Author Topic: Infocus1's istockphoto rejection pictures (Read 9084 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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2013, 19:31 »

Sorry, but your isolation still isn't clean enough - easiest to see at the bottom right, but it's problematic elsewhere too.
They used to have a good tutorial on isolations, and it's probably still there somewhere, but I couldn't find it by searching 'pen tool' (bizarre search result) and 'isolation' (no results).

BTW, the tutorials give very good guidance on iStock's (previous) standards. These would be worth a lot of study if you haven't already.

Rimglow's advice is very sound. Look at the opposition and see if you can actually articulate why anyone would buy your photo of subject X rather than what's already there.

infocus1 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 20, 2013, 19:45 »

Sue, do you use the paths tool for isolation?

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** August 20, 2013, 20:12 »

Quote from: infocus1 on August 20, 2013, 19:45

Sue, do you use the paths tool for isolation?

I did, but I haven't done isolations for a while.

BTW, the 'proper' way to do them is by lighting, but I don't have enough lights or space.

infocus1 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 20, 2013, 20:40 »

How does this look for isolation?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 20, 2013, 20:56 »

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8294845/014_14.jpg

infocus1 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 20, 2013, 21:25 »

Luis, can you tell me what that picture is that you linked?

Thanks, I assume it's a way to check the edges?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 20, 2013, 21:32 »

Quote from: infocus1 on August 20, 2013, 21:25

Luis, can you tell me what that picture is that you linked?

Thanks, I assume it's a way to check the edges?

yep, using Curves (click on the right bottom corner)

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2013, 02:17 »

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.

Problems of digestion?

Difydave · « **Reply #33 on:** August 21, 2013, 05:13 »

That article on clipping paths that Liz mentioned can be found here.
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=89
Be careful though, clipping paths can bring their own set of problems. Particularly if the object to be isolated has changes in the edge focus due to DOF.
As Liz said isolations are better done "in camera" with a proper set up.
I'll repeat, unless I really knew how to do isolations, I'd leave them alone for an application.
I wouldn't use a piece of statuary like that either for an application, set up a still life that has some sort of simple concept. "Going out" "Going fishing" "Making dinner" anything that clearly "says" what is happening in the shot.
The statue is still underexposed "flat and grey" IMO too.
Don't strip the exif for the application shots, or to show here preferably, it will help people see what you are doing. Save the file at maximum jpeg quality.
Don't be in too much of a hurry to reapply. Get the right set of shots first. If you don't you'll just get another refusal, and a longer wait.

infocus1 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 21, 2013, 22:18 »

Beppe I was thinking kinda the same thing, but either way, I'm starting to begin to see the work that is going to be involved.

Dave, Thanks for the insight again. As I'm receiving more advice, it's getting more specific, and this is exactly what I need. Thanks for the link.

Do you have any links for lighting, or advice off the top of your head? Otherwise I can look through the istock tutorials again as Sue offered.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #35 on:** August 21, 2013, 23:02 »

http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/

tab62 · « **Reply #36 on:** August 21, 2013, 23:35 »

This brings back memories of me just a year or so ago- here are my tips (all based on lot's of headaches and upset stomachs):

1. Learn to use the pen tool for isolation on objects (white or black)- master the pen tool!
2. Never push your lens to the extremes - use only the sweet spots (ie 17-55 lens use it around 20 to 50 ranges). Sure you can fix the distortions in photoshop but why not just do it right in the first place. The more you do in the camera the less time processing
3. Study your objects - look for unique ones that are not a trademark concern.
4. Think Commercial all the time. Why would a buyer want my photo? Try to hit multiple platform forms- ie Fish photo (food, health, fishing industry, sport).
5. Hold off submitting to iStock (Get into the smaller and mid tier first to gain experience and confidence)
6. Learn to light- the strobist 101 is good place to start on the web
7. Never take it personal on what folks tell you- the basically mean well but will be blunt at times
8. Don't go out and buy 20k worth of equipment to make a few bucks - keep your cost down

Good Luck...

T

tab62 · « **Reply #37 on:** August 21, 2013, 23:49 »

did a quick search of 'Budda on White' in Shutter- this what you have to compete against.

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=budda+on+white&search_group=&lang=en&search_source=search_form

tab62 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 21, 2013, 23:54 »

Here is a trout (one white) I recently did- took me a few minutes to isolate via the pen tool -

http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?searchterm=trout&search_group=&lang=en&search_source=search_form#id=146873606&src=E-0Bd5rL2Y9_VV7BUsoK5g-1-38

qwerty · « **Reply #39 on:** August 22, 2013, 04:13 »

submit to dreamstime, get some sales and choose the best to submit for your istock application

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** August 22, 2013, 04:33 »

Quote from: tab62 on August 21, 2013, 23:49

did a quick search of 'Budda on White' in Shutter- this what you have to compete against.

And many times more (6208) when you search on 'Buddha isolated':
http://tinyurl.com/lv4vt9b

'Only' 930 on iStock, though:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/Buddha%20isolated/filetype/photos/source/basic#6438f83

shumicse · « **Reply #41 on:** August 29, 2013, 23:49 »

The pen tool is the best option to select path of any image. If you use magic wand tool the path can be selected easily but here the edge of the image will be imperfect. So pen tool should be use for selecting path.

infocus1 · « **Reply #42 on:** September 07, 2013, 00:35 »

Thanks for the link cuppacoffee.

Tab, great points, that's going to help keep me busy and moving in the right direction, thank you. Nice trout btw, thanks for helping with an example.

qwerty, I kind of enjoy the challenge, so I guess if all else fails with the main sites, I'll look into doing exactly as you suggested as a backup.

ShadySue, I like the competition, but don't you guys see it's not buddha pictures "on white" or "buddha isolation", it's "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".

Shumicse, I tried the pen tool, and I'm seeing that's what I need to work at next. Thanks for the input.

How is this picture now? I used the pen tool for isolation.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #43 on:** September 07, 2013, 06:20 »

can you post 100% samples? it looks like you have some rough edges, you need to feather the selection, still many places not cleaned enough

DF_Studios · « **Reply #44 on:** September 07, 2013, 06:45 »

When I was starting out in microstock I found Dreamstime to be the best because the reviews gave specific reasons why an imaged was rejected.

Some other agencies give a list of "possible" reasons which isn't very helpful.

I also found the community on Dreamstime to be very encouraging and helpful. There is a lot of knowledge and advice there in the blogs and message boards.

Beyond technical skill, the most important thing is to start developing an eye for what commercial shots needed and look like. You need to be looking at the agencies, magazines, billboards etc and start to see what types of shots are used. Reading a book like "Taking Stock" is a good way to learn more about what stock is all about.

infocus1 · « **Reply #45 on:** September 07, 2013, 09:40 »

Luis, thanks for checking that again for me. Actually I'm using gimp and not photoshop, so I looked around and tried to find some tutorials for creating the image you did, but couldn't find one that worked. I linked a 100% at the bottom.

DF_Studios, I guess it would be nice to have them include an explanation for the rejection, thanks for the insight. Thanks for the book recommendation too. Thanks for the encouragement.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eic1q3era89za42/014_14.jpg

luissantos84 · « **Reply #46 on:** September 07, 2013, 09:56 »

I use GIMP as well, when I say 100%, just crop that picture at 100% (left corner at the bottom) and save that so we can see the isolation around a buddha

are you feathering the selection you made around the buddhas?

infocus1 · « **Reply #47 on:** September 07, 2013, 14:35 »

Luis, it seems as if I reposted the same photo. Here's the actual 100%.

Did you want me to crop the photo to eliminate the unnecessary white around the edges?

Thanks.

Oh since you're using gimp can you easily tell me how to do what you're doing or is it more complicated?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qzxbfns4d9dib1s/014_14_lg.jpg