Submitting to Big Stock Photo

John Young

John Young

Messages
4,330
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I submitted some photos to Big Stock Photo and they got rejected. I am not completely suprised as I know these places are strict and my photos are not brilliant but I am a bit confused.

The first one below was rejected as being to dark/underexposed


Photo 1

Yes but that was my intention, I was trying to make it dark and moody and its a silhouette so its going to be dark

The second one here they said is blurred and not crisp when viewed full size

Photo 2

I mean its clouds etc but I don't think its to bad.

Opinions please, I am no pro so maybe I am missing something :thinking:
 
To be honest I can see why they rejected no 1, it does look under exposed with a blown out sky. Always difficult shooting into the sun.

With No 2 I think the issue is the horizon line is out of focus, the focus seems to be on the branch on the left.

I'm no pro either mind you.
 
So what would be the best approach to get the tree in silhouette with the sky nice and moody or can you not submit those to sites like Big Stock Photo ??
 
Meter for the sky and use that for your base exposure, failing that try exposure bracketing and merging the images.

Thats what I would try.

I'm not sure what you can and cant submit or what they will or will not accept as I dont send my photos to stock sites, my comments are just my opinion in general about the images.
 
I can also see why they rejected them. Their reasoning is about right.

You can submit just about anything to bigstock I think (I submit occasionally), so long as the picture is taken well, or to at least their minimum standards. You'll also find that the people who give each shot the OK have different ideas on what's OK.

As for getting that kind of shot right, I personally would use a bit of bracketing and layering in PP. But I don't think that is necessary here as exposing for the sky should render the foreground silhouette like anyway by the looks of it :shrug: I think the real problem is the strange soft looking horizons. The focus is what you need to work on most IMO. There are lots of remedies for this, including tripod usage.

HTH :)
 
OK Thanks for the comments...

I have one or two pics on Big Stock Photo but they are macro shots. I think I will use my tripod next time
 
I'm not sure how a tripod is going to improve focus, if indeed that's the problem.

They have chosen to fault your pics on technical grounds because that's the easy way out. They are attractive enough images, but why should they use these over 1001 other similar and more appealing alternatives?

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but they are simply unremarkable. Find a really good subject first, then apply immaculate technique. In that order. A great subject will often get used, even when technically it may fall a little short, but the reverse is much more difficult.
 
HoppyUK said:
I'm not sure how a tripod is going to improve focus, if indeed that's the problem.

They have chosen to fault your pics on technical grounds because that's the easy way out. They are attractive enough images, but why should they use these over 1001 other similar and more appealing alternatives?

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but they are simply unremarkable. Find a really good subject first, then apply immaculate technique. In that order. A great subject will often get used, even when technically it may fall a little short, but the reverse is much more difficult.
Click to expand...


No that's not harsh I understand what you are saying.

I suppose I assumed that they would be useful to someone but I was wrong.

As a bit of fun which of the two photos below do you think got accepted on Big Stock Photo. One was accepted with no problem the other was turned down flat with similar reason to my Sunset photo above (not clear etc when viewed full size)


Macro 1


Macro 2
 
No doubt I'll look foolish here but I'd say that #1 was accepted.

#2 is a less interesting composition and there's just too much reflection off the rear of the carapace.

If I'm wrong I'm bemused. :thinking:
 
Well, if I was doing the picking, it would be #1. No 2 isn't very interesting and the background is too similar to the beastie.
 
No.1 is grossly blown out on all the whites in the sky. I would reject this straight away Im afraid. :|
 
it's alive said:
No doubt I'll look foolish here but I'd say that #1 was accepted.

#2 is a less interesting composition and there's just too much reflection off the rear of the carapace.

If I'm wrong I'm bemused. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Norseman said:
Well, if I was doing the picking, it would be #1. No 2 isn't very interesting and the background is too similar to the beastie.
Click to expand...


Yep you're both right....:clap: Maybe the Sheild bug is not a perfect shot but it looks sharp enough to me which is what it got turned down for

Janice said:
No.1 is grossly blown out on all the whites in the sky. I would reject this straight away Im afraid. :|
Click to expand...

Yeah true but the white areas (tips of clouds) were VERY bright in real life as the sun was just about to come out from behind there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top