MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: No clear center focal point rejection (iStock)  (Read 6663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 03, 2008, 15:20 »
0
Hi all,
I am trying to get an iStock account. I have sent them the three test photos and all three were rejected with the same explanation: "We could not find a clear center focal point for this file."
The files are these:
newbielink:http://www.flickr.com/photos/22450069@N04/?saved=1 [nonactive]
(the one with the sand background is a bit cropped from the left and top, but the resolution is unchanged)
I am not a professional photographer, so I'd be very grateful if someone could please post a comment of these photos.
Where is the lack of focal point seen?
What are the other problems of these photos?
Are they good enough that I should keep trying with microstock or not?
How can improve my work?
Of course I'm not taking pictures to make money from them, but I just thought I could give it a try and now I want to learn more  :) ...
Thanks!!


« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2008, 15:28 »
0
Photos 1 and 3 are lacking in terms of visual impact. What are you trying to say with these photos? There isn't any clear message. Not sure why number 2 was rejected. I seems like a perfectly good stock photo. It could be out of focus or blurry at 100%. Maybe they didn't like the drab colors of the sky and tree. Maybe if you took it again in more dramatic lighting. If you are having problems with these images, just search on the same keywords you used on these images and see what the top selling photos look like with those same keywords.

« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2008, 15:51 »
0
My two cents on Z3 and Z2 is that you don't have enough "space" around the main subject of the photos. The crops are too tight, thus eliminating a focal point. The stick/shadow (Z3) and tree (Z2) take up too much space in the frame.

-Steve

« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2008, 17:04 »
0
IS typically uses the "focal point" rejection when the image is too blurry.

I agree with zorki and steve-oh: your images are lacking in both message and impact. I also find them too dark. Concentrate on making images that are strongly composed and have an obvious message. Powerful images are often accepted even when they contain many flaws. Weak images are often rejected even when they are technically perfect.

« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2008, 18:11 »
0
Powerful images are often accepted even when they contain many flaws. Weak images are often rejected even when they are technically perfect.

And sometimes they are just rejected for no good reason.   :)

« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2008, 18:38 »
0
I know something about "Clear Focal Point".

This has got to be the most misunderstood rejection comment a reviewer can send to a new comer.
What should  mean filling the frame with your subject, has be substituted with "No clear focal point".

Composition is everything in an image, whether it be a fine art image, or stock image.
One thing I learned early on in my brief experience, is when I think I'm close enough to the subject....move a step even closer!
This has worked for me in the past, and no more "Clear Focal Point" rejections either.

(by the way it does not mean your image is necessarily out of focus)
It means you got too much background, and not enough of the subject
Best of luck you crazy stock photographer

The MIZ
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 23:01 by rjmiz »

RT


« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2008, 04:48 »
0
It means you got too much background, and not enough of the subject

I'd say the opposite,  on the first two you haven't got enough background.

Or in other words I agree with what Steve Oh has written.

« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2008, 12:15 »
0
......... Powerful images are often accepted even when they contain many flaws. Weak images are often rejected even when they are technically perfect.


From my own (limited) expericence, I strongly agree with that. I guess its a generic "we dont like it" (because of overall weaknesses) response.

And to be honest, in my case most of these rejections were justified. Opinions may vary between the individual inspectors - but in general I still get valuable feedback from rejections (submitting to microstock sites since early 2007).

"rejections for no good reasons (-> quote cclapper)" are rare exceptions.

« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2008, 12:35 »
0
Lack of composition, the image has no impact.
Z3 image, the elements are flowing in the wrong direction.

Z2 image, is cropped too tight and without an element in the forground to give depth to the subject.

Z1 image, photos of flowers are over submitted.  Submit flowers only if there is a strong composition, impact, or exceptional image, not an under exposed image without quality.

Istock is very tough to get approved. Study what is being accepted an focus your efforts.

« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2008, 15:34 »
0
The composition of Z3 is altered, since I didn't want to resize the image, in the original photo the object is not positioned so central.
I must confess, some of your cropping opinions are a bit confusing (too much or too little background ???), but otherwise thank you all so much for the critique - no other way to improve :)

« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2008, 00:20 »
0
Zirafek,

You stated "Of course I'm not taking pictures to make money from them, but I just thought I could give it a try and now I want to learn more". 
If you are not taking pictures to make money from them, then why do you care what a micro stock reviewer thinks about them?
If you want to learn more, take a photography class where you can get some good one on one criticism of your pictures.
Don't give up, believe it or not your knowledge of photography, limited as it is, is probably greater than the photography knowledge of the person who reviewed and rejected your images.

RacePhoto

« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2008, 02:51 »
0
I think the answer may be to do a web search for the Rule of Thirds, which is based on the Golden Ratio. It should help understand composition.

As with any rule, they are not Laws, but rules to guide you.

There are some things that will usually get low marks in photos as art. A lateral bisector, crooked horizon (even if it's indoors, which means a tilted image), and putting the subject dead center in the image. These are easy to avoid. Also if you are intentionally trying to make something with these aspects, you might want to ignore the rules.  ;D

Generally I try to have cars running into the photo, instead of pointing out at the edge. Just what I think looks more natural than a car driving off the page. I don't do the angular cliche' shots of the car tilted in the frame. Some people live by it. Just a personal choice. One editor said, if we want it tilted, we can do it ourselves.  8)

I have said before that photographers should take a course in art appreciation, which includes art history. Art History 101 in other words. You can get a good lesson in composition and color and see what's classic and what "works".

I'm not saying that people should copy, imitate and be robots, by all means, be an individual and be creative, have fun, express your personal viewpoint. But there are some basic guidelines that will help make your photos more appealing to others.

Hopefully selling photos should never become selling out!  :D

The rule of Thirds is a nice starting point.

IMHO - The driftwood dead center in the sand could have been done with the subject down towards the right corner more, so it naturally points the eyes, into the photo. The tree on the hill could have been moved to the left side of the photo, so the flow is up the hill. The large empty space to the left of the pretty flower, and some of the empty space to the right, could be eliminated for an attractive arched close crop. (and I might be wrong)

« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2008, 06:38 »
0
Hi,
I just wanted to thank again to all for your kind and helpful suggestions!!
I submitted three new test photos to iStock and they were all approved  :D
Thanks,
Z


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
5850 Views
Last post February 16, 2007, 15:21
by madelaide
13 Replies
5103 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 20:32
by cathyslife
12 Replies
5091 Views
Last post March 07, 2007, 11:39
by Lizard
3 Replies
2772 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 22:44
by anonymous
28 Replies
10537 Views
Last post February 12, 2015, 17:12
by SnowDog

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors