• Noise
• Blur
• Under exposure
• Over exposure
• Harsh light / shadows
• Contains recognisable human faces

• Purple fringing
• No artistic merit
• Commonly submitted
• Contains copyrighted images or logos
• There's more, but these are what will be covered here

Noise

< Temple Bell. F5.6, 1/200, iso800 (never submitted). You'll notice small coloured specks, this is 'noise'. Usually, this occurs in darker areas, where there isn't enough light information for your camera's light sensor. This is especially common using high iso's. I try to use iso100 where possible to avoid this. You can usually 'smooth' this over with the blur tool. Using some specialty programs like 'Noise Magic', could actually create some unwanted artifacts. So, accept that some photos can be irretrievable.

< Buddha at iso3200. Even cropped at only 50%, the noise (coloured speckles) is very obvious. This picture has no commercial value. In this low light situation, you need permission to use a tripod in this temple, and to use a very slow shutter speed. Probably, a film camera can do a better job of it.

< This occurs from poor post processing. This is also called jpeg artifacts to some. Never re-save jpegs, keep the original RAW or psd (PhotoShop document) files, edit them, then save in jpeg. Also, when you save, save at maximum (100%) quality to create the maximum file size possible for maximum quality printing.

Blur

< Baby Singer. F11, 1/125, iso100; 18-70mm lens. 800watt flash. The problem here is in post processing. What happened was the original image was scaled down, and then scaled up again. The original image itself was fine, but not this one. Also, in the second half, you'll see some junk there, that ought not be there; it'd be rejected because of 'a lack of artistic merit'.

< Mountain Cable Car. F4.5, 1/125, iso200; 75-300mm lens at 75mm, monopod used. Really, a proper tripod should've been used, especially to steady that long heavy lens. Subsequently, I didn't bother submitting this one.

(Also see: Shutter Speeds)

< Nagoya Castle. F6.3, 1/125, iso100, polariser used, handheld. Here, the issue could be for any one (or more) of these problems. (1) difficulty focusing at distance with filters on (polariser used); (2) Being handheld, should have used a higher shutter speed or tripod; (3)  Using a standard (not high quality) lens, (see wikipedia for bokeh).

Under / Over Exposure

< Train in snow. F13, 1/125, iso200, 75-300 lens at 135mm (never submitted). This appears a little dark, and a little dry of colour. There does need to be a little vibrancy. Also, you can go the other way and be over exposed.

< Monks at noon. F5.6, 1/320, iso400, 75-300mm lens at 230mm. One of my favourite temple-people pictures, and it cannot be used. Just looking at the legs is a clear reason why: 'blown-out highlights'. There are no features, no details, no textures or anything. What has happened here is that there was so much light information that flooded the digital sensor, that it went off the charts, and so it only shows a white patch

Other reasons why it cannot be used is the noise on the legs of the guy in blue (see close up cropped at 100%, iso400 was used). If the bright pavement in the foreground were cropped out, making it look better, the image would then be too small for acceptance.

Contains Recognisable human faces

< Little Flute. F8, 1/160, iso400; 75-300mm lens at 300mm (never submitted). All Royalty Free (RF) images require a Model Release (MR) (see the bottom of this page for more info). ANY image that contains a face simply must have an MR. So, most images on microstock libraries are posed, planned, and prepared. Rights Managed (RM) images, mostly don't need MRs, but would sell better, or fetch higher prices where an MR was included.

Purple Fringing

< Rice Planting. F6.3, 1/320, iso100, 75-300mm lens at 300mm. If you click on the first image, you'll see it looks fine, but the second image shows a portion of the same image, cropped at 100%, and the arrows shows the areas of concern. At first, I thought this was purple paint, because it was so strong, though it was rejected as 'purple fringing', which did surprise me. No filters were used, and I regretted forgetting my polariser and ND filters, which might have reduced or prevented this. Just the same, wikipedia has a good article on purple fringing here.

No Artistic Merit

< Daffodils. It's hard to give a precise definition for this, but essentially, it's anything that looks dodgy, weird, or just not right. This is also a catch all term for it possibly not having any 'stock' value, as in, it'd only be a waste of space on a microstock library, advertising agencies, website designers and such would have no use for it. This daffodil picture wasn't even submitted.

Commonly Submitted

< Plum Flowers. F11, 1/160, iso100, 18-70mm at 70mm. In this game, you really, really need to be original. Most stock agencies have more flower and pet pictures than they have toilet paper. Accepting anymore is like winning two life time's supply of toilet paper! Unless you're exceptionally good at flower or pet photography, don't even bother.

Contains copyrighted images or logos

< JR (Japan Rail) F13, 1/125, iso200, 75-300mm at 300mm (never submitted). This is a BIG no-no. Never attempt to sell Royalty Free (RF) images that contain either of these. The end user (buyer) wants to use it with no legal restrictions. So including company names and trademarks are out. Also, note that certain buildings and products have a copyright on them, that includes Ferraris, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the iPod and others. You need, not a Model Release, but a Property Release (PR) to be able to have the right to sell an image RF that contain these and others.

< Train in snow. F13, 1/125, iso200, 75-300 lens at 135mm (never submitted). This train has had the PhotoShop clone tool remove the JR logo. Also signatures and web addresses added to the image will be rejected.

Stock Agencies and Ethics > Also see Making Money.

I'm no longer updating or adding images with microstock agencies, mostly because time and equipment is expensive, and the remuneration is insufficient; at 25 cents per sale, means exploitation of us. So, like all self-respecting photographers, I'm (now) in Rights Managed (RM), where I don't work for peanuts, anymore. Though, RM demands higher quality and skill. You can achieve the standards with practice.