pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Critique Request for Istock  (Read 3986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 30, 2011, 07:39 »
0
Hello Everyone,
I need your help to succes in Istock Application.
I have some photos, help me choose the best three.

1) newbielink:http://i52.tinypic.com/kedmjk.jpg [nonactive]
2) newbielink:http://i51.tinypic.com/14v0k1c.jpg [nonactive]
3) newbielink:http://i55.tinypic.com/98bqmp.jpg [nonactive]
4) newbielink:http://i54.tinypic.com/21ovsxv.jpg [nonactive]
5) newbielink:http://i52.tinypic.com/2yznf55.jpg [nonactive]
6) newbielink:http://i56.tinypic.com/bevfd0.jpg [nonactive]
7) newbielink:http://i52.tinypic.com/6xw19z.jpg [nonactive]

Thanks in advance!


« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2011, 07:50 »
0
2+3+6

But hey what do I know...
Soon the pros will join and give you a more explained opinion.

« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2011, 08:17 »
0
I'm not sure about IS application criteria of today (I'm a member from 2004), but I don't think you will get in with these. Mainly too little commercial appeal. I'll criticize these quickly: (note that I cannot comment on the technical quality because the images are quite small)

Here's some tough love:

1 (The Woman) Flat lighting, no copy space, no story (-> lack of commercial appeal). The zipper has a tag that could be mistaken for a logo. Dirty snow. If this is spring, there should be sunlight.

2 (Houses) Looks unnatural ald over processed. Weird artefacts in the sky even at this file size. Composition lacks impact. Not much commercial appeal.

3 (Benches) Theres something I like about this. Clean up the thing hanging from the rail upper right. Would be better with a story, like a person sitting on a bench.

4 . Nice reflections. Otherwise a bad composition. And also a lack of commercial appeal (what would this image be used for?). The image looks like it's full of artefacts, I don't know if they show in the full size image (?)

5.  (Christmas decorations) Wrong white balance, the background has a yellow cast. The focus might be better on the ball in the front. The balls have uneven "speckles" on them. Over-exposed metallic parts(?).

6. I don't know if this is going to illustrate the great looking old houses or solar energy. Too confusing.

7. (Cards) There is no separation between the cards. You should light this image from the right to get some separation by shadows. White balance is wrong, the cards look yellow. Background is weir upper right.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2011, 08:20 by Perry »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2011, 21:47 »
0
I agree with a lot of what Perry said. Don't know that any of these would make it.

1) Woman...no copy space and with her being dressed in white in front of white snow really doesn't do much. Just not enough Pop. It also doesn't look real sharp at this size. And there is a logo on the string on the zipper. That would have to be removed.

2) Red building...absolutely no copy space. They would more than likely reject it for bad composition.

3) The benches are a nice composition but the first place my eyes went to was the blur in the foreground, then the eye goes to the benches then right back to the blur. It should lead your eye to the benches not pull it back to the blur. If you could crop that out a little this one might be a possibility.

4) The gazebo in the water looks just like that...a gazebo in the water. It needs something in the foreground. The lighting is also off.

5) The Christmas ornaments won't work. The cropping on them just isn't right and with the number that you have the focus should be on the front bulb and the blur on the rear bulbs, especially since the blurred front bulb is smack dab in the middle of the picture.

6) The composition on this one would never make it. It's a very nice shot but I can't see it being used for anything. And again no copy space.

7) Like Perry said there is no separation between the cards. You can't tell when one card stops and another one begins. They don't appear to be in focus either.

iStock is very strict and as the years have gone by they have gotten stricter. Don't give up just because we didn't find any we liked. You never really know unless you submit, but in my opinion I don't think any would make it through. Think advertising and what the photo could be used for. If you can't think of anything then it will probably not work. You need to crop less also. Some of the sites consider that bad composition.

Good luck and I hope we didn't offend you in any way.

nruboc

« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2011, 21:56 »
0
2+3+6

But hey what do I know...
Soon the pros will join and give you a more explained opinion.

^ This +1

« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2011, 22:24 »
0
I actually liked those photos.  If you were showing them to me just as photos, I'd say you have a photographic sensibility, and you appreciate color - although for my taste they're a bit too saturated. 

But I don't think they'd do much as stock.   You need to look at a lot of successful microstock shots to get a sense of how that game is played. 

The Christmas ornaments, for example: to you (and maybe to me) it's interesting to see the middle-distance objects in focus, not the foreground; but microstock would just reject that image as bad focus.   Think of microstock as a very literal-minded child without a lot of imagination.  Think of the cliches you see every day in advertising and promotional literature.

« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2011, 02:32 »
0
These aren't full size images, but even so, it's possible to see posterization and white balance problems with many of them. I wouldn't apply with any of these.

If the composition is excellent, some minor flaws or a little over zealousness with post processing will probably get overlooked in the application. I don't think any of these are likely candidates - sorry.

« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2011, 02:43 »
0
Agree with the others; time to choose a new batch.  I recently applied and was accepted; the guidelines are getting tighter as the agencies restrict those that can submit to higher quality images.

« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2011, 08:20 »
0
Thanks a lot for your Opinions, it is very helpful for me.
I will do some more photos and try again ;)

Punit Patel

  • www.photoshopmagic.co.in
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2011, 10:47 »
0
Hello Tomeks89,

Image no.3 is great but again as informed in the earlier post " It should lead your eye to the benches not pull it back to the blur."

If you are planning to upload images to Istock I would recommend you to go through their submission guidelines. Also, do a bit of research on the type of images which are sellable.

Once the images are clicked you might (not saying you will) find some impurities in the images but then again you have image editing softwares to help with color balancing and removing any odd object (If you feel there are any).

Thanks,
Punit

Punit Patel

  • www.photoshopmagic.co.in
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2011, 10:51 »
0
Hello Tomeks89,

Image no.3 is great but again as informed in the earlier post " It should lead your eye to the benches not pull it back to the blur."

If you are planning to upload images to Istock I would recommend you to go through Istock's submission guidelines it provides detailed information. Also, do a bit of research on the type of images which are sellable.

Once the images are clicked you might (not saying you will) find some impurities in the images but then again you have image editing software's to help with color balancing and removing any odd object (If you feel there are any).

Hope this helps  :)

Thanks,
Punit

« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2011, 11:22 »
0
I like 2,3,6, great photos, 4 also.
I cannot tell for sure from the small sizes, but there seems to be artifacting, noise, and perhaps dust spots in the background areas.  I personally like it, but iStock may well think they are over filtered (too highly saturated), either by your processing or your camera settings. At this point in time, I highly recommend spending lots of time with the iStock tutorials, and especially on their critique forum.  You will learn a lot about what is meant by artifacting,filtering, and noise.  I would not be worried about finding a saleable niche until you figure out iStocks idea of a technically acceptable photo.
For iStock, I recommend you closely check you camera settings and use neutral picture style with everything set to 0 if your camera allows.  ISO 100, and downsize all your initial shots to 1600X1200.  Try to avoid bright skies to begn with.  Your camera will do lots of processing you may not intend (and iStock dislikes) otherwise.  The red Christmas ornaments are an example.  Good luck

« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2011, 14:18 »
0
I have made these three fresh photos, Could you tell me if they will be accepted by Istock?





Thanks a lot!

« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2011, 14:43 »
0
yep :) like them, only not much the apple but the tulip is lovely, sort of is style

« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2011, 15:14 »
0
On IS you can submit 3D as photos also (unlike the other sites they don't consider these as illustrations so you can "mix and match").  The do need to be technically perfect and pretty photo realistic (in other words "look like" photos rather than illustrations) - you seem to have a few on SS that may work and much more like what you see on IS than the stuff I do.  I like the tulip.

« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2011, 22:52 »
0
I don't think iStock will accept these.

The first looks to me as if you added a sunburst into a photo with sky and clouds but no sun. The light's wrong for the sun in the frame. If you did do this in post processing, I'd suggest staying away from that for application photos unless you can do a truly seamless job.

The apple is fine and in focus, but I think the subject matter (portion of an apple with water drops) is likely not going to cut it.

The post processing on the photo isn't the sort of thing iStock typically accepts and a flower shot is already an iffy subject for an application photo.

Sorry to be blunt, but I've had a lot of  acceptance/rejection experience on which I'm basing my guesses.

« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2011, 02:22 »
0
Your compositions are excellent and you have the eye.

Your problem is the technical details of these photos. The woman's eyes were not sharp enough. Ideally her eye lashes should be very sharp in this size. Technically I think the apple is the best. The tulip might be ok if you crop out the over-blown highlights. Do not overprocess. As Jsnover said, most of your photos show posterization which means you have over processed/overfiltered them. They may impress average lookers but not for iStock.

Microstock InsiderPhotoDune

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
2045 Views
Last post December 23, 2009, 13:14
by PowerDroid
32 Replies
11442 Views
Last post March 27, 2010, 09:47
by nancypics
17 Replies
3788 Views
Last post May 19, 2010, 18:51
by Dreamframer
9 Replies
1535 Views
Last post January 04, 2012, 20:03
by Socas
4 Replies
740 Views
Last post January 06, 2014, 16:57
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors