What's not a stock photo: reject gallery

I discovered Dreamstime around the same time I bought a DSLR. It has been part of the unconventional teaching method I have followed towards the creation of better photographs. And in some ways I feel like I've taken advantage of the service and its considered review process with more rejection than success.

Despite so many rejections, I pride myself in the reasons for rejection changing. It used to be: too noisy, not properly focused, poor light, poor composition. Now it is reasons such as not generic enough, won't sell well. Nothing about the composition or picture taking.

I take this to mean that my picture taking is improving, but still my judgement of what makes a stock photograph is lousy. I don't mind this, I'm not setting out to become a professional stock photographer, I'm simply an opportunist stock photographer. Someone who sees a shot while out and about and takes a chance by uploading it to Dreamstime.

The number of photos I've upload has slowed over time, and as your rejections mount the time taken for them to be reviewed is longer. There are some successes, though, I have nine pictures online and I've even sold copies of a couple. And if you put your mind to it, I'm sure Dreamstime could generate a nice bit of revenue for you. I know I've certainly bought stock photos there and continue to do so.

Update: What is a stock photo?

After initial rejection of one of my latest submissions to Dreamstime because of identifying numbers and a nameplate, I Photoshopped these out using the content aware patch in Photoshop CS6 and here is the result. Proving their invitations to resubmit are genuine invitations not just a soft let down and that rusty old things do work in stock photos.