MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 3rd Rejection from IStock, here's the group I'm thinking I'll use this time.  (Read 15397 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 25, 2011, 13:45 »
0
Photo 1
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Extreme Skateboarding.jpg

Photo 2
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girl drinking water.jpg

Photo 3
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Multicolored frog.jpg

I have model releases on the first 2.


« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2011, 13:47 »
0
Try redoing the links.

« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2011, 13:49 »
0
Sorry forgot about the spaces.


  on: Today at 13:45    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photo 1
http://www.ltsw.com/public/ExtremeSkateboarding.jpg

Photo 2
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Girldrinkingwater.jpg

Photo 3
http://www.ltsw.com/public/Multicoloredfrog.jpg

I have model releases on the first 2.

« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2011, 14:01 »
0
I don't think these will fly - sorry.

The skateboarding image has focus on the knees & jeans instead of the eyes - lighting's not ideal either.

Lighting on the girl drinking is a problem - you needed a reflector for fill

The frog isolation is terrible - all sorts of edges are eaten away because you didn't do your selection carefully.

The first two are great subjects - i.e. try to do those again; the frog's not a good idea as it'd be a copyright problem and if you can't isolate objects well, don't include an isolation in your set :)

« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2011, 14:04 »
0
Is the frog one supposed to be a joke?

« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2011, 14:06 »
0
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?

« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2011, 14:11 »
0
Skateboarder has noise all over dark areas. The girl has noise too. Lighten up the face a bit. I can't believe you submitted the frog so terribly isolated. And it is noisy too.
All your images are taken at ISO 200, which is unacceptable in most cases. Lower ISO to 100.
First two images are very good regarding subject and the compostition. Find online video tutorials about isolating objects.

« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2011, 14:13 »
0
I haven't submitted any of these yet, these are the ones I thought I would try but apparantly not.

« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2011, 14:14 »
0
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?

I'm sure Sean thinks the isolation is a joke. Look at your edges. Maybe you posted the wrong version of the image

« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2011, 14:15 »
0
And always reduce the image size to a minimum for the application. It can help a lot.

« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2011, 14:18 »
0
I don't understand that last comment about reducing the size?  Can you please explain?

« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2011, 14:20 »
0
I don't understand that last comment about reducing the size?  Can you please explain?

reduce the size/dimensions of the image to the smallest acceptable.  this will help out in making noise and other imperfections less noticeable.  i didn't think about this either for submissions, so i think i'll take it, too.

good luck!  keep your chin up and keep shooting and editing.

« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2011, 14:23 »
0
so what are "size/dimensions of the image to the smallest acceptable" and how do I know what that is?

« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2011, 14:26 »
0
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).

BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged)  That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.

« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2011, 14:32 »
0
Don't get discouraged. Just find some tutorials. You can't go on like this, not knowing basic stuff as "image size". If you use Photoshop, go to:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu5adJfxuhw[/youtube]

« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2011, 14:33 »
0
I'm trying to take emotion out of this, but what do you mean is it a joke?

I'm sure Sean thinks the isolation is a joke. Look at your edges. Maybe you posted the wrong version of the image

See this is where part of my frustration comes in, Sean said is this a joke, well I don't know when I read that if he means subject, composition, quality or what.  I'm not picking on Sean, but this is kind of what the reviewers give me and I don't know what to work on.

« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2011, 14:34 »
0
Don't get discouraged. Just find some tutorials. You can't go on like this, not knowing basic stuff as "image size". If you use Photoshop, go to:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu5adJfxuhw[/youtube]


No, I know what image size is, what I don't know is what is minimum image size to submit or how to find that out.

« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2011, 14:34 »
0
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).

BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged)  That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.


They are spelled out - in the photographer training manual. See this section.

« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2011, 14:39 »
0
I really don't mean to sound dense here, but these kind of things are not spelled out (at least not that I can find).

BTW thanks to all of you for helping, I'm really getting tired of the rejection (and yes, getting a little discouraged)  That's why I'm hear to try to avoid it this time around.


They are spelled out - in the photographer training manual. See this section.


Ok, so maybe I am dense, I've read that a ton of times and truely never made the connection.  I'll fix that going forward.  See that's why you folks are great.  You think a reviewer could have told me that?

« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2011, 14:57 »
0
Your isolation of the frog looks like you selected it using the magic wand tool and are missing large pieces of the frog(look at the edges at 100% and you will understand). If the frog was perfectly isolated and properly lit, it would likely still not get accepted (what commercial value is in that object - what would a buyer use it for (I've been wrong before about commercial value mind you)? Also, it is artwork and probably would need a property release.

The lighting on the other two is not very good. You didn't use flash and the lighting is harsh for the skateboarder and too dark for the girl. You can shoot both of these with a single off-shoe flash and a deflector (or use two deflectors and bounce the flash off of one of them). You need to soften the light from the flash - you can use a second deflector to bounce the flash off of if you don't have an umbrella.

Is you're monitor calibrated? When I first started in microstock I couldn't understand why my isolations were being rejected. Turned out my monitor was way too dark and when I eventually had a look at the images on a computer at work I realized what the problem was (my first isolations were worse than your frog). There are a lot of tutorials on isolations - they are not difficult to do. That frog isolation would only take a few minutes using the pen tool.

Regards,

« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2011, 15:12 »
0
Thanks Jon, very helpful.

Yes, I used the magic wand as the tutorial at the time I did it told me too.  I've discovered there are good ones and bad ones.  There are tons of frogs on IStock right now, I just figured it would be one more, not really sure what the value would be.

I really appreciate the light insight, now if I only spoke Greek, I might understand...  LOL  I'm kidding at least a little bit, some of it's Greek to me still but I'm learing.  The only lights I have right now are on my "new" table top tent and the on camera flash.  Need to work on that, limited budget though.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2011, 16:13 »
0
They are not great but I do like the kid with the skateboard, that and the girl drinking should be good enough... Istock has a lot-lot crappier stuff up & selling. The focus on the kid is not perfect, it would fly if you were exclusive or an inspector, but I suggest resizing it a bit smaller +adding some selective sharpening to the eye +crop out the roadsign. If you want to reshoot these, have the girl drink from a transparent bottle, the mineral water kind, it's  a lot more attractive visually.

« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2011, 16:24 »
0
I asked if the frog was a joke, as it so obviously a poor job, even to the untrained eye, that I thought maybe you were trying to be funny.  Looking at it, you can see the jagged edges and missing pieces, yes?   That you thought that even close to acceptable says you should hold off on any more applications until you take a class or something.  Sorry.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2011, 17:16 »
0
to be honest, I thought maybe the frog was a joke too. sorry to the OP but even beyond the incredibly poor isolation is the subject itself. what is it supposed to be? a toy? a balloon?

I think the first two shots are nice family photos but not good stock. the second is nicely in focus, but lots of noise, dark and flat and just not interesting. the first is a cute shot and the same subject done on a better background, with better composition and better lighting/processing...it could be a good stock photo of a child skateboarding.

good luck :-)
« Last Edit: May 25, 2011, 17:32 by SNP »

« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2011, 18:38 »
0
At admission test, they are a bit lenient with technical aspects (noise, artifacts etc), and pay more atention to concepts and angles. Even so, you should go on working before trying it again. By the way, pn a different topic, I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
iStock & the Pipex Group

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1828 Views
Last post November 29, 2006, 17:45
by Istock News
iStock & the Pipex Group

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1842 Views
Last post November 30, 2006, 11:10
by Istock News
4 Replies
2466 Views
Last post April 03, 2013, 00:07
by MichaelJayFoto
17 Replies
9787 Views
Last post April 14, 2017, 10:33
by Anna.kupelian
3 Replies
3208 Views
Last post December 05, 2016, 12:52
by StanRohrer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors