MicrostockGroup

hi

http://www.photoinf.com/

is all about photographic composition, there is a lot of info there, some of it is actually good

but it is general and specific for stock, where you always have to remember 'copy space'

In order to be successful, commercial images must convey/contain some sort of message - making an interesting or pretty picture will not get you very far in this market. Although the most efficient (and profitable) way to make money is to plan your shots, you can still be very successful by making "found" shots if you compose them with a definite purpose in mind - try taking in the scene and picturing the possible commercial images with your mind's eye before raising the camera to press the button.

Well, I WAS going for a tigher, close-uppish shot, trust me - on purpose....  I know Aliencat's spot well, and I've done a lot of research across stock sites - all images are sorta the same wide angle of the same two-three shots - from Canada - wide shot of American falls, from Terrapin point (his shot) to the Canadian side, and some side views of the American falls (which I already have plenty of and I don't even bother submitting them... may be I should!). So, I was going for something different, more detail, closer, more intimate Niagara, with stone-like icicles and rushing masses of water in the background - for copy space.... Well, I live 30 mins away from Niagara, I'll go photograph some "usual" suspects next time I'm around there.... I also know Niagara well enough to know that beautiful sunsets/sunrrises (for photographers) are rare as the sun falls at this really bad angle ))  Move the sun, darn it!

Aliencat's image is really great (not without a ton of photoshop in the sun - I wonder...)

Ahh, the law of "gotta do the opposite"... if it's a close up - they'll say back away, if it's a wide angle, they'll say get closer... can't win huh

Anybody willing to get into a barrel and roll down the yet-unfrozen-Niagara falls?

I said "try backing up a little".  You are on the right track but you need to learn the difference between tight shots and close ups.  It's like you photographed an arm and are now attempting to pass it off as a picture of a hand.  Also you need to learn the limitations of your equipment so you will know what kind of picture you can make and what kind of picture you can't make. 

You state, "I WAS going for a tighter, close-uppish shot".  If you are going to get close then get close, don't get "close-uppish".  Then later you state "I was going for something different, more detail, closer, more intimate Niagara, with stone-like icicles and rushing masses of water in the background".  That's good but I and the reviewer think you failed.  If you don't have the equipment to get close then try backing up a little and photograph a slightly wider composition.  I feel you are wasting your time shooting badly composed tight shots and then attempting to pass them off as close ups.  Then still later you state  "Ahh, the law of "gotta do the opposite"... if it's a close up - they'll say back away, if it's a wide angle, they'll say get closer".  When you go out to shoot you should already be doing all of that, that is shooting this side and the opposite side, close up shots, tight shots, wide shots, high shots, low shots, down shots, motion shots, stop action shots, silhouette shots, use front light, back light, side light, wide lens, normal lens, telephoto lens and any other technique that you know.  Finally you state "can't win huh", if you are not willing to learn from the answers why ask the questions?

A thousand apologies if I offended you, that was not my intention then and it is not my intention now.  But please let me defend myself.

I thought your answer to my post was condescending. 
You said "I know Aliencat's spot well, and I've done a lot of research across stock sites - all images are sorta the same wide angle of the same two-three shots - from Canada - wide shot of American falls, from Terrapin point (his shot) to the Canadian side, and some side views of the American falls (which I already have plenty of and I don't even bother submitting them... may be I should!). So, I was going for something different, more detail, closer, more intimate Niagara, with stone-like icicles and rushing masses of water in the background - for copy space.... Well, I live 30 mins away from Niagara, I'll go photograph some "usual" suspects next time I'm around there...." 
That sounds like an I know it all attitude to me. 
And your statement "Ahh, the law of "gotta do the opposite"... if it's a close up - they'll say back away, if it's a wide angle, they'll say get closer... can't win huh" makes me think that you do not want to hear from people who disagree with you. 

I did not state that I assumed you did not know the rule of thirds I said "use the rule of thirds for composition".  Had I assumed you did not know this I would have explained it to you. 

Does "If you don't have the equipment to get close then try backing up a little and photograph a slightly wider composition." sound "less than polite" to you?  If it does then again, I apologize.  I do not know what kind of equipment you have and you already knew my opinion was that you needed either a wider or a tighter composition.   

My statement "I feel you are wasting your time shooting badly composed tight shots and then attempting to pass them off as close ups." is just my opinion.  Can an opinion be impolite? 

My two statements "You are on the right track but you need to learn the difference between tight shots and close ups." and "Also you need to learn the limitations of your equipment so you will know what kind of picture you can make and what kind of picture you can't make."  sound like constructive advice to me.  I could have written "you don't even know the difference between a tight shot and a close up!" and "learn the limitations of your equipment before you shoot again!"  To me those statements would have been impolite.   

My statement "It's like you photographed an arm and are now attempting to pass it off as a picture of a hand." is just an analogy.

And my "If you are going to get close then get close, don't get "close-uppish"." statement simply means, if you want to shoot a close up then do what you need to do to shoot a close up.  Impolite? 

Again I apologize if my writing style offended you, I mean no disrespect to you.  In the past I have tried to pass one kind of picture off as another and most of the time it just did not work.  Maybe I should have stated that somewhere.  And in my opinion some of my pictures are just plain ugly, bad lighting, bad exposures and cloudless sky's but they sell every week.  Like I've stated in the past "If I knew what was going to sell I would apply that knowledge to picking lottery numbers!" . . so good luck!

Redhat,

Thank you for a lengthy explanation and a calm response, I appreciate it. I guess the misunderstanding goes both ways as in no way did I mean to be condescending or a "know it all" when I was writing my own reply. Let's call it a day, no hard feelings & move on

Peace