Author Topic: Infocus1's istockphoto rejection pictures (Read 9096 times)

infocus1 · « **on:** August 19, 2013, 17:34 »

Hi, i'm new to photography, can someone give me a detailed critique so i can focus on my weaknesses, thanks.

The last picture is one that i'm working on sending with my resubmission.

tickstock · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2013, 17:35 »

picture5469 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2013, 18:24 »

Every one has copyright issues

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2013, 18:42 »

If you're 'new to photography', why do you think you should worry about shooting for stock? Experienced shooters can hardly make it, in some cases.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2013, 03:27 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 19, 2013, 18:42

If you're 'new to photography', why do you think you should worry about shooting for stock? Experienced shooters can hardly make it, in some cases.

Hmm… and why not?
Shooting for stock is a good way to learn how to make (a kind of) good photos.

Are you so afraid by new competitors?

(just kidding with you Sean)

ignard · « **Reply #5 on:** August 20, 2013, 03:59 »

Possible Legal issues:
- Brandnames shown
- Copyright issues (always a problem with toys)

Possible technical issues
- Bad Lighting
- Exposure problems
- Focus issues (
- Bad contrast
- Grain, might be caused by bad lighting and/or under exposure

Possible Photoshop issues
- Bad masking
- Bad edges
- bad reflections (harsh)

Possible setup issues
- I can see YOU in the reflection of the frogs 'crown'. Get dressed in a black overall when taking pictures of shiny/white subjects and hide your face /camera/hands behind a black or white cardboard with a hole to put your lens through. there is a reason for photo equipment to be black.

Goor luck

Difydave · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2013, 04:40 »

For the reasons given above you are way off both in subject and level of technical ability. Technically you need to be able to take a well composed and properly exposed image with the focus in the right place on the subject, You need to show a reasonable level of understanding of the correct aperture, shutter speed and ISO settings to get an acceptable amount of noise and the desired depth of field etc.
Subject wise you will need to show a diversity of subject matter, and where possible show some sort of concept. One shot will really need to be of a person "doing something" the others can be, for instance, a still life, and a landscape. Unless you are an expert at white background / isolated shots then personally I'd leave them alone for application.

tickstock · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2013, 06:31 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2013, 06:41 »

Agree with all the above.
Was your initial rejection generic, or did they specify areas you need to improve on?

Difydave · « **Reply #9 on:** August 20, 2013, 06:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 20, 2013, 06:31

copyright\trademark issues might not be an issue for applications since the I.ages will need to be approved after you get accepted. Who knows they might have releases and the application doesn't ask for them. Diversity of subjects is probably necessary though.

It's already been said on the iStock forum that not sending in shots with trademarks or other IP problems shows an understanding of stock imagery. Again it's been said again and again that diversity of subjects is necessary, as is showing some sort of concept(s) and at least one shot of people . The subjects covered are otherwise up to the applicant.

infocus1 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 20, 2013, 15:18 »

Thanks everyone for your help. Tickstock/picture5469, I understand how the photos are underexposed now and understand the copyright issues. The content was lame and i was suprised, but now I see that I have to raise the bar.

Sean, I don't think I should worry about shooting stock photography.

Ignard, thanks for the thoroughness of your evaluation, I like that you categorized it by the categories, it's perfect, thanks.

DifyDave, thanks for the thoughts, it gives me something to move towards, I need diversity.

ShadySue, it was a generic rejection, i think. There were 3 links are those specific, do you think?

infocus1 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 20, 2013, 16:07 »

How is this for content?

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** August 20, 2013, 16:23 »

I have no idea whether they would be considered generic enough. It would up to you to establish that.
I'm assuming that is just an example of a subject rather than a photo you were thinking of submitting.
I hope you wouldn't crop them off at the edges like the example you posted. Also they are a bit noisy and the background isn't white. I doubt if that matters nowdays for the collection, but they may be stricter on an application.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 20, 2013, 16:29 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 20, 2013, 16:23

I have no idea whether they would be considered generic enough. It would up to you to establish that.
I'm assuming that is just an example of a subject rather than a photo you were thinking of submitting.
I hope you wouldn't crop them off at the edges like the example you posted. Also they are a bit noisy and the background isn't white. I doubt if that matters nowdays for the collection, but they may be stricter on an application.

+ "horizon" not aligned

infocus1 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 20, 2013, 16:50 »

Here I took another photo and made sure I didn't crop out the sides. I straightened it, and made the background white.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2013, 16:56 »

Quote from: infocus1 on August 20, 2013, 16:50

Here I took another photo and made sure I didn't crop out the sides. I straightened it, and made the background white.

That just shows you can take a photo of someone else's art. However it shows you are unable to isolate an object - look at the poor isolation work around the bottom of the object. Also, it has distortion due to the wide angle lens you used.

It doesn't show you're a stock photographer.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2013, 17:01 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 20, 2013, 16:56

Also, it has distortion due to the wide angle lens you used.

it has some distortion but if you look closely the 3rd buddha is sitting on the biggest stone of all 3

tickstock · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2013, 17:05 »

Try a portrait, a landscape, a completely isolated (non-protected) object,.

infocus1 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2013, 17:10 »

It has distortion because I had to scale the image to upload. Thanks for the tip on the isolation on the bottom Sean.

Should I be uploading my pictures to a different host?

Ron · « **Reply #19 on:** August 20, 2013, 17:13 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 20, 2013, 16:56

Quote from: infocus1 on August 20, 2013, 16:50
Here I took another photo and made sure I didn't crop out the sides. I straightened it, and made the background white.

That just shows you can take a photo of someone else's art. However it shows you are unable to isolate an object - look at the poor isolation work around the bottom of the object. Also, it has distortion due to the wide angle lens you used.

It doesn't show you're a stock photographer.

It seems you forgot where you started long time ago. The guy is here to learn, nothing wrong with that. Why discourage him?

fritz · « **Reply #20 on:** August 20, 2013, 17:21 »

Exactly!
Just a friendly advice. Whenever you start shooting whatever it is ask yourself why would someone buy your photo. It's called commercial value. By the way this is a nice place to get advice but unfortunately not from all members.

rimglow · « **Reply #21 on:** August 20, 2013, 17:35 »

My advice is to do a Buddah search, and study what your competition is uploading. Take your subject and try to duplicate the lighting, and composition. Learn from the photographers you admire.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #22 on:** August 20, 2013, 18:19 »

Quote from: Ron on August 20, 2013, 17:13

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 20, 2013, 16:56
Quote from: infocus1 on August 20, 2013, 16:50
Here I took another photo and made sure I didn't crop out the sides. I straightened it, and made the background white.

That just shows you can take a photo of someone else's art. However it shows you are unable to isolate an object - look at the poor isolation work around the bottom of the object. Also, it has distortion due to the wide angle lens you used.

It doesn't show you're a stock photographer.
It seems you forgot where you started long time ago. The guy is here to learn, nothing wrong with that. Why discourage him?

I'm not discouraging him. I'm telling him what is wrong with his submission.

The distortion isn't from scaling it. It's from your wide angle lens.

infocus1 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 20, 2013, 18:54 »

Thanks for the support guys.

Sean, can this correction be made on Photoshop? I did some research on it and did a correction, does this new image appear to be fixed? If not can you describe the problem and or the solution?

infocus1 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2013, 19:09 »

Here's an updated photo with distortion cleaned up more.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Infocus1's istockphoto rejection pictures (Read 9096 times)

infocus1

tickstock

picture5469

Sean Locke Photography

Beppe Grillo

ignard

Difydave

tickstock

ShadySue

Difydave

infocus1

infocus1

ShadySue

luissantos84

infocus1

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

tickstock

infocus1

Ron

fritz

rimglow

Sean Locke Photography

infocus1

infocus1

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors