First Attempt ever at Microstock

[FandreFotos]

Apples...

Smaller View


100% View
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=j9v9c1&s=5 Click link to see cropped 100% View
________________________________________________________________

Smaller View


100% View
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=34efdxd&s=5 Click link to see cropped 100% View

[Sean Locke Photography]

Ok, you've got a slightly out of focus isolated pair of apples.  The second might be a bit sharper.

There ya go.

[FandreFotos]

Ok so I can work a little bit on the focus part.

Is there anyting else you say majorly wrong? Is the isolation good? How is the lighting? Is there any noise?

[Peter]

that would be rejected on most serious sites.

out of focus,
incorect wb

[Pixart]

NO, I've never photographed apples.  BUT, I've stood at the grocery store for at least 20 minutes a couple times to pick out perfect specimens and didn't pull through, does that count?     I shouldn't criticize if I have no experience, but a little point I feel compelled to make:  the difference in having something accepted and have something accepted and sell (or sell very well) can be for a very subtle reason.  To me, the red apple seems a little misshapen or awkward.   It's a very popular category, and either your specimens should be perfect or there should be a reason for them to be flawed, and the flaws should be the focus.   

[Pixart]

And the second photo is much more pleasing, but I would go a step further and clone out the imperfections, some small scratches on the bottom right and some small spots on the skin. 

[leaf]

it also looks like you have isolated with the pen tool or some other selection tool.  This can work well (although a lot more work than isolating with lights when you take the picture) but you have to watch that the isolated sharpness matches the out of focus'nes of the image.  The isolated edges of the apples look very sharp, while the apples themselves look somewhat blurred due to depth of field.  You could try smoothing the edge of your selection by a couple pixels before you clone your item next time.

[FandreFotos]

Hmm well thanks for the help everyone, I am not quite sure why they are out of focus. Although I am quite new to photography. I have been using a pretty wide aperture so as to hopefully get as much as the apple in clear focus as possible. Is there a better way of focusing these types of things?

[lisafx]

Actually, using a smaller aperture will get you a larger depth of field, which will make more of the apple appear to be in focus.  Try using an aperture of 9 or above. 

Also, select your focus point and focus on something noticeable and contrasty, like the stem, rather than a monochromatic expanse of skin.

My suggestion would be learn as much as you can about photography. Develop the ability to get consistant, high quality results, and become confident in the knowledge of your craft before submitting to the micros and asking people to pay for your work. 

The days when photographic novices can be successful in microstock are rapidly drawing to a close, if they ever existed in the first place...

[melastmohican]

Actually, using a smaller aperture will get you a larger depth of field, which will make more of the apple appear to be in focus.  Try using an aperture of 9 or above. 

Lisa, you should mention that smaller aperture means a hole or an opening through which light is admitted while f-number corresponding to it will be larger. In other words 4 means large opening and 22 means smallest :-)

Depth of field (DOF) is inversely proportional to size of opening and this is a reason you suggest larger f-number.

[lisafx]

Lisa, you should mention that smaller aperture means a hole or an opening through which light is admitted while f-number corresponding to it will be larger. In other words 4 means large opening and 22 means smallest :-)

Depth of field (DOF) is inversely proportional to size of opening and this is a reason you suggest larger f-number.

Of course you are right.  I guess I was assuming that this most basic principle of photography was already understood by someone planning to charge money for their work.

Hopefully the part where I suggested he learn more about photography would encompass that and some of the other basics like shutter speed, etc...

[null]

Lisa, you should mention that smaller aperture means a hole or an opening through which light is admitted while f-number corresponding to it will be larger.

But watch out. In general the optimum of a lens is 5.6-16. Outside that range, for instance 32, the lens properties deteriorate slowly.

[FandreFotos]

Once again thank you everybody. Just so everyone here knows I basically know how a large/small aperture affects the outcome of the picture. So you guys are saying I should try a smaller aperture to hopefully get some of the main features of the apple in focus, AKA the stem.

Also I have a few other questions if you guys wouldn't mind answering them.

Is it better to shoot RAW or JPEG?
I got a comment my white balance is off a little bit. What setting should I put my white balance on when shooting in pretty well lit room?
When shooting microstock should I be using Manual, Shutter Priority, or Aperture Priority?

Thanks again guys! You have all been extremely helpful.

[Sean Locke Photography]

When shooting microstock should I be using Manual, Shutter Priority, or Aperture Priority?

The situation tells you how you should shoot it.  Nothing to do with microstock.

White balance, aperture, etc. - this is all really basic camera stuff.  Step back from worrying about stock and go take a class or read a book.

[sharply_done]

...  Step back from worrying about stock and go take a class or read a book.

I agree. Selling photos is something you should start doing after you know how to best make an image, not before.

[tubed]

...  Step back from worrying about stock and go take a class or read a book.

I agree. Selling photos is something you should start doing after you know how to best make an image, not before.

I agree as well, we all start at the beginning and work our way up.. I wouldn't worry so much about stock, or what setting to use for stock, as this all varies according to the situation.. Look at it this way, you can't sell pizza vey well without knowing your ingredients and dough etc.

Learn how to make a good photograph and what settings are best used for what, and then start worrying about what to shoot for stock.. Otherwise your wasting your time..

[shank_ali]

Well i learned photography as i tryed to get accepted as a contributor on istockphoto.Quite a journey it was too.Have i reached a place i want to be... my only answer is the knowledge i have now compared to when i started is quite special and eventually all the learning/shooting/reading some actually stays WITH YOU  and your able to progress to a point where someone buys your work.
Apples or any subject are ok to shoot but you need to shoot literally 1000's and get some money spent on a good lense( image stabliser,included)  and a basic understanding of image manipulation with adobe is also a must.G/L

[leaf]

I agree that it is going to be frustrating with stock if you aren�t sure how a camera works, or what settings to use.  That said, you are not going to learn unless someone helps out.  I would recommend reading a book or two on beginning photography, or search the internet for tips.

As for you questions:  Like sjlocke said, there is no �microstock�settings, just good image settings.  The settings you use should be determined by what you are shooting and how you want it to look.

As for jpg or raw, I always always shoot in RAW.  This allows me to set the white balance during editing and gives me more freedom when editing.  When you shoot in jpg the camera essentially shoots a RAW, but before saving it, converts it to a jpg and saves THAT file.  So basically the camera is processing the RAW file automatically instead of me.  To have as much control as possible I want to process the RAW myself, so I shoot in raw and process the file on the computer.

I often shoot in Av mode because then I can control the aperature, which is what i find I want to control most often.  You have to watch though that the shutterspeed doesn�t dip too low if you are trying to hand hold the camera or if you have a moving subject.

[Dreamframer]

If you like taking photos and editing them, I suggest you start submitting to microstock. This is why:
1. If you wait to learn it enough to start submitting, you will never be ready. We learn all life. When I look at my first photos they look so rubbish to me, but they were accepted, and they sell. Probably, one year after this moment, my current photos will look like rubbish to me.
2. Taking photos and publishing them will bring you nice feeling that you are doing something really creative, and when you sell something it will give you more inspiration to make new photos. In this process you will learn a lot, and why spending that time only to learn, when you could learn and earn a bit.
3. Don't listen to people who tells you that your photos are ugly just like that. Be self confident and listen to people who want to help you with critique and advices, don't be to egoistic to say "who are you to judge my work"

I think your apples are ok for a beginner. I don't see your photos at full size, so I can't tell you are your isolations good enough at 100% but I can tell you this: You did fantastic job for a beginner! Main problem with these photos is white balance. Both photos had that slightly reddish tone. If you don't see it, maybe your monitor is not calibrated well. You can try to do it manually, just follow this link: http://www.simpelfilter.de/en/colorman/gamma_en.html
If you still don't see it, try to learn your self to match colors on your photos to colors in real world.
About focus, Lisafx gave you a good advice.
You made good light for a beginner. I think you will be successful, just don't give up.
Good luck!

[Fran]

And if I may add: take any rejection and any criticism as a very important chance to improve. What we do will probably never be perfect so there's always room for improvement.

[mantonino]

In honor of the fact that this type of thread/question pops up almost everyday, I just added a few ideas for NOT getting your initial submission rejected here:

http://www.niltomil.com/archives/361

There are a ton of great tips already in this thread too so I tried to not duplicate too much.

[hali]

...  Step back from worrying about stock and go take a class or read a book.

I agree. Selling photos is something you should start doing after you know how to best make an image, not before.

this may sound harsh to you, but i have to be #3 in agreement with sd and sj.
you master photography techniques first, then you do stock . you are doing the learning process in  backward order .
your need to confer regarding dof tells us that you still need to brush up on your technique and the use of your tool (ie. the camera, photoshop).

my suggestion is not to do isolated products just yet. try nature, industrial,etc...
this is less taxing on your knowledge.
dof is shallow at closeup , so even a smaller aperture (a larger fstop number) does not automatically
give you all in all clarity and definition. you still must know where your critical point of focus is to obtain that .
if you shoot landscape, scenic, etc... you have more leeway in dof, as you're not doing macro or
closeup. your work may stand a better chance of getting accepted,
rather than do isolation work.  your lack of composition in product shoot is sure to get you more rejections.
so try to start somewhere that you are able to stand a better chance of getting a portfolio.
i hope i explain it correctly.

walk, don't run... and good luck.

[RacePhoto]

In honor of the fact that this type of thread/question pops up almost everyday, I just added a few ideas for NOT getting your initial submission rejected here:

http://www.niltomil.com/archives/361

There are a ton of great tips already in this thread too so I tried to not duplicate too much.

Nice looking website, and for new people it's got to be more helpful than asking questions one by one, on the forum,  as they come up.

Couldn't resist looking at the top 20 / Top 19 Stock Sites. I thought what the heck, are there really 19 top sites. But true to form you came through with the best information. There are only seven top 19 stock photo sites. 

I took me about a year to admit this to myself. I kept watching the new hot sites come and go. Watched the up and coming sites, that never arrived. I took note of sites that offered new opportunities and big promises, which none have come to be. If I can paraphrase The Highlander, There can be only Seven.  That doesn't mean that the latest two are going to be duds, because both have good ideas and quality people with some good ideas. I've just gotten to the point where, I'll wait and see how they do before I waste one minute with any new site again.

Back to the OP. Read everything that everyone has answered here. Get a book about your camera or basics of photography. You need the foundations before you can start producing anything, and the background knowledge will teach you what you want to know, so you have that discovery solid in your own mind. You need to learn how to use your camera and what the settings are.

After that, I always say, experiment and take notes, soon you will have a connection in your mind. It isn't like film, where you had to wait days and it was expensive. Try different settings and shoot until you get a feeling for what works... Write It Down! If you don't know if you want Auto, Av or TV, you need to read some more so you won't need to ask this question. The real answer is "it depends on what you are shooting"! Then try to imagine what you will get, before you shoot the picture, until you know how your adjustments effect an image and know what you are going to get, before you take the picture.

Nice attempts, you need to learn about color balance and depth of field. I don't find the exposures all that bad, which is a good start.

Best wishes.

[FandreFotos]

Wow, I am stunned by all of these wonderful comments and help I am recieving, thank you everybody, I am truly greatful. I have recently really started trying to hit the books on the basics of photography. So far I think I am making good progress, but I still have a long way to go. Overall I feel it is my photography skills that are lacking. I know photoshop inside and out and have been working with it for almost 3 years now. I have a deviantart page if anyone is interested. ( www.ths-acid.deviantart.com) But I have only had my camera for about 2 weks. So hopefully in time those two will balance out and I will be taking some half way decent photos.

So until then I will be browsing around these forums and soaking in everything I read. Thank you all and I just want to say again how much you guys have helped me out. 

[araminta]

Concerning DOF, search "DOF calculator" on Google and play with it just to have an idea of how much DOF you have for typical set-up.

Concerning your photography skills, it's also quite obvious to me that you should feel comfortable with your camera before trying to submit.

And your gallery on devian art is quite amazing: I was not expecting this level of quality based on your apples on white 

I like a lot space art, and some of your work is really beautiful: too bad you don't use your own photos as a source because some of your art would sell quite well I think.

[Pixart]

Yes, very nice work.  I think that IS has a hangup on that kind of thing, but I bet it would do very well on all the other sites.

[null]

Is it better to shoot RAW or JPEG?

RAW. As raw as it gets. One of the advantages is you can recover blown out highlights since raw is over 16 bit mostly and JPG is only 8 bit. You can make omelet out of eggs, but not eggs out of omelet. Also, for recovering detail in dark shadows raw is better. Don't forget, JPG is lossy and RAW is not.

[graficallyminded]

Hey, nice to see a new one that's trying to get started.  I wish you the best, as it's really hard for new ones right now.  We all have a hard time figuring out what to shoot when we first start out.  

There are a million isolated apples - sure there is a market for them, but it's plenty full already.  Do something with the apples.  Think outside the box.  Have a hot girl eating one, or stick it on the end of a fork.  Don't lay it next to a stethoscope either, that's been done to death.  

Top three things a reviewer gets sick of looking at:
1. Flowers, Trees
2. Snapshots of Buildings composed in boring ways (Churches especially) basically all boring travel shots in general
3. Single piece of fruit Isolated over white

None of these subjects in themselves are terrible, but they have to be done right.  It's the first subjects that people upload, because everyone has them.  Everyone thinks "ooh, how pretty these flowers are" click click click.  Shoot them in a way that hasn't been done before, or in a way that's more rare, or just plain move on to another subject.  A portfolio of 1000 pieces of fruit and flowers will probably equal in sales a portfolio of 50 decent people shots or graphics.

[hali]

(edited) A portfolio of 1000 pieces of fruit and flowers will probably equal in sales a portfolio of 50 decent people shots or graphics.

oh good point gm! did you not say that you are a reviewer too?
yes, I think it's important to view your success in a percentage of.
having 10,000 images and earning 100 a month vs 1,000 and earning 100 a month.
like gm says, better 50 decent shots then 50,000 images and only 50 really stunning ones.

Still, I do find lots of "better to have 50,000 images" attitude, as using the search to see FLOODS of one contributor's work burying the others. But then again, that's not the contributor's doing, it's the site's lousy search that allows IMAGE INUNDATION 

[anaire]

Welcome to Microstock photography!

I agree with everything WhiteChild has said.

Next time Sjlocke comes up and tells you to read a library before you start on stock, kindly remind him about Amanda and Yuri. 
Both of them started with a cheap, point and shoot camera, did not have a clue about photography and had to google basic principles like 'blur' or 'out of focus' in order to understand rejections' reasons.
Today Yuri is a millionaire and Amanda is doing pretty well herself.
Actually, they're both doing (a lot ) better than Sjlocke, regardless of the numbers of photography books read.
Granted, Yuri and Amanda are exceptions, but who's to say that you're not the next one?
More over, you have an advantage.
When it comes to Photoshop you already master it, and that's one golden ace up your sleeve.
If I were you I would go ahead and do exactly what WhiteChild has said.
Start submitting!
Remember not to flood them, upload a few images only and at least initially, try to stay away from sunsets, pretty flowers and your cute dog.
They've got plenty of those already and you need to be exceptional.
Don't you worry, there will be plenty of time to learn, (and read books), as you go.
Regarding your apples, they're not bad, but the subject is very, very common, and as they stand right now, I don't think they'll get accepted.
Also your isolation seems a touch too harsh to me. If you used the pen tool, try to feather the selection a bit.
Use a soft brush, very low opacity and bring back some of the natural shadows at the bottom of your subjects. A touch only.
You probably know this already but not a lot of people do - the best, and sometimes the only way to make an 'organic', natural selection in Photoshop is by using channels.
Forget about the pen tool, or any other extracting method/filter. Nothing comes even close to channels. Go for channels and your isolations will be accepted everywhere.
Shoot in RAW. Always.
Set your camera to the lowest ISO posible. Always.
Best of luck and welcome to the world of stock photography!
This is going to be a lot of fun. (Almost) always.
Anna

[FandreFotos]

Wow, thank again everyone, I have read and re-read ever post in this thread and I have to say I am learning quite a bit. It is just so much information to take in at once. Also the "DOF Calculator" has also helped me out.

So here is another attempt... I really dont know how much better it is. My main goal was to try to get all of it in focus this time at the very least, I think I accomplished this. Also yes, I know it is another isolation...


http://i41.tinypic.com/2mms1v5.png click this link for full size view.(Warning, it is big)

[Sean Locke Photography]

Next time Sjlocke comes up and tells you to read a library before you start on stock, kindly remind him about Amanda and Yuri. 
Both of them started with a cheap, point and shoot camera, did not have a clue about photography and had to google basic principles like 'blur' or 'out of focus' in order to understand rejections' reasons.
Today Yuri is a millionaire and Amanda is doing pretty well herself.
Actually, they're both doing (a lot ) better than Sjlocke, regardless of the numbers of photography books read.
(snip)
Anna

Thanks Anna, for singling me out from the rest of the majority who said the OP should learn the basics of how to work a camera before worrying about submitting, as well as the rest of your snarky comments.  Nice.

[Sean Locke Photography]

http://i41.tinypic.com/2mms1v5.png click this link for full size view.(Warning, it is big)

It's 640x391 - wrong image?

[madelaide]

Anaire,

I have to agree with Sjlocke and others said.  Microstock has become a very selective outlet, and it is less likely that these days people succeed while they learn from the start.  There may be exceptions, and the fact that Fandre has a very good knowledge of PS does help, but I think newcomers must have more realistic expectations.  I think the best route is to learn photography first, even if this means a month of intensive reading and experimenting, and I believe he received very good guidelines here so far.

Regards,
Adelaide

[thesentinel]

Ahh the good old days when images were free or 10 cents and buyers had little expectation of quality. Those nursery slopes have been closed off for a long time now.

But there has never been an easier time to learn with all the excellent tutorial sites, crit sites, competition sites etc. etc. It looks like the OP has learned a great deal from such sites already with his PS work so I'm sure he'll soon by outshooting many of us here!

[FandreFotos]

  Thanks everyone for the wonderful support. All of you will definatly be my inpsiration when it comes to microstock!  Also I have decided that instead of taking all of the time to isolate items in photoshop I am going to make my very own light box. I have seen some tutorials out there which seem very informative and they dont seem like they will cost to much to make. So that is where I will go from here. Also like alot of you have suggested I will be reading up on photography basics everyday and shooting everyday.

Thank you everyone!!!

[hali]

You know what, FandreFotos...
Your attitude is going to make you successful in microstock. I can bet it was the same thing that drove Yuri and Amanda. The open mind to not think they know everything, like some of us... heh!heh!.
Not once did I read you respond negatively or defensively to our "expertise" advices
to you.  I feel that positive attitude is going to help you go further and faster than many of us. Why? because it's the attitude that is going to make or break you when you get a rejection from the reviewers. If you look at it this way, I am sure it won't be long you will be handing out expertise to newbies, and maybe some of us will be asking you for advice too 

way to go ! you have a good one !

[Sean Locke Photography]

I have a deviantart page if anyone is interested. ( www.ths-acid.deviantart.com) But I have only had my camera for about 2 weks. So hopefully in time those two will balance out and I will be taking some half way decent photos.

By the way, there's nothing that says you have to shoot isolated objects to contribute.  Your nice photoshop illustrations could get you in and sell as well.

[FandreFotos]

hali: Haha thanks man, that means alot to me.  Seriously this is one of the most helpful and respectful forums I have ever been to. I really can't express in words how much you all have helped me so far.

sjlocke: Do you really think my other artwork is good enough for people to want to buy it?

[Sean Locke Photography]

Oh sure.   You have to make sure any noise and such is under control, for iStock, at least, but things like the road, and some of the landscapes sure seem interesting.

[graficallyminded]

Another thing I think worth mentioning here is don't worry how much you're making.  It will be thrilling to see your first sales, and then you can go on from there.  I sometimes feel that the problem with this microstock business is that everyone tries to compare themselves to one another, and they try and figure out and scrutinize everyone else's downloads and sales to the point where they're trying to calculate the exact cent of the other guy's yearly earnings.  There are many stats-obsessed microstockers that might as well become accountants - heck, they can do my tax return for me if they want.  If some of them spent half the time working, as they did stalking other's stats, they might be doing better off themselves.  Sean Locke is not Yuri.  Yuri is not Sean Locke.  Joe Schmoe is not Andres.  I am not the Cookie Monster.  What I'm trying to get at, is people need to mind their own * business sometimes.  Do your thing.  Worry about yourself, and your own business.  Sure, competition is what drives businesses to the next level - but don't try and think you have to be a Michael Jordan just in order to ball.  Sure it's nice to see how many images you have in comparison to your coworkers, but success can be defined in many ways. 

Fandre - I wish you the best.  Enjoy yourself, and continue to grow.  It will take a lot of effort and hard work, but this is a very rewarding job/hobby/career/whatever you want to make of it.

Once you get your lightbox setup, I have a pretty easy to follow dodge tool tutorial for cleaning up isolations over white.  It sometimes does a better job than a levels layer http://www.freewebs.com/micropaymentphotography/apps/videos/videos/view/658755-photoshop-tutorial-the-dodge-tool-for-isolations-over-white

[null]

Once you get your lightbox setup, I have a pretty easy to follow dodge tool tutorial for cleaning up isolations over white.

I'm using the dodge highlights tool for a very long time now for overwhite isolations, but to work faster, I first select a rough outline around the object by the polygonal lasso tool, then edit>fill>white. That's faster than to dodge all the background white area and you don't miss spots and speckles. The dodge tool is not perfect for light parts in the object and in this case blow up the image and dodge around the borders (not going into the object) with a small brush of 10% maximum.

Always verify the quality of your isolation of course by Magic Wand, tolerance 0, Anti-alias and Contiguous unchecked, clicking in the white. If imperfect at places, just invert the selection and dodge there. The Magic Wand will also indictate pure white spots in the object, like highlights in eyes. To facilitate the work for customer, you can paint #FEFEFE by 10% in there, after expanding the selection with 2px and a feather of 2px. Then re-check.

[araminta]

sjlocke: Do you really think my other artwork is good enough for people to want to buy it?

I told you so and I agree: you should forget about isolated apples and concentrate on your skills: some of the top earners have a very specialized portfolio. You have the skill to have more sophisticated images in your portfolio: instead of competing with thousands of contributors (myself included  ), you should find your own niche.

But make sure you only use your own photo as sources or at least some free pictures (e.g. NASA).

[FandreFotos]

Hello again everybody. I just got my homemade light box up and running and let me tell you, this beats isolation any day. Everything just happens, sure I might have to do a little levels but no major changes. So here are my 4th and 5th attempt ever at microstock.  Also I think I got white balance figured out. But I wil let you guys and gals be the judges...

Also I have another quick question. When it comes to product photography, what can and can't you photograph? Basically is it no brand names in your photograph?

NOTE: If these are to big please me know and I will change asap.

[shank_ali]

Nice photos and for a young man of 16 i think you have to much talent  .SHOOT LOTS and enjoy....

[thesentinel]

Such progress in less than a week, you're going to do well ! As you already know keep all product names off stock shots and be careful with highly distinctive high end designed products, think generic.

[Dreamframer]

great shots...just for stock you will have to erase all those logos on products

[araminta]

You're ready to submit 

[Sean Locke Photography]

Not bad.  You need to watch your touch up.  For instance, on the lighter, you've got some non-white above the lighter, where it should be really white.  If the shadow is in front like you have it, and the light was coming from behind, there wouldn't be any non-white above it.  Also, you've got some odd overexposure on the tip of the lighter.

Otherwise, nice learning.

[RT]

RAW. As raw as it gets. One of the advantages is you can recover blown out highlights since raw is over 16 bit mostly and JPG is only 8 bit.

I don't think so, if the highlights are blown out it means there's zero information in the file, and therefore nothing to recover.

[FandreFotos]

Once again, thank you everybody for the wonderful help and advice. Also I am sorry for posting logos in them. I was unaware that you could not have those in your stock photos. but I will not make that mistake again. Also I will try to take more time on my postwork.

Another question, can the kind of photos I am taking have shadows in them? Will Microstock sites accept these, or will I have to white out everything except for the product?

Also I just wanted to note that I have learned so much information in such a short amount of time all thanks to you guys/gals. I am learning at a fast rate while having a blast taking shots over and over trying to get that perfect shot and trying out new angles. I have learned so much about my camera and how lighting effects photos. Also shutter speed and aperture make sense to me now. I could not have learned this much nor had this much fun without you guys/gals, and for that I thank all of you.

[Sean Locke Photography]

Once again, thank you everybody for the wonderful help and advice. Also I am sorry for posting logos in them. I was unaware that you could not have those in your stock photos. but I will not make that mistake again.

There are probably lots of useful facts you can find here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_1.0_account.php

[FandreFotos]

Whoa, that is an awesome link, thank you!

EDIT: I was reading through some of the FAQ and I see you need to be of legal age. I don't mean to break the rules, but do all microstock sites require you to be a certain age limit? If so how could I get around that? Once again I don't like breaking rules.

[araminta]

Another question, can the kind of photos I am taking have shadows in them? Will Microstock sites accept these, or will I have to white out everything except for the product?

Yes they will accept them.

Whether you submit "true isolations" (no shadow) or not is a matter of taste and business strategy: some think that true isolations do sell better (I don't think so) and other (like me) think that keeping the shadow looks better and may even be useful for the designer.

So it's up to you: it's your business strategy 

[packerguy]

You can join Istock as a minor.  See this minor consent document..

http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/minorconsent.pdf

I don't know all the details, but my daughter wants to join some day.

The only other site I know of that may allow minors is bigstockphoto.  Here is a snip from the terms of service agreement.

1. Consent.
You must be at least 18 years of age to register with BigStockPhoto to provide content. BigStockPhoto may require that you provide sufficient proof that you are at least 18 years of age. Minors can become members only by having their parent or legal guardian register on their behalf. By opening such an account, the parent or legal guardian authorizes the minor to use and agrees to be bound personally by the terms and conditions of this agreement.

[hali]

awesome, way to go ! 

[FandreFotos]

You can join Istock as a minor.  See this minor consent document..

http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/minorconsent.pdf

I don't know all the details, but my daughter wants to join some day.

The only other site I know of that may allow minors is bigstockphoto.  Here is a snip from the terms of service agreement.

1. Consent.
You must be at least 18 years of age to register with BigStockPhoto to provide content. BigStockPhoto may require that you provide sufficient proof that you are at least 18 years of age. Minors can become members only by having their parent or legal guardian register on their behalf. By opening such an account, the parent or legal guardian authorizes the minor to use and agrees to be bound personally by the terms and conditions of this agreement.

Thank you for the helpful information. I will be sure to fill that out. I will look around to see if any other sites allow minors to join.

Hali: Thanks mate!

[lisafx]

Wow, big improvement!  Nice work on your latest isolations

I second the suggestion that you try submitting your art, though.  Isolated objects are a great way to get started in stock and learn the basics of photography - most of us have done them early in the game.  But you will probably be most successful and have the most fun by figuring out what you can provide that is unique. 

Your art work is certainly amazing and unique!  I think it would definitely catch the attention of buyers. 

[goldenangel]

You have a great talent, and your determination is clearly there as well. Just keep shooting it's great that you can start at your age. I envy you on that I wish these things were around when I was 16

[thesentinel]

Another tip is that when applying to agencies they may want more variety than just all isolated on white!

[SnipeP]

Nice job mate! way to improve!

[FandreFotos]

Lisafx: Haha thanks! Also I will definatly think about submitting my other art.

goldenangel: Haha yeah, I am very glad I found out about microstock. I never really heard about it until I got into photography, but I am so glad I did!

thesentinel: Yeah I will try to branch off from the isolated white. But for not it is a good thing for me because I am not rushed, I can see what different setting do, and I am having a blast!  Thanks mate!

Snipep: Thanks man!

Sorry to keep this thread going, but here a few more isolations I have been working on. Also if you notice, no logos this time. 

Please let me know what I can improve on, I would appreciate if on the next few images I show you, you would be even more picky than a reviewer. Let me have it!











There is more but I don't want to flood you guys/gals with too many.

[shank_ali]

They are ok.I would like to see them fill the frame better.

[FandreFotos]

Ok fair enough, that is something I will definatly try to work on. Thanks for the input.

[FandreFotos]

B.U.M.P

[tan510jomast]

OK my friend, stop worrying and stop wondering if you're ready to submit your work, and just go for it.  Enjoy the journey, and just get better as you go.
Don't let the rejection, if any, make you feel bad. Everyone gets rejected, even Yuri.
The important thing is just keep going.
Congratulation too. I've been seeing your work and wow, what an improvement , in such a short time.
as they say here in sports, GET OUT THERE AND KICK SOME ASS ! 

[anaire]

Hi kiddo
Glasses are perfect.
In fact, this last batch is showing a lot of improvement.
Keep the shadows closer to your subject (don't let them spread out too much) and a touch lighter, just like you've done with the glasses. This is the way to go.
Now remember a few things:
- the larger the aperture number the more of your image is in focus. Keep it around 8 - 10, most lenses work best at these settings.
- ISO 100
- shoot in RAW
- overexpose a touch (1/3 or so). They like brighter images.
- use natural light as much as you can.
- when not enough light don't be afraid to fire your camera flash. As long as you take the hot spots later in PShop, all is well, and images get accepted.
You're getting better and better, but I still think you're a bit too young to do this ..
Anyhow, this is fun, so why not?
One more tip. I learned it from Fintastique - Stephen and it worked perfectly for me.
When you're ready to submit, start small. No more than 10 images and don't even think about Shutterstock. Keep SS the last.
Learn the under 18's policies.
Try BigStock first. Follow with Stockexpert, DT, Fotolia, IS.
The very last one should be SS.
Good luck Fandre and see you there
Go get them!

Anna