StockXpert Denial

rlboston2009

New Member

« on: September 28, 2009, 20:13 »

#link

Hello All!

I'm mostly coming from film, I've had a bit of training through the years. Really, really new to microstock.

Just received a denial from StockXpert, "We are very sorry but at the moment we are not looking for pictures like the ones you uploaded". I would appreciate some feedback either specifically about StockXpert or about these images in general as I strive to gain some insight.

http://a6.vox.com/6a0123ddbbc32f860c0123ddcf780e860d-pi
http://a6.vox.com/6a0123ddbbc32f860c01240b621cfe860e-pi
http://a7.vox.com/6a0123ddbbc32f860c01240b621d07860e-pi

Thanks!


	Ignore \| Logged

cclapper

Premium Member

« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2009, 20:50 »

#link

Regarding the train shot, you lose your sky on the right hand side of the picture. That is very distracting, as it leaves a big white space. And possibly it's blown out.

I personally like the second picture. I worked for a company that was all about agriculture and I was always shopping for these types of photos. The only thing I see wrong is that again, the white cloud highlight may be blow out.

I really like the third one...the colors are great and I like the composition. I'm not certain if it's ok technically.

Regarding the "not looking for pictures" rejection...you will find on all the sites that some reviewers reject things and some don't. If you are exclusive with stockxpert, all you can do is look to see what is selling and pattern your shoots in those categories. Accept the rejection, learn from it, and move on. If you are submitting to other sites, you may get them accepted. Each site has a different market. What one site wants to sell, another doesn't.

I wish I could give you a list of who accepts what and who doesn't accept what, but honestly, it changes all the time. Just when you think you get what a site is looking for, it all changes. In my experience, that is.

Hope these little tidbits help.


	Ignore \| Logged

disorderly

« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2009, 20:52 »

#link

I can't say exactly why SX rejected these particular images, but I have some ideas. Most microstock images are used for illustration, and the reviewer may have looked at your images and not seen how they could be used. I can see a few problems with the engine: first, it still has the railroad logo and engine number, which are verboten; second, the framing is so tight that it limits the ways it could be used; and third, it's overly bright. Both the sky and the front of the engine are blown out, which most micros don't like, at least in my experience.

The other two may just be stuff they don't care about. Flowers and plants, and by extension corn and grasses, are not big sellers unless they're absolutely outstanding. Some agencies won't give them the server space, I suspect because so many people have access to them as subjects and submit them by the boxcar load.

Of course I could be wrong about all this.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2009, 21:42 »

#link

the third one is definitely very nice, but at 100%, it's really, really noisy. noise is also a problem with the other two, and many highly visible artifacts in the cloud area in the second. noise only looks good in film, which is called grain.


	Ignore \| Logged

elvinstar

« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2009, 23:52 »

#link

The noise is definitely an issue. Be sure that your camera is set to the lowest ISO setting possible. Also, on the train, where you removed the name of the company between "Short line" and "Operations" is very noticeable. Try to make sure that the pattern matches the rest of the train after cloning.

Hope that helps!


	Ignore \| Logged

rlboston2009

New Member

« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2009, 10:12 »

#link

EXCELLENT feedback! Great crit all, thanks for taking the time.

My assumption was agriculture companies would be looking for stock like this, thanks for affirming that.

They were all taken on a very bright day so need to keep an eye out for blowing out the sky. I don't have access to my images right now but I thought I had removed the logo, albeit roughly as another reviewer pointed out, wouldn't think engine number would be an issue. This is a parked engine on display so I can certainly reshoot.

I will absolutely take a closer look at the noise issue.

What a great way to improve my photography! Thanks again!


	Ignore \| Logged

rlboston2009

New Member

« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2009, 10:34 »

#link

Couple more things...

I should probably add the caveat, what a great way to improve my "stock" photography.

I'm not exclusive with StockXpert, I'm uploading to a number of agencies, but I just started this month. I do understand their needs are rather fluid.

I'm finding it rather addictive.

Thanks again!


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2009, 14:46 »

#link

Quote from: rlboston2009 on September 29, 2009, 10:12

Yup, I had to go through one photo, remove license plates in a parking lot and a logo on a buss, cab Etc. then they wanted the number on the bus removed also. I blurred the faces of people two blocks away, just in case. There was a Mfg. logo on a spare tire on a SYV, that had to go. So the numbers on the train might all be cloned out or painted over with green.

8.0 Megapixel, 1/2.5-inch type Charge Coupled Device (CCD) A590 is a nice camera, you may want to reduce the size of the images after editing to remove artifacts and make noise less noticeable. That's a smallish sensor for 8MP. Downsizing can help get images passed.


	Ignore \| Logged

click_click

« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2009, 15:23 »

#link

If you've been shooting images for some years I shouldn't have to tell you that it can be quite challenging taking photos against the sun.
I bet that if you shot the train from the other side of tracks it would have looked awesome but maybe the background could have been a problem - I don't know, but the train would have been illuminated nicely.

In the dark areas of the train (almost entire shadow side) you can see quite some noise.

There some "smudgy" spots like the number 0 in the big "604" on the side. All the letters have a black outline but the "0" looks kind of funny. I know it could be because it was like that but I see some of that smudging also on the carriage next to the wheels.

It does look a bit soft.

Furthermore you can see some slight color fringing on the handle on the roof at the front which is sticking into the sky.

Composition is not too great either. Find a more interesting angle or crop. Use the rule of thirds or show the entire engine.

The other two shots show way too much post processing errors. Way too much noise. Too much saturation. Not sharp. They all look really soft.

The plant pictures are great subjects to photograph but imagine what is it that your picture promotes?

When you compose the shot be sure that the designer can include some text in the image. In the shot with the corn crops (I'm terrible at determining plants...) move the camera up so you get a lot more sky! This gives the designer a lot of space for text etc.

You got the eye for the subjects, it's just a technical matter to get the shots right for stock!

Good luck!


	Ignore \| Logged

HermanM

« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2009, 20:17 »

#link

Just this week I got an iso1600 image accepted... Ran Dfine at 60% opacity and downsized from 13 mp to around 6, minimum smart sharpening and it looked even better than iso 100. So, do really consider some downsizing in certain cases.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: StockXpert Denial

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results