I recently tried my hand at submitting to a stock photography business.

I figured I would try submitting to Shutterstock. So I carefully selected 10 varied images (as per their requirements for initial submission) from my archives.

After submitting the images, I was rapidly and bluntly turned away. With the exception of one photo, each image was rejected for aesthetic reasons: "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition."

The other image, a tasteful nude, was rejected because I didn't attach a model release (even though you could not see the model's face).

This has been a valuable learning experience. As I posted my initial dismay on Facebook, other photo friends shared their input regarding their attempts at uploading photos to Shutterstock or other agencies. Their comments gave me pause and forced me to reconsider the shot to my ego.

The crux of the matter is that I should have researched Shutterstock's style and needs a little more. The photos I uploaded were too needy of context and not at all within the style that Shutterstock displays in their portfolio.

It appears, after some discussion, that the current stock photo business is in need of the simplest of compositions; very flat, bright light; uncomplex visuals and an aesthetic that is very different than I am accustomed to shooting.

I was offered some solace from Rob Haggart's blog (www.aphotoeditor.com). Some time ago, he posted a list of stock agencies he considered worthy of a professional's attention. At the bottom of the list under the category of "Crap," he listed Shutterstock.

So I'm licking my wounds this week. Some would say just move on, but I've decided to alter my style and make an attempt to reshoot a set of stock images that may more closely align with Shutterstock's aesthetic.

I'll keep you posted.