MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My next attempt to pass Shutterstock's ten picture test.  (Read 10102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 14, 2007, 13:46 »
0
Do any of you(who have the time to look) think that these photos will pass Shutterstock's test? Also, someone(I think sharply_done) mentioned that you should cut your photo size in half if you want to pass Shutterstock's test. So an eight megapixel shot becomes four. If I'm understanding this correctly then a 3456 pixel sized image should be reduced to a 1728 pixel image. Did I get that right? Thanks.

http://jrtmedia.com/test/one.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/two.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/three.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/four.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/five.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/six.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/seven.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/eight.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/nine.jpg
http://jrtmedia.com/test/ten.jpg


« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2007, 14:06 »
0
Very nice clear pictures.  I see no reason why you should be concerned about having to reduce the size.  Note that if you do, the resultant images must be at least 4mp.

If I was being ultra critical (and SS might be), I'd say this:

Your coin might be rejected for flat lighting and possible incorrect white balance (needs more contrast).

The plane might be rejected for poor lighting (too many deep shadows on the plane itself).

In the hand and currency shot there is evidence of noise on the thumb.

The box with days and pills might be rejected as 'not commercial'.  Very difficult to see the point of this shot at thumbnail size.

The mobile phone is covered in dust spots and needs to be cleaned.  Note also that a designer buying this shot will be very disappointed to find the near and far edges out of focus.  It's difficult shooting these Motorolas because of their length, howeber if you place a couple of coins or something under the hinge to tip the phone unit slightly towards the camera you'll bring the rear edges into focus at F32 or preferably F64 (if you have it on your lens).

But I am being very picky.  IMO once you have been accepted at SS a batch of shots like this will sail through the approval procedure (apart from perhaps the coin and plane).  Overall, nice clean, clear pictures.

Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 14:25 by hatman12 »

« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2007, 14:13 »
0
I do not know if your images are what they are looking for. Sausages on a barbecue and an isolated coin, a rope.  Maybe they do.
 Most of your images will be rejected because they are not 100% focused. They are only in the center focused, which of course is not always wrong, but for SS it is wrong in this case I would say. That is my guess.  I had normal rejections because of this.
Yes it helps sometimes to reduce your image size, but it does not necessarily mean it must be half the size. The person probably meant the total amount of pixels, not one side of your image. If you cut down one side of your image to the half it becomes 2 MP, a quarter of its original size. 4 MP is the minimum requirement at SS. Also downsizing will not help you, because the images still will not be sharp enough in most cases of the images you showed us.
But maybe I am wrong :)

« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2007, 14:28 »
0
Additionally to what was said above:

- thrid image has paper structure visible in the shadow which can easily be taken as a noise. IMO, eliminate the shadown completely to be on a safe side (dodge it out). You may want to replace this one at all, it's questionable by other parameters too (focus, commercial value)
- on fourth one I would clone out a few black hairs on the finger... sorry, just looks unappetizing :)
-  fifth may require a bit different framing, it's shot so close that it takes a little to understasnd what it is... maybe just me being slow :)
- sausages on bbq, background is too dark IMO, high chance of "uneven lighting" rejection
-  shadow under the cellphone - same comment as for the third shot regarding the paper structure   
« Last Edit: September 14, 2007, 14:30 by pr2is »


« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2007, 18:24 »
0
I personally hate the bug (eleven). Wierd DOF, feels like rather artificial selective blurring. Liking the broken egg (twelve), maybe framing to include entire yolk would make it even better? Check 13 for blown highlights, hard to tell but seems like there are some on white stuff on top of it (butter?) As for the rest, one question... why don't you close apperture a bit to get entire subject in focus? After you are in, experiemnt... for first 10 go safely, this "your focus is not located where we think it should" is fairly subjective thing, why give them reviewer too much freedom of choice?

« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2007, 18:28 »
0
....on top of what  pr2is and  freeze  and hatman said....   whew... i'm out of breath...........SS is a tough one to get onto... so hang in there, Whiz

 and while we're on the topic of SS... any of you folks seen an increase in rejections last week or so?  I went from a fair-haired-child who could do no wrong,  to  under 50% acceptance all of a sudden.  Some of them, yeah, okay, maybe there's some noise there,  but many others... well, I'm not the kind to get upset over rejections, but, some of these others..  I just didn't see it.  Wondering if any of you have seen a jump in rejections?

None-the-less, Whiz.   Keep hammering away at it!  SS is my top selling by volume of pix and #2 in money!  It's a good outfit and well worth the effort to be accepted on.   I'm not complaining above, just wondering if there's some new & zealous talent on the review monitor.  8)-tom

« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2007, 18:33 »
0
Personally I wouldn't submit any of those to any agency because of the selective focus.  You've used F5.6 on the last one and you need to be stopping way, way down beyond that.

You might find that they can get accepted.  But buyers will be put off by the lack of overall sharpness.  In the world of art, selective focus is great, but in the world of stock images everything needs to be sharp.

« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2007, 18:52 »
0
I agree about the DOF. On the cellphone and especially on the bug the lack of focus renders the image unusable for design.

And I would add that all I saw was very badly isolated. Except the subject, it should be perfectly #FFF all over.

« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2007, 19:03 »
0
In the world of art, selective focus is great, but in the world of stock images everything needs to be sharp.


Depends. If it's an isolated object, yes. If it's more like part of a scene and you want to draw attention to the focus, it isn't. The "art" of stock is looking with the eye of the designer, I guess. This one is from a batch of 30 of today, of which 28 where accepted. Most is out of focus here (diet lunch hour):

« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2007, 19:51 »
0
I agree about the DOF. On the cellphone and especially on the bug the lack of focus renders the image unusable for design.

And I would add that all I saw was very badly isolated. Except the subject, it should be perfectly #FFF all over.

? The pizza is perfectly white. Except for the shadow of course.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
8961 Views
Last post February 18, 2009, 19:47
by xxnemoxx
10 Replies
8033 Views
Last post February 28, 2013, 22:12
by RacePhoto
9 Replies
2955 Views
Last post March 31, 2013, 03:45
by Beppe Grillo
6 Replies
5220 Views
Last post July 02, 2013, 08:31
by marcowe35
8 Replies
3024 Views
Last post October 21, 2020, 16:33
by Madrolly

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors