked Failed QC without reason. Their website says test submission requires all shots to pass, so I guess the other 3 shots are okay?
 
wuyanxu said:
Thanks for the link. I'd thought compression artifacts shouldn't appear in the 100% Jpeg quality, non-resized image I sent over.

It's probably due to dust bunnies and the ducks moved during the long exposure giving impression of blurry shot. Or perhaps it's not interesting enough, either way, I'll find another more interesting one to submit.


With test submission, only this shot got failed with a reason. the other 3 just marked Failed QC without reason. Their website says test submission requires all shots to pass, so I guess the other 3 shots are okay?
Click to expand...

That could be the definition part!
 
wuyanxu said:
Thanks for the link. I'd thought compression artifacts shouldn't appear in the 100% Jpeg quality, non-resized image I sent over.

It's probably due to dust bunnies and the ducks moved during the long exposure giving impression of blurry shot. Or perhaps it's not interesting enough, either way, I'll find another more interesting one to submit.


With test submission, only this shot got failed with a reason. the other 3 just marked Failed QC without reason. Their website says test submission requires all shots to pass, so I guess the other 3 shots are okay?
Click to expand...

One shot fails means the whole lot fails. If they looked at the above image first and failed it, they wont even look at the others. So, no it doesnt necesasrily mean the others are ok.
 
Although the kit lens will never be the sharpest, you really don't necessarily need 'tac sharp' images for stock photos.

They take anything!
 
wuyanxu said:
was reading this thread and thought to give stock photography a try.

so Alamy thought this shot was "Soft or lacking definition". What do you think?

Sunset lake by wuyanxu, on Flickr
Click to expand...


It's only 2049 pixels across. Did you submit it at that res? If so, why? It was shot on a 5D MkII.

Plus... no offence... but who would buy it? Some trees, and a light industrial unit in the distance. What is it a shot of? Stock images need a definite subject. Most stock imagery is bought to illustrate something in a publication. Who would use this, and why?
 
Its too low a res on flickr to tell but to me it looks like its not quite in focus in the distance (street lights are looking a bit hexagonal).

There is a huge dust bunny 2/3 of the way up and several smaller towards the top.

The ducks and water are blurred from the exposure time and i guess that's where the soft part is.

In addition, theres a logo/name on the factory in the distance so that's a trademark rejection.

It'll be the motion blur and possibly distant OOF that got the rejection although as above there are others they could have picked.

Not deliberately trying to pick holes but ive had more than a fair share of stock rejections before working it out. The above comments will all be noticed.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all, the comments are all appropriated and taken on board for picking shots in the future.

I've got 4 pictures accepted on 2nd try with a different image that is sharp and very eye catching. (on the ground shot of a sand castle on an empty beach)
 
Greetings,

I've been looking at Alamy and photobox for selling my photos is it worth it?
 
Last edited:
I found it a lot easier to get photos accepted on alamy than fotolia, in fact at one time I was only submitting my ft rejects there but gave up as returns were so poor, much less than the price indicator leads you to believe.

If you were posting that image on the fotolia forum you would probably get told -poor composition as horizon central in frame. No definite focal point, dull lighting with no 'pop', plus if you can read the writing on the building possible copyright issues
 
TCR4x4 said:
One shot fails means the whole lot fails. If they looked at the above image first and failed it, they wont even look at the others. So, no it doesnt necesasrily mean the others are ok.
Click to expand...

Alamy say that they will give failure reasons for all images that fail QC on the test submission.
The "one fails - all fail" policy appears only to apply to ongoing submissions
 
Virtualcolm said:
Alamy say that they will give failure reasons for all images that fail QC on the test submission.
The "one fails - all fail" policy appears only to apply to ongoing submissions
Click to expand...

They didnt on mine. My first submission failed but only had one reason on one photo
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's only 2049 pixels across. Did you submit it at that res? If so, why? It was shot on a 5D MkII.

Plus... no offence... but who would buy it? Some trees, and a light industrial unit in the distance. What is it a shot of? Stock images need a definite subject. Most stock imagery is bought to illustrate something in a publication. Who would use this, and why?
Click to expand...

As someone who's never tried to sell images, but would perhaps like to, this does ring true to me. Were I to do so I think images of "stuff" might do better on Alamy and the like, whereas images as "art" might be better sold on your own website or sites that specialise in art/paintings etc, or through fairs (hopefully commanding art-like prices as well :))
 
So does anyone have any other advice on selling photos or using photobox etc? I know Zen use photobox as a UK Lab, but i find their prints dark. And can'y justify £150 a year + running a blog each year too.

Is their any T&C with Alamy about copyright for photos & whatnot or not being able to sell that same photo anywhere else ..?
 
Last edited:
Mp4 said:
So does anyone have any other advice on selling photos or using photobox etc? I know Zen use photobox as a UK Lab, but i find their prints dark. And can'y justify £150 a year + running a blog each year too.

Is their any T&C with Alamy about copyright for photos & whatnot or not being able to sell that same photo anywhere else ..?
Click to expand...

The word you are looking for is 'exclusivity'. Some stock agencies have a such an agreement where you make more money if you sell such a shot. Many picture editors use lots of stock agencies and from what I can see, it is generally sports footage that appears to be 'contracted' to a particular agency. So my advice would be, do not use an exclusivity clause and upload to as many agencies as you can. (always read the small print thought)

As for Photobox and Zenfolio etc...that is an entirely different thing than a stock agency.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top