pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 3rd Rejection from IStock, here's the group I'm thinking I'll use this time.  (Read 15395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2011, 20:56 »
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.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.


traveler1116

« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2011, 21:23 »
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.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.

I disagree, little athletes are probably big sellers it just has to be done right.  I thought that one had the best potential if redone.

« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2011, 21:34 »
0
thats a lot of information to process.. the start aint easy for sure.. so seriously my advice is to stay away from portraits etc if you dont even the right lighting (reflector, flash, strobe, whatever..)

if I remember well (looking at them now) I have entered on the 1st time and with 3 landmarks in my second hometown (Lisbon, capital of Portugal).. so I would visit all your local landmarks and go there early or late hour to get some nice lighting, perhaps take the tripod too, be sure you go on ISO 100.. and take a lot of pics and get home and see what you had, do minor adjusts (because IS wont allow much..) like some contrast, correct wb and exposure too..

you can do a lot of other things like food if you have a nice window and let the light get in and use some white cards to fill in the subject.. but again thats not an easy subject because you need to have a look for composition, etc etc... composition is a most in every pic same as lighting..

regarding your pics I am not going to talk about the frog.. you just did a fast job and some parts were removed during your "isolation".. use the pen tool and feather the "selection" too until it goes nice along the picture (and that part in question too)

the first skateboard is a very nice pic, I love it but like all have said it has tons of noise.. regarding composition and lighting I think it is nice too, watch out on your "exposure", your ISO

the second pic it does look nice too but again a lot of noise and under exposed.. I use always the blinking setting on camera, use it too, it will show you the "blow out highlights" (areas that went white) then go a little under and your "good".. use RAW too because you can change a lot of setting, like WB, exposure, etc..

regarding monitor stuff etc look here: http://displaycalibration.com/

traveler1116

« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2011, 22:14 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2011, 22:18 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

you forgot to mention the 85% they want too ;D

traveler1116

« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2011, 22:29 »
0
Yeah it's a pretty bad deal for nonexclusives isn't it.

Slovenian

« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2011, 03:11 »
0
Perhaps you should give it some time, take some photography courses/read/practice and try submitting to smaller sites and then return to IS. With shots like that you'll never be accepted, that's the hard truth ;)

« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2011, 03:50 »
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.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.

Sorry, I just meant that is the kind of shot that could be photoshopped in something disgusting, propably just personal paranoia. Never mind.

« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2011, 07:55 »
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.

Ok, so now my confusion has returned.  I got home this evening, waited for the right kind of light and tried to reshoot the little girl drinking.  Then I come back to the computer and read this and I don't know what "I would never send a pic like thte second one (little girl drikning) even if it was perfect" means.

Sorry, I just meant that is the kind of shot that could be photoshopped in something disgusting, propably just personal paranoia. Never mind.

Ahh, now it makes sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2011, 09:21 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.

« Reply #35 on: May 26, 2011, 09:29 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.
Really??? Wow...

« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2011, 09:30 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.

thats incredible!
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 09:35 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2011, 09:31 »
0
The sad part about the frog is, it was accepted on Bigstock, Fotolia, Dreamtime, Canstock and 123RF.

Go figure.

I'd be happy to try whatever it is they are on!

« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2011, 09:32 »
0
Yep, and based on you guys, I'm deleting it.  I don't want people seeing that piece of crap.  LOL  I just hate what I don't know.

« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2011, 09:35 »
0
yeah, all 3 of those files were accepted by all of those sites.  That's why I was gonna use them.  But the frog is really super bad so I'm getting it off all the sites.

« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2011, 09:42 »
0
yeah, all 3 of those files were accepted by all of those sites.  That's why I was gonna use them.  But the frog is really super bad so I'm getting it off all the sites.

That is probably a wise idea. You want to be certain to upload only your best. But don't feel bad, everyone here has/had some "not so good" images in their port...the acceptance policy from 6 years ago was way different than it is today.

« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2011, 09:50 »
0
Well I got the frog off all the sites except Bigstock.  Can't figure out how to remove it from there.

BTW, thanks everyone for all the great advice.  I just have to figure out what I'm going to try to submit now.  I haven't been accepted at IStockphoto or Shutterstock (need 10 for that one, yuck).

« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2011, 10:13 »
0
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?

Slovenian

« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2011, 10:30 »
0
Well I got the frog off all the sites except Bigstock.  Can't figure out how to remove it from there.

BTW, thanks everyone for all the great advice.  I just have to figure out what I'm going to try to submit now.  I haven't been accepted at IStockphoto or Shutterstock (need 10 for that one, yuck).

I hope you get there, because those are the only 2 sites worth uploding to.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2011, 10:50 »
0
Quote
I haven't been accepted at IStockphoto or Shutterstock

Without wanting to negative, unless you're a fairly high standard ( and judging by comments on your work that may not be the case) you may be wasting your time with sites that are more and more aimed at selling work of the highest professional quality. The days of the hobby stock contributor are either gone or numbered.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2011, 11:32 »
0
Yep, and based on you guys, I'm deleting it.  I don't want people seeing that piece of crap.  LOL  I just hate what I don't know.

You really shouldn't worry about it like that. Walking around the mall, I just saw a mural sized print of a quite popular istock pic (girl in red chritmasy costume pointing finger). It's nice model an ok shot, but it pretty low res, and techincally almost in the poor category, but they made huge print of it anyway. It looks like sheit I you move a bit closer than a few meters, and nobody cares beleive me : )

« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2011, 13:21 »
0
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?

In general, yes. Lots of great tools to build skills in Photoshop and Illustrator. I'm not sure that right now that'd be the best use of your time though. They don't do general photography courses (there are a few special subject items they've added).  For a while Adobe was giving away a month of lynda.com as a registration thank-you, so I had a good way to get up to speed with new features.

I think you should work on improving your photography skills first and then delve more into post-production skills.

« Reply #47 on: May 26, 2011, 15:32 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

you forgot to mention the 85% they want too ;D

I don't know what you meant by the 85%?

« Reply #48 on: May 26, 2011, 15:40 »
0
Nope 3 landmarks will not make it anymore.  They want variety, my gf was rejected a couple times for shooting things too similar like: 1.  the Taj Mahal 2. Machu Picchu 3. the Blue Mosque.   All good shots too, not spectacular but sharp, correctly exposed, rule of 3rds etc.  The last time the inspector wrote that there should be a portrait, a studio, and a landscape shot for example.  Basically 3 totally different kinds of shot.

you forgot to mention the 85% they want too ;D

I don't know what you meant by the 85%?

IS cut :)

« Reply #49 on: May 26, 2011, 15:56 »
0
On a seperate but connected issue, do you folks think https://www.lynda.com/ is worth while for training?


I am a big fan of https://www.lynda.com/.

Here is a link to their photography-related courses:

http://www.lynda.com/Photography-training-tutorials/70-0.html

You can subscribe by the month for $25.00 or $37.50 which allows the downloading of exercise files.


 

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
2464 Views
Last post April 03, 2013, 00:07
by MichaelJayFoto
17 Replies
9785 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