Gtole Loc: Connecticut

Yes Its A DO. And I know its not an L (I do have a 24-105 L)
but the DO has produced Sharp pictures.
So what Im understanding here is I need to spend$2,000 to get Sharper images?
I have attached another shot (not submitted to Shutterstock) that I think is fairly sharp What do you think?

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

That one won't make it because of the shadows and for the second reason I mentioned. The third reason is the subject has to be well lit. That picture is horribly lit. No depth of field. How would I cut the girl out if I wanted to just use her?

The real question is how is someone going to use this image.
Getting a photograph accepted is one thing. The stock companies like to have images that will sell.

I hope you don't take this personally. I'm just playing devils advocate. Like I am the stock company. There is no reason why a stock company would not accept your image if they believe the market will accept and use it. Period.

You may get by having an image accepted with your glass. But if you plan on doing this a lot I would recommend better glass thats coated.

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

Most stock companies are very strict on the test upload from a new photographer. The normal test is to take the image to full size in your editor, check it there and if there is any softness or blemish in the intended focal area do not submit. Some photographers will sharpen their images as well, a lot of stock sites do not want this as their customers want the image unaltered.

GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K

I see lots of chromatic aberration as well, especially towards the edges, which contributes to the softness. You can correct for this when processing the raw file in your image editing software. You also used the lens wide open. It performs best around f8. Wide open it will be soft at the edges.

Blanche007 Loc: Waltham, MA

Great to see that photo of Mohonk!

Kinopless Loc: Mandurah, Western Australia

Stock agencies are looking for the outstanding images, something that their clients will accept. They must be technically excellent.
When they submit images to their customers for publication their reputation is on the line. Local agencies in my neck of the woods required 100+ images for your first submission and you are expected to continue supplying images if you are accepted.. No sitting on your laurels.. Plus this is all at your expense. Whatever it costs to take the photos is down to you and believe me the rewards are not great for the effort required. The internet has killed the stock photo industry, that and greed. You can now buy an image online for as little as $2.50 and do what you wish with it. No limitations. A 10,000 print run, $2.50, and you as the photographer only get a portion of that. I get 50% but many get less.
If you're in it for the glory of having something in print, go for it. If you want a living out of stock photography, good luck...

MTG44 Loc: Corryton, Tennessee

How far does one zoom in for the photo to become acceptable? When do you stop zooming? Hope I asked that right.Also I have a Mac Pro and it has no gauge or % to measure how much you zoomed in. Otherwise you could go to infinity. Looking forward to your reply.

Joecosentino Loc: Whitesboro, New York

Just curious what is th financial deal with shutterstock, as soon as I saw I stock takes 70% I get 30% I stopped reading any farther. Those numbers are backwards

bfphoto Loc: Houston, TX

I submit to Shutterstock and several other agencies. Shutterstock is the easiest to get accepted and also has the best sells. The hardest agency is probably Istock, and I quit trying to get accepted there.

Now if you really want to get accepted, study the images that are already on the site and see what is acceptable. Also before you submit an image, check it out at 100% in photoshop and see if your photo is sharp and in focus. The least bit off and it will be rejected. If you take a portrait of a pretty girl, you need to be able to count her eyelashes.

You have to remember there are thousands of photographers submitting thousands of images everyday, so pretty good images is not going to cut it.

You also might want to check out this guy, Yuri Arcurs. He is the highest selling stock photographer in the world, selling thousands of images everyday. He is the competition...https://peopleimages.com/search#adult:off/image-view:square.

This is not to discourage you. Keep trying, because the one thing it will do is make you a better photographer. It is also a great feeling when someone eventually buys one of your images.

Good luck.

Gtole Loc: Connecticut

Thanks Everyone. Great input.
I'm not trying to make a living out of this but it would be nice to see something published. I was just curious because on my computer (macbook pro HD using aperture)these images look sharp (the first 3) But your comments have definitely helped .
Vasati I know the lighting wouldn't be acceptable to a stock company and that was the reason I said "I didn't submit it". The point of my posting that girl (My daughter) was for sharpness with the particular lens in question (The 70-300mmDO)
And when do shadows become part of the art? you cant have every nook and cranny lit the its just a flat picture.
You have some awesome pictures on your site but there are portraits that have shadows and are lit on the darker side (they look great) so when is it art (taste) and when is it comercially acceptable.

Just trying to take advantage of all your collective experience

thanks

Gtole Loc: Connecticut

Hi Bfphoto
I took a look at Yuris' site and now Im more confused then ever.
I find a lot of the pictures on the verge of washed out (very bright) and some of the focuses not sharp.
Again this leads to my question when is the use of shadows and blurring apart of composition and when is it commercially unacceptable.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Some of what I consider my finest portraits are not capable of being stock images. Probably most of them. The high key beauty shot on my front page would make a stock image on any stock site. You can count the eyelashes.
This image is perfect for adding digital makeup. Although I like this image it will disappear off my website within several months. My portfolio changes weekly.(at least that's the goal)
Shooting for stock and shooting portraits for clients are two different things.
The key question to ask is how would someone else use this image.
Stock companies don't care if you edit photos as long as looks unedited!
They look for a great image that is marketable not a great photograph.

Gtole Loc: Connecticut

Gotcha , So your saying a stock image needs to almost generic so it can be placed in ads etc. Kinda like clip art or vector images?

Gtole Loc: Connecticut

BTW love your sight

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Thanks for looking!

The image doesn't necessarily have to be generic. There would be lots of exceptions to that rule. The easiest way see what good stock images are is to go to a stock image library and look at photos. Search by a category that you are interested in doing. You'll get the idea.

The hardest part for most people is to look at their work objectively. Most people have less of a problem looking at what others do objectively. Especially on this forum.(lol)

To thine own self be true.


P.S. your avatar would make a good stock image. If you had the complete dog composed and your depth of field was sufficient and it was properly lit and it was sharp.

Is that your dog? Border Collie?
I love those dogs. Never seen one without a happy spirit.

On second look.
Looks like a wolf husky hybrid.
Still a good stock candidate.