Author Topic: New Rule at BS (Read 11928 times)

epantha · « **on:** July 31, 2010, 14:48 »

An object isolated on a white background isn't really isolated if it has a shadow. $:-\$

lefty · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2010, 15:43 »

It is not new rule. It always before. Also, if background is even a bit off white,
rejection is sure, for even not isolation . This is something not good for stomach. even IStock, and Fotolia , is not so strict. Only Bigstock don't sell so many so it is no big problem, I forget it, don't submit to Big stock long time already.

epantha · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2010, 16:18 »

Well, I've been submitting isolated objects with shadows for about 2 1/2 years and this is the first time I've received a note from an inspector telling me to remove the word "isolated".

Dreamframer · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2010, 16:36 »

As far as I know the term "isolated" was always used on both types of images, with a shadow or without it. I guess it's more correct to call images without shadows isolated, but I know that many contributors, including top photographers, say "isolated" for both types of images.

Suljo · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2010, 18:45 »

Before (3-4 years) in they upload process they have check mark if image has clipping path eg cutout or overwhite and it disappear before 2 or 3 years, and already have in cathegories Object>Over white?

I think that they "new rule" isn't OK because you can have image with soft shadow on white or another flat surface and also with clipping path but which is not turned on, so buyers when buy image can choose if they want to use image with that soft shadow or turn path On and have isolation.

In the past I have few rejections on other sites because of clipping path which is turned off.

For me biggest confusion is in buyers of our images eg "Designers especially wannabe Designers" who buys our images or illustrations for price like chewing gums and after that they shame they self in front of they clients because they even don't know how to activate clipping path or unlock layer/s in illustrations, while they want to earn xxx$ for just inserting some text on our images, and they just lied them how they shoot or draw it just for him...

gostwyck · « **Reply #5 on:** August 01, 2010, 04:51 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on July 31, 2010, 16:36

As far as I know the term "isolated" was always used on both types of images, with a shadow or without it. I guess it's more correct to call images without shadows isolated, but I know that many contributors, including top photographers, say "isolated" for both types of images.

Agreed. A soft shadow on an isolated object gives it depth and as such can be considered part of the subject itself. Generally speaking buyers prefer a soft shadow as evidenced by DNY59's success with the isolated objects;

http://tinyurl.com/isolatedonwhite

The reviewer on BS is clearly an idiot that understands very little about stock if they would not accept those images to be isolations.

cathyslife · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2010, 10:57 »

Quote

It is not new rule. It always before. Also, if background is even a bit off white,
rejection is sure, for even not isolation . This is something not good for stomach. even IStock, and Fotolia , is not so strict. Only Bigstock don't sell so many so it is no big problem, I forget it, don't submit to Big stock long time already.

For quite a while now, my images that are isolated on white get rejected from IS if there is any kind of shadow at all. And first they got rejected if I used the word isolated as a keyword, so I stopped including it. Now I just get rejections period if there is any kind of shadow. And yet other contributors' images get through with keyword of isolated AND with a shadow.

It doesn't seem to be a site policy, it seems to be a reviewers policy.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2010, 11:01 »

This may reflect their connection to SS. They (SS) seem very strict on the use of the key word "isolated." I stopped using it as well ... in the description field as well as keywords.

Instead, I say something like, " against a neutral background." That seems to be working, so far; at SS. I don't remember this ever being a problem at BS. Maybe it is a change?

Fotonaut · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2010, 11:31 »

As a designer I find this policy most welcome. When looking for isolated objects, shadows is something I’ll have to remove. E.g. "White background" is better suited for objects with shadows.

Perry · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2010, 12:04 »

The more I look at photos, the more I get annoyed at objects that float on white background without any shadows (In real world there is always a shadow, no objects are floating in the air like that)
The only thing that annoys me more is bad shadows done in photoshop.

I think it's a good thing to leave natural shadows under the object, as long as the surrounding areas are pure white (255,255,255). The shadows are quite easily removed by anyone with some PS skills. To create believable shadows requires very good PS skills.

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** August 01, 2010, 14:40 »

I think all my "isolations" have shadows, except illustrations. The keyword isolated was never a problem, I think.

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** August 01, 2010, 17:54 »

Quote from: Fotonaut on August 01, 2010, 11:31

As a designer I find this policy most welcome. When looking for isolated objects, shadows is something I’ll have to remove. E.g. "White background" is better suited for objects with shadows.

I agree. I use "white background" now in keywords.

If I am looking for something isolated where I don't have to remove backgrounds or shadows, I look for a clipping path. If an image is on a white background and has a shadow, and doesn't have a clipping path, and I want to use the image over another image, I have to create a clipping path anyway so to me it doesn't much matter if there's a shadow or not. But that's just me.

FD · « **Reply #12 on:** August 01, 2010, 21:58 »

As a buyer, I can only yell Hurrayh!

Perry · « **Reply #13 on:** August 02, 2010, 03:35 »

I really can't figure out why anyone would want an image with white background and no shadows? If the image is going to be put on some background other than white, the image needs to be cut out anyways (and with some clever PS trickery the shadow could be used on that new background as well...)

rubyroo · « **Reply #14 on:** August 02, 2010, 05:44 »

I must say that I pondered over this question when I first started out in microstock, and couldn't get a definitive answer, so I decided to refer to a no-shadow image as an 'isolation', and a pic with a shadow as 'white background'.

I've always assumed that when designers look for an isolation, it's because they want to use the object in a larger project, perhaps a composite of various objects on some background (e.g. items on a desk); whereas they look for a white background, with shadow, when they want the image photographed that way, to stand alone in it's own right. (Does the way I've written that make sense? I'm sure there's a simpler way to say that).

FD · « **Reply #15 on:** August 02, 2010, 06:38 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 02, 2010, 05:44

I must say that I pondered over this question when I first started out in microstock, and couldn't get a definitive answer, so I decided to refer to a no-shadow image as an 'isolation', and a pic with a shadow as 'white background'.
I've always assumed that when designers look for an isolation, it's because they want to use the object in a larger project, perhaps a composite of various objects on some background...

BINGO !

epantha · « **Reply #16 on:** August 02, 2010, 06:57 »

An isolated object with a subtle shadow can be incorporated into an InDesign document with a light colored background by using the multiply effect. Looks much better, in my opinion, than just a cut out object or with a fake shadow. When I looked for isolated objects for my company's projects, I liked to have the choice of keeping a shadow or removing it myself because there are A LOT of really bad cut out objects out there.

An object on a white background with a shadow IS isolated.
Isolate: verb |ˈīsəˌlāt| [ trans. ] cause (a person or place OR OBJECT) to be or remain alone or apart from others; • identify (something) and examine or deal with it separately

I'll remove the word "isolated" from the photos on BS but not the rest of my agencies because I disagree with BS on their definition of isolated. To me the keyword "cut out" is more accurate for objects with no shadow.

rubyroo · « **Reply #17 on:** August 02, 2010, 07:07 »

Ooh, I've never won Bingo before

Thanks FD

Given what Epantha says here (interesting), and Gostwyck's reference above, it sounds as though the industry could use a second term for an isolation with a shadow, so that designers with a different view can find exactly what they're looking for in an isolation. 'Isoshad?' 'Shadiso'? Am I thinking about this too much...?

Oh.. I think Epantha added the 'cut out' bit while I was writing that. Sounds like that's the kind of differentiation we need.

abimages · « **Reply #18 on:** August 02, 2010, 07:17 »

Quote from: epantha on August 02, 2010, 06:57

To me the keyword "cut out" is more accurate for objects with no shadow.

Agreed! In all my years of shooting product catalogues it's been "cut out". Only learned the term "isolated" since doing microstock

FD · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2010, 08:53 »

Quote from: rubyroo on August 02, 2010, 07:07

Ooh, I've never won Bingo before Thanks FD
Given what Epantha says here (interesting), and Gostwyck's reference above, it sounds as though the industry could use a second term for an isolation with a shadow, so that designers with a different view can find exactly what they're looking for in an isolation.

1. The "bingo" was accompanied with a heart.

2. Epantha and Gostwyck are both right in a way. When I used cutouts (not any more), I just removed the shadow at the bottom. I agree with Epantha that some shadows or transition pix are to be preferred over a bad cutout. The worst are newbies that cut the object out over a non-white non-overexposed background: you will always see it in the feather.
3. PhotoShelter uses the word "silo".
4. A correct isolation needs the object to be totally in focus. You can't isolate blurred parts well.
5. I can very well live (as a user) with the type of shots that Gostwyck describes, since the buyer can see the shadow clearly. What really pisd me off were shots that at full size contained blobs of 253,254,251 all over . You can't see those on the thumbs.
6. Except for iStock, I have the impression that reviewers don't check the proper cutout any more.

I have an article online how to check properly for the isolation here: how to isolate? - scroll down till 2nd paragraph "how to verify a perfect isolation".

This passed QC with the keywords "isolated" and "white background" (look @ top right) (sigh!).
(removed image with a clear agency watermark out of business considerations

)

cathyslife · « **Reply #20 on:** August 02, 2010, 08:59 »

Quote from: epantha on August 02, 2010, 06:57

An isolated object with a subtle shadow can be incorporated into an InDesign document with a light colored background by using the multiply effect. Looks much better, in my opinion, than just a cut out object or with a fake shadow. When I looked for isolated objects for my company's projects, I liked to have the choice of keeping a shadow or removing it myself because there are A LOT of really bad cut out objects out there.

An object on a white background with a shadow IS isolated.
Isolate: verb |ˈīsəˌlāt| [ trans. ] cause (a person or place OR OBJECT) to be or remain alone or apart from others; • identify (something) and examine or deal with it separately

I'll remove the word "isolated" from the photos on BS but not the rest of my agencies because I disagree with BS on their definition of isolated. To me the keyword "cut out" is more accurate for objects with no shadow.

I totally agree.

rubyroo · « **Reply #21 on:** August 02, 2010, 10:06 »

FD - I did not know that converting to 8-bit JPG could reintroduce blobs of non-white. THANK YOU! I had that happen on an image a few months ago, and couldn't figure out where those blobs had come from after all my attention to detail. That finally explains it.

Thanks for the article, and for letting me win a "bingo", and for my first heart!

Have one in return for that very valuable piece of info.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2010, 10:57 »

SEMANTICS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

RacePhoto · « **Reply #23 on:** August 03, 2010, 18:13 »

Quote from: abimages on August 02, 2010, 07:17

Quote from: epantha on August 02, 2010, 06:57
To me the keyword "cut out" is more accurate for objects with no shadow.

Agreed! In all my years of shooting product catalogues it's been "cut out". Only learned the term "isolated" since doing microstock

Wait for some idiot to start talking about Silo's and they aren't the grain storage buildings on farms.

UK you might find cutout, cut-out more often, USA you may find Isolated more common usage.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Rule at BS (Read 11928 times)

epantha

lefty

epantha

Dreamframer

Suljo

gostwyck

cathyslife

WarrenPrice

Fotonaut

Perry

madelaide

cathyslife

FD

Perry

rubyroo

FD

epantha

rubyroo

abimages

FD

cathyslife

rubyroo

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors