Please critique my photos

Daneel

« on: February 19, 2007, 16:20 »

#link

Hi all,

I've recently (~3 weeks ago) joined stockXpert and uploaded my complete portfolio. My illustrations were mostly accepted. Out of my photos (~380) most (~320) were rejected mostly with the "Please submit better quality images" reason.

I'm with 8 other agencies (including all of the big ones). 70-90% of the photos rejected by stockXpert have been accepted by them and are selling great.

These are three examples out of my portfolio which were all rejected for "submit better quality images":

Apple:
http://www.unfolded.com/critique/apple.jpg
100% crop:
http://www.unfolded.com/critique/apple_crop.jpg

The apple crop is a bit large. IE might scale it down. You have to click on the image (possibly in the lower right corner) to see the full resolution.

Phone:
http://www.unfolded.com/critique/phone.jpg
100% crop:
http://www.unfolded.com/critique/phone_crop.jpg

Microphone:
http://www.unfolded.com/critique/mic.jpg
100% crop:
http://www.unfolded.com/critique/mic_crop.jpg

I'd be glad about any critique. I'm really puzzled and curious why stockXpert would reject 80% of the photos which are online at every other agency.

Many thanks,
Michael


« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 16:24 by Daneel »	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2007, 16:54 »

#link

I wouldn't be too worried about being rejected at StockXpert - from what I've read you won't get very much money from this site. Phildate - a very high performer - has 3000 images online there and gets only $200/month (that a paltry $0.07 per image per month) from this place. My personal bar is $1.00 per image per month - I don't bother posting to a site if I can't get that much income from it.

On a related note, they rejected my initial five image submission and asked for another five before rejecting me again - I'm very glad not to have wasted any more time with these guys ...


« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 16:56 by sharply_done »	Ignore \| Logged

Daneel

« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2007, 16:58 »

#link

Hi!

I'm also loosing my hope with them, but maybe there is really something wrong with my photos which only they can see (and none of the reviewers of the 8 other agencies which I partecipate in) :-).

Maybe there is really something wrong with my photos. This is also the reason for me posting here.

Thanks and all the best,
Michael


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2007, 17:27 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on February 19, 2007, 16:54

My personal bar is $1.00 per image per month - I don't bother posting to a site if I can't get that much income from it.

$1.00/image/month Do you really have that high of downloads. Wow. I am a bit behind that to put it mildly. Are you saying then you are getting $400 on dreamstime per month?


	Ignore \| Logged

XeniaII

« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2007, 17:34 »

#link

i realy dont think that stockxpert is something we have to think about. One day i put 100 photos in say say... yes-- and i have no keywords or other dates.. other dates they say no to all my pictures... in 2 month i only sold there photos for 29 usd ... and sorry thats not my way ... they gets me on my nervs really


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2007, 19:08 »

#link

leaf: Am I making $400/month from DT? I wish. I'm currently under 1/4 of that.

My one-week moving average trendlines have me at $1.50/file/month on SS and IS, and $0.20 on DT and FT. I've abandoned 123RF, BS, and Crestock (who, ironically, just interviewed me for their blog). My overall average is about $1.25 for all sites combined.

I originally abandoned DT and FT after uploading 100+ shots, but then sales started to come around a bit, so I decided to invest a little time in them. DT got is improving faster than FT, and I hope to see it start climbing towards $0.50 in the next few weeks. I hit $0.35 there today, and have been at $0.50 a few times in the past couple of weeks.


« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 19:59 by sharply_done »	Ignore \| Logged

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2007, 19:15 »

#link

Deep breath--OK, here we go. I think what's going on with your images is that they show a lot of jpeg compression artifacts at 100%. Each image shows jaggies and could use a bit more detail. Furthermore, the apple doesn't have a distinct edge; it bleeds into the background too much.

I think your technique is fine (but be very careful to clean up all dust and lint from the objects you shoot). It's your camera that's letting you down.

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 16:20


	Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2007, 19:27 »

#link


« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 19:58 by sharply_done »	Ignore \| Logged

Daneel

« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2007, 02:53 »

#link

Hi!

Quote from: Professorgb on February 19, 2007, 19:15

Many thanks for this reply. The Canon S3 which I use doesn't support raw mode, so the JPEGs are all "second generation JPEGs". While I save them at the highest quality in Photoshop, this might cause the artefacts or it's just the in-camera compression (I've set everything to the highest value there).

I obviously don't have the eye to spot these artefacts yet. Can you help me seeing them? Only if you have the time of course...but I'd really like to learn.

All the best,
Michael


	Ignore \| Logged

Bateleur

« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2007, 03:32 »

#link

Quote from: Daneel on February 20, 2007, 02:53

Hi!

I obviously don't have the eye to spot these artefacts yet. Can you help me seeing them? Only if you have the time of course...but I'd really like to learn.

One way I've found of spotting pesky artefacts, particularly dust spots on light coloured backgrounds like white, or blue skies is to do the following:

a) Create a new layer in PS and select the 'Overlay' mode (bottom box on the 'Create New Layer' options window).

b) Fill the new layer with pure black. It'll look weird, but dust spots really jump out at you.

c) But make sure you switch to the background layer as the active one if you're doing any cloning repairs, otherwise nothing will happen.

d) When you've cleaned it all up, erase the black layer and the image will go back to normal, but sans artefacts.

Hey presto!


	Ignore \| Logged

Daneel

« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2007, 03:33 »

#link

Cheers, I'll remember that!

But I was talking about the JPEG compression artefacts... ;-)

Thanks,
Michael


	Ignore \| Logged

Bateleur

« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2007, 03:43 »

#link

Ah ... yes, you were.

The best way to see these in my experience is to blow the image up to 200-300% or even more, and look at edges.

Shoot in RAW if you can (or, failing that, TIF) and do as much work as you can in 16 bits. Then save a worked version of any image as a TIF which is a lossless format. Only change to JPEG as a very last step.

The trouble is, because it compresses images, every time you re-save a JPEG file you lose quality. It's a bit like photocopying a photocopy of a photocopy ...


	Ignore \| Logged

souper

« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2007, 11:43 »

#link

i have to tell you.... you must of just caught a reviewer on a bad day.....

The images you showed here were perfect stock!

Don't question yourself at all. Wink


	Ignore \| Logged

a.k.a.-tom

Premium Member

« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2007, 12:55 »

#link

Quote from: Bateleur on February 20, 2007, 03:43

The best way to see these in my experience is to blow the image up to 200-300% or even more, and look at edges.

Agreed! The more I move into this business the more I have to dive into my pix. 100% used to be the measuring stick. That is not necessarily true any longer with many sites.
Since I got onboard with IS.... I have to dive in deeper. My first batch submitted to IS had several rejections of pix that sell very well on SS, DT and sold on FT. IS has a feature where they send you a slice of the image showing the area of concern.
I was amazed at what they found. And to the point, I had to blow up to 200 & 300% to see the problem.
I now review everything at that magnification before submitting there. Cool

-tom


	Ignore \| Logged

hatman12

« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2007, 15:21 »

#link

Daneel, I don't see artifacts in your pictures, but I can see lots of dust on the phone and the microphone. Isolated images like these need to be cleaned up before submission; even if you get the images accepted, any potential buyers might be disappointed to find dust and that won't get you a good reputation.

Tom's advice is good - examine all your images thoroughly at 200% before deciding that you are happy.

Tom - IS reject more of my images than anyone else, but there is always a good reason, usually only noticeable at 100% or 200%. In the two months I've been there they have improved my photography no end. I now realise that some of my initial work was sloppy; the images I submit now are miles ahead of those in terms of finish and quality. So although it is frustrating, in the end IS will make me a better stock photographer.

By the way Daneel - you have accumulated an incredibly good portfolio using that Canon S3. Well done.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Please critique my photos

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results