Some rocks, two walls and a lot of empty space…

Three more photos accepted for microstock. Although I don’t really foresee these selling, but at least it shows that the photos are of the minimum technical standard required. The next step is to take photos that are actually creative so that I can get actual sales. I do find that to get photos approved, you just need to leave a lot of copy space available and it usually suffices (but may not sell). Anyway, here are the photos below:

(BTW, so can you name the locations of the three photos? (*Hint, all are taken in England). At least one of them should be a clear giveaway, right?)

Photo 1
stock-photo-22708282-green-door-with-masonry-wall

Photo 2
stock-photo-22708656-stonehenge-rock-formation-in-united-kingdom

Photo 3
stock-photo-23293188-red-mailbox-on-wall

The (late) results report

From my last post, I was supposed to report on my submission outcomes and the rejection reasons…. but who likes to report rejects (which explains the more than one month delay in the post)? Anyway, as promised, here are the reasons given out of the five six photos I submitted.

Photo 1
stock-photo-22092173-gummy-bear-line-up

Rejected because of Noise / Artifact. Basically, means that when viewed at full size, can see a lot of coloured speckles where it shouldn’t be or can see pixelating due to compression to JPEG.

Actually, I don’t really see much of this in my photo, but since it was set as “do not resubmit”, so I let go.

Photos 2 & 3
stock-photo-22194558-tiramisu-dessert stock-photo-22194461-gourmet-pasta

Both were rejected due to lighting / exposure problems which was fair since I basically had no properly lighting at the time (just having dinner at a dimly lit restaurant).

Photo 4
stock-photo-22194610-wagyu-japanese-beef-steak
Actually this was ACCEPTED! To me honestly, this photo is pretty much the same as the previous two, so I’m not sure why it was accepted whereas the other two weren’t, but I guess it all boils down to different inspectors with slightly different criteria. Nevertheless, I’m happy for anything to get accepted (haha… talk about setting a low standard for oneself) 🙂

Photo 5
stock-photo-22196064-cute-baby-with-serious-look
My son’s photo didn’t make it though. I guess as a dad, I’ll always end up loving his photo more than anyone else and affects my judgement.

The reason for rejection was Noise / Artifact and also Lighting / Exposure… so this one was pretty much a gone case.

Photo 6
stock-photo-22091588-electric-bicycle-with-licence-plate-on-the-footpath
This was also ACCEPTED.

The fact that I didn’t even mention this photo in my initial post was because of two reasons. Firstly, I’m not entirely proud of it. Secondly, since it was taken from my camera phone and I deliberately used a lot of ridiculous effects from phone apps to test the system.

Why would I take and submit such a photo? That’s because iStockphoto added a new category called “MobileStock” which is a collection of photos taken from mobile phones. I wanted to test what is the acceptance criteria for that collection (compared with the normal stock photos taken from DSLRs) and as expected, they accept a much lower quality. Although this is true, I can’t see myself uploading a lot of such photos since from what you see above, I’m no good with phone apps effects so I better stay away from it (I’ve seen people’s Instagram that looks way better than this).

So, the final result is only 2 out of 6 photos accepted from this round of submissions. Not too good since my average is coming down, but hope I can improve the next round.

Hope you learnt from my mistakes. 🙂