pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: are small images likely to be ignored?  (Read 12162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2008, 09:37 »
0
iStock tend to reject files that are larger than your cameras native resolution unless there is a good reason why.

I've had a few rejections asking me to resubmit with as much of the white space cropped out as possible, meaning my shot has to be taken down to a medium or so forth (with my old camera, without much play room).

Couldn't say about Fotolia since I've not been there long, but I think it's not very good practice to add white space to image if it's not for a compositional reason.  You're essentially conning the designer, you may as well just upload it at the largest file size you have, since a designer can always add extra white space.

If you can't get your images accepted at various agencies just go with the others till you can afford a half decent camera.  Places like Shutterstock accept piddly little files (I shrink all of mine down for there now) and the return is very good.  You'd only need a few good shots somewhere like Shutterstock and you'd have money for a new camera in two or three months, easily.

Edit: I have pictures in my portfolio from a Dimage Z1 and I don't think I had any rejected for technical problems - they're a half decent range of P&S cameras.  You shouldn't have too many problems getting pictures from this camera accepted.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 09:42 by Seren »


« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2008, 09:57 »
0
You're essentially conning the designer, you may as well just upload it at the largest file size you have, since a designer can always add extra white space.

I don't see it as conning a designer (if you did this and then downsized, then yes, it is), you are still uploading in your native resolution, the resolution is no different, the image is just bigger.  A designer isn't going to care about what camera took the image and is the file larger than it can produce, they will see the image size and can evaluate the size of the object on the background and if it fits their needs, if the resolution hasn't been manipulated at all, how is it conning (upsizing through interpolation is conning).  Who you are conning is the agency to get your image accepted (unless you are shooting for size levels, but IMO that is a waste of time, the % of files downloaded at max size is pretty minimal (maybe IS is different)), especially since his camera actually does output in the minimum resolution required for FT (4 mp), but the aspect ratio is not the 3:2 of a DSLR that FT asks for (2400 x 1600 minimum).  Then again, without a huge and great portfolio, FT isn't going to do that much to help you get a new camera, especially at the eastern European prices for DSLR's, I could get a 5D for what he is facing for just an entry level DSLR.

« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2008, 10:05 »
0
Quote
One thing you can do to your images to get them a little bigger without upsizing the image is to add more to them.  This is especially easy for isolation shots, make your canvas a bit bigger to get over the threshold and add some more white.
Thanks for suggestion Waldo4, although I really not sure that extending is way to go, simply because I would feel uncomfortable knowing that I add to picture what wasn't there, for shot you've showed me as example it was ok since it was cropped and it helped to composition. But using same technique to raise size of overall picture isn't something I wish to do even if it bring more more cash.
As for white space I actually cut it on few my shots simply because it would look stupid to have small subject on big pure white background, it think such photo would likely to be ignored as it look weird on thumbnail also.
 
Quote
The last way that I know of to make a shot bigger is to take multiple shots and let a panoramic stitching program assemble them.  Some programs can stitch in 2 dimensions automatically (autostitch comes to mind, the free version can only use .jpegs, but it really embarrasses Canon's and Adobe's stitching programs in performance).
Thanks, I've already tried this technique using Hugin for stitching, but resulting photo doesn't look as I was supposed so I didn't submit it, but I don't give up on this technique and will keep on trying to get good result.
(I have few good panorama photos which probably worth to be uploaded.)

iStock will refuse files that have had extra white added to images.  They refuse files that are larger than your camera is able to shoot, unless it's clearly been stitched together or multiple views in one file etc - but you should put a note to the reviewer in that case.
Seren, I've heard few times that it's good to leave comment to editors on IS but I can't see a comment field, can you please tell how it's possible to leave comments for reviewers, should they be written in description field?

Quote
If you can't get your images accepted at various agencies just go with the others till you can afford a half decent camera.  Places like Shutterstock accept piddly little files (I shrink all of mine down for there now) and the return is very good.  You'd only need a few good shots somewhere like Shutterstock and you'd have money for a new camera in two or three months, easily.
2-3 months is too good to be true for me :) I'm ready to wait year or more to get good camera. Just need to learn how to make good pictures which sells and possibly not portraits, as portrait photography isn't really something I'd like to do.

Quote
Edit: I have pictures in my portfolio from a Dimage Z1 and I don't think I had any rejected for technical problems - they're a half decent range of P&S cameras.  You shouldn't have too many problems getting pictures from this camera accepted.
Nice to meet another KM user ;) actually Z1 have less problem with noise but more with chromatic aberrations but it's very similar to Z3 in other ways. I'm going to check your portfolio now as didn't have chance to do it before.

EDIT Reason: fixed problem with quotes.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2008, 11:59 by sensovision »

« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2008, 10:46 »
0

Quote
The last way that I know of to make a shot bigger is to take multiple shots and let a panoramic stitching program assemble them.  Some programs can stitch in 2 dimensions automatically (autostitch comes to mind, the free version can only use .jpegs, but it really embarrasses Canon's and Adobe's stitching programs in performance).
Thanks, I've already tried this technique using Hugin for stitching, but resulting photo doesn't look as I was supposed so I didn't submit it, but I don't give up on this technique and will keep on trying to get good result.
(I have few good panorama photos which probably worth to be uploaded.)

I don't have any experience with Hugin, but if the stitching is the problem give autostitch a try, heck it is free (the only difference between the free and pay versions is the ability to handle .tiff files), it does a great job of distorting and balancing the files (they claim it can stitch fisheye shots, somehow I don't believe it, but any shots with a normal level of distortion shouldn't give it too many problems).  I know with the one shot I worked on, a little bit more on the sides (especially the mountains to the left) would have been great.  It is a great way to take landscape photos, even at a normal aspect ratio, take a small pano series (3-4 shots, lots of overlap) in portrait, stitch them together and crop to a natural landscape aspect ratio (3:2).  The trick to good panos is to rotate about the correct point, not the sensor plane or the camera body, but the point where the aperture blades appear to be by looking at the lens (not actually are).  Doing this minimizes the parallax shift and if you nail the location, completely eliminates it.

« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2008, 11:56 »
0
Quote
I don't have any experience with Hugin, but if the stitching is the problem give autostitch a try, heck it is free (the only difference between the free and pay versions is the ability to handle .tiff files), it does a great job of distorting and balancing the files (
nope it's not problem with Hugin, but me :) Composition I've got in the end was crappy and after cropping to good one there was no real benefit from stitching. I should learn to make good final composition.
Regarding Autostitch there is no native version working under Linux and I'm not sure if it would work under Wine, need to check it out later.

Quote
I know with the one shot I worked on, a little bit more on the sides (especially the mountains to the left) would have been great.  It is a great way to take landscape photos, even at a normal aspect ratio, take a small pano series (3-4 shots, lots of overlap) in portrait, stitch them together and crop to a natural landscape aspect ratio (3:2).  The trick to good panos is to rotate about the correct point, not the sensor plane or the camera body, but the point where the aperture blades appear to be by looking at the lens (not actually are).  Doing this minimizes the parallax shift and if you nail the location, completely eliminates it.
Thanks for advices, it's really appreciated!:)

« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2008, 16:36 »
0
My camera output 4mp images, so I wonder if anyone can tell that images done with low resolution camera are likely to be ignored by buyers and most likely go for higher resolution alternatives?

Have you tried Mostphotos? Their minimum is 4MP and there is no reviewing, so you won't have any rejections. The buyer can have a 100% zoom and decide if the quality is sufficient. Plus, you get much more per sale than at the micros.

« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2008, 16:43 »
0
Hi Tom, thanks for suggestion! I didn't tried them yet, only registered with stocks from big6 except SS.
Do you have steady income from there or it's rather occasional?

« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2008, 17:38 »
0
Hi Tom, thanks for suggestion! I didn't tried them yet, only registered with stocks from big6 except SS.
Do you have steady income from there or it's rather occasional?

I don't have a steady income from them, but I joined in March and have only 19 images there. On midstock sites sales are not so frequent as on the micros, but each sale brings you much more money.
I am going to stay with SS and IS, but concentrate on the midstocks and macros.

One sale on Mostphotos will earn you more than 70 micro-sales on SS. And of course there are also other midstock sites.

Some of the members of this forum report sales on MP, so I think uploading there will bring profits, the site definitely does have customers.

On MP you won't have to care about noise from your camera, just submit there images that the buyers might want, and they will decide. Once you upload your images, they are instantly available to buyers. I think this site is worth trying.

« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2008, 18:24 »
0
Thanks for info, Tom!
Can you tell if you submit same photos into midstock as on micros or you have separate collection? As it wouldn't be fair to sell same images with so different pricing.

« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2008, 19:06 »
0
Thanks for info, Tom!
Can you tell if you submit same photos into midstock as on micros or you have separate collection? As it wouldn't be fair to sell same images with so different pricing.

Because I have a small digital portfolio, some of my images overlap in both price segments. I joined midstock sites very recently, so I am testing what is accepted where.

But you are right, and that's why I will upload premium content to sites that pay decent rates. Micro sites will receive from me only generic shots that may bring repetitive downloads or images rejected by midstock and macro sites.
Delivering landscapes or cityscapes to micro sites (apart from IS & SS) is IMHO a waste of time.

Currently I am working on an exclusive collection for Imagepoint, but that is a macro agency, they require exclusive images, but pay really well (above 100EUR).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2812 Views
Last post March 11, 2007, 19:45
by mangia
10 Replies
3316 Views
Last post January 16, 2008, 20:12
by a.k.a.-tom
22 Replies
8199 Views
Last post April 23, 2008, 02:33
by .shock
1 Replies
2279 Views
Last post March 26, 2008, 11:21
by jsnover
3 Replies
471 Views
Last post September 13, 2019, 05:46
by gillian vann

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results