Author Topic: How to improve pictures to make them acceptable? (Read 11398 times)

thenatureguy · « **on:** November 07, 2018, 14:12 »

When I started getting interested in photography 20 years ago I was doing a lot of foreign travel for my job, which took me to some awesome places where I could capture images of unusual things. The problem was, back then digital camera technology was still in it's infancy and I was not rich enough to buy the best stuff on the market. I bought what was considered great equipment in it's day and it cost a pretty penny, but by today's standards, it is would severely lacking. But it was what I had, and I was able to take a lot of nice pictures with it. Many of these images are so rare, nobody in micro stock or macro stock has them for sale. My problem is, due to technical issues, most of them cannot get approved for sale.

What I am looking for is creative ways to get them to pass. Let me give you an example. Here is a picture I would very much get approved of a Rooster-tail Cicada (fulgorid planthopper). There are not pictures of a real fulgorid planthopper on the micro stock websites I have checked. That search brings of a Pyrops candelaria, which is a completely different class of insect.

These shots have been rejected by every micro stock site I have tried, except for Deamstime, which I think, just accepts everything. They have been rejected by shutterstock, 123RF, and adobe stock. These are truly unique and I think it is worth trying to improve it them I can find a way to do it. I am just not that good at advanced photos editing tricks.

cascoly · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2018, 14:24 »

nice pix of a weird beastie

what's the resolution off the actual pix? I had an early digital camera that produced excellent results, but wrote to floppy disks @ 640 x 480, so I have several years worth of images I cant sell thru agencies

if the images are of low resolution you might combine 4 or 6 images into one array, but otherwise there's not much you can do

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** November 08, 2018, 01:45 »

If you have small but decent (sharp, well lit, little noise) images, making a collage/array/group is a reasonable option (I've done that with a number of things and they can sell).

Dreamstime is largely useless as it sells so little these days that it would help you to have the images there.

However, I do think you should give some consideration to the marketability of your images before investing time in processing them for upload anywhere. Having a rare image is only important if anyone wants to buy the image.

Stock images have to be useful to designers and sometimes things are rare in an agency collection because no one buys that sort of thing. There might be a few biology text books that would purchase a few insect images, but what else could you use it for?

Often, with stock images, it's the usual image, not the unusual one that will become a big seller.

ravens · « **Reply #3 on:** November 08, 2018, 08:24 »

Interesting pictures! Aside biology books they could sell for newspapers and magazines, just think of climate change, more and more of species becoming endangered...

Whatever you do, keep the colors as natural as possible. These insects are rare so I would treat these images like editorial in post production. Resize them, if there are problems with sharpness. Meticulous keywording and writing a killer caption would probably be your best weapon. If you have many shots don't crop all as close ups, it would be good to see the environment these bugs live in.

Have you tried Bigstock? They accept smaller images and sell pretty nicely.

thenatureguy · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2018, 08:36 »

I think what you are saying is correct Jo Ann. I had though about those points. A niche market is great, as long as there is a market.

You are also correct about the usual things being good sellers. Some of my most popular sellers are if prickly pear cactus and yucca plants. For the life of me, I don't know who would buy them and for what. And I guess that is kind of my hope with these exclusive insect pictures I have. Maybe there is a market out there I don't know about.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2018, 09:17 »

Unless these insects have blue/green tints on parts, I'd say white balance correction would be useful. Maybe something as easy as a LED ring "flash" (they have continuous also) for fill. They aren't expensive. Example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/48pcs-LED-Ring-Flash-Light-RF550D-8-Adapter-Rings-for-Nikon-Canon-DSLR-Camera/283120035805?hash=item41eb44e7dd:g:d88AAOSwYFtbfsz4:rk:13:pf:0

Under $30 delivered. They actually work.

thenatureguy · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2018, 18:09 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 08, 2018, 01:45

If you have small but decent (sharp, well lit, little noise) images, making a collage/array/group is a reasonable option (I've done that with a number of things and they can sell).

Dreamstime is largely useless as it sells so little these days that it would help you to have the images there.

However, I do think you should give some consideration to the marketability of your images before investing time in processing them for upload anywhere. Having a rare image is only important if anyone wants to buy the image.

Stock images have to be useful to designers and sometimes things are rare in an agency collection because no one buys that sort of thing. There might be a few biology text books that would purchase a few insect images, but what else could you use it for?

Often, with stock images, it's the usual image, not the unusual one that will become a big seller.

Could you give me a sample of what you are talking when it comes to a collage. Are you talking about something like this example?

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2018, 18:42 »

The thing is that someone wanting a rare image probably won't look at micro first (partly because of so many poor identification and too much spamming), but the agencies which specialise in e.g. rare wildlife usually have requirements including a large initial submission and the promise of 'so many' images to be submitted per month or per quarter; they don't usually (none that I know of, but there must be many I haven't even heard of, I mean the ones who are named in nature publications I read) take one 'odd' photo, even of a very rare creature.

thenatureguy · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2018, 19:49 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 08, 2018, 09:17

Unless these insects have blue/green tints on parts, I'd say white balance correction would be useful. Maybe something as easy as a LED ring "flash" (they have continuous also) for fill. They aren't expensive. Example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/48pcs-LED-Ring-Flash-Light-RF550D-8-Adapter-Rings-for-Nikon-Canon-DSLR-Camera/283120035805?hash=item41eb44e7dd:g:d88AAOSwYFtbfsz4:rk:13:pf:0

Under $30 delivered. They actually work.

Hummm...? Not sure if you read my original post. How is a flash going to help pictures that were taken 15 years ago?

cascoly · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2018, 23:14 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on November 08, 2018, 18:09

Could you give me a sample of what you are talking when it comes to a collage. Are you talking about something like this example?

yes

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #10 on:** November 09, 2018, 10:00 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on November 08, 2018, 19:49

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 08, 2018, 09:17
Unless these insects have blue/green tints on parts, I'd say white balance correction would be useful. Maybe something as easy as a LED ring "flash" (they have continuous also) for fill. They aren't expensive. Example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/48pcs-LED-Ring-Flash-Light-RF550D-8-Adapter-Rings-for-Nikon-Canon-DSLR-Camera/283120035805?hash=item41eb44e7dd:g:d88AAOSwYFtbfsz4:rk:13:pf:0

Under $30 delivered. They actually work.

Hummm...? Not sure if you read my original post. How is a flash going to help pictures that were taken 15 years ago?

Not going to help, sorry, but you asked how to get photos accepted, I slipped past the, old pre-digital. You do need to adjust the color balance so white parts aren't blue. You can do that in the editor. If you were to shoot more, get the fill flash.

Also I don't know how big the chickens Etc. originals are, but they are cropped way to close, even for a collage, there needs to be some space around images. Not saying everything should be far and loose and leave room for copy, but too close means it's an object stuck in tight, not usually a good way to get sales.

Nice photos! Making old photos into digital is terribly difficult. I have thousands, I just don't bother.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** November 09, 2018, 10:11 »

Quote from: thenatureguy on November 08, 2018, 18:09

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 08, 2018, 01:45
...If you have small but decent (sharp, well lit, little noise) images, making a collage/array/group is a reasonable option (I've done that with a number of things and they can sell)...

Could you give me a sample of what you are talking when it comes to a collage. Are you talking about something like this example?

Sort of. If you make an interesting looking collection with a clear theme it works best (these examples aren't my work, just stuff I found on SS)

mj007 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 09, 2018, 15:46 »

Jo Ann if your files are to small from the old technology , Topaz AI Gigapixel is magic pixey dust that really works great to upsize. I know you are not suppose to upsize but this software is really special. I think the cost is 60-70 bucks and worth ever penny. It is worth trying as I have found all the Topaz plugins are very special pixey dust which have made a lot of money for me. Good luck, your examples look very cool.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2018, 08:52 »

Just a personal comment. If someone makes collages, they might get a sub download, so we can sell 9-12 or more images for one crummy sub? Kind of inspires me to dream of the race to the bottom, and how to make less by giving away groups of images, instead of selling singles?

Yes if all one has is a bunch of under sized shots, why not, but I'm not ready to work editing, sell out with a collage, just to get a crappy sub.

The image is just to say, even the sliced tomato crowd is grasping for downloads now. Collage of tomato slices? How low can someone go?

Of course the buyers will love this, they can stock up cheap.

dragonblade · « **Reply #14 on:** May 05, 2019, 22:52 »

Ive been into photography for over 20 years but only adopted digital fairly recently. I do hear of this issue from time time where peoples' early digital images can only be used in a restricted number of ways due to the low resolution. I guess being an early adopter of technology is not always the best thing as technology tends to improve later on down the track. By contrast, Ive been shooting on film for most of my photography days and it's simple enough to scan any particular image of mine at the resolution I choose. That collage idea posted above seems like a good solution for submitting your insect images to stock agencies. It's not something I would do a lot because as noted above, buyers are getting a whole bunch of images at a bargain price. But as a way of providing a rare insect image to the stock market with few other options, it could be worthwhile.

georgep7 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 06, 2019, 00:44 »

Quote from: dragonblade on May 05, 2019, 22:52

Ive been into photography for over 20 years but only adopted digital fairly recently. I do hear of this issue from time time where peoples' early digital images can only be used in a restricted number of ways due to the low resolution. I guess being an early adopter of technology is not always the best thing as technology tends to improve later on down the track. By contrast, Ive been shooting on film for most of my photography days and it's simple enough to scan any particular image of mine at the resolution I choose. That collage idea posted above seems like a good solution for submitting your insect images to stock agencies. It's not something I would do a lot because as noted above, buyers are getting a whole bunch of images at a bargain price. But as a way of providing a rare insect image to the stock market with few other options, it could be worthwhile.

Semi offtopic as I know nothing on photography.

Perhaps a "TheNegativeFilm" (kind of, or similar catchy name indicating film usage and scanned images) contributor account with good pricing and the obvious explanation that every frame was shot on original film strips could it be possible to succeed? Not as mainstream sales but for those rare occasions that a client needs (and pays) for originality?

Just a thought. Again I know anything on photography

dragonblade · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2019, 01:39 »

Quote from: georgep7 on May 06, 2019, 00:44

Perhaps a "TheNegativeFilm" (kind of, or similar catchy name indicating film usage and scanned images) contributor account with good pricing and the obvious explanation that every frame was shot on original film strips could it be possible to succeed?

Possibly. I'm not sure.

Btw, back in 1997, when digital photography was in it's infancy, I remember reading and hearing about one of Canon's very first digital SLR cameras. It was mind bogglingly expensive at around $10,000. May have even been $20,000 (I can't recall exactly.) It was intended for professional use. Many years later, I found out that it was a joint venture between Canon and Kodak. And apparently, it was actually a Canon EOS 35mm film body that had a digital chip / CCD stuck inside it. And for connecting it to a computer, it had some kind of bulky cable / plug kind of thing (before the introduction of usb.) And the inherently low resolution was a joke compared to today's digital cameras.

Not Today · « **Reply #17 on:** May 07, 2019, 02:43 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 11, 2018, 08:52

Just a personal comment. If someone makes collages, they might get a sub download, so we can sell 9-12 or more images for one crummy sub? Kind of inspires me to dream of the race to the bottom, and how to make less by giving away groups of images, instead of selling singles?

Yes if all one has is a bunch of under sized shots, why not, but I'm not ready to work editing, sell out with a collage, just to get a crappy sub.

The image is just to say, even the sliced tomato crowd is grasping for downloads now. Collage of tomato slices? How low can someone go?

Of course the buyers will love this, they can stock up cheap.

Completely agree with this, vectors icons are already sold by the hundreds for a 25 cent sub, let's not go this way with photos.

A way to deal with small file size is to open PS, go to image>image size, change the resolution to a bigger one and tick sample> bicubic smoother (enlargement). Sometime it works well, sometimes it doesn't, so as long as it doesn't look disgusting when viewed at 100% of the new size, it should be fine.

Roger Mitsom · « **Reply #18 on:** April 24, 2020, 19:33 »

Have you gone back to the original raw files and processed them again? You may have processed files smaller in resolution than the maximum, and current software would net you a better result in either case. If you shot jpg then it is what it is.

Otherwise what you're likely getting rejected for is grain at 100% which seems to be what the algos are looking for. Not much you can do that would be worth the time. But you could try to soften all around the subject then do a noise reduction/ sharpening on the subject itself. Again, not worth the time for a few dollars.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How to improve pictures to make them acceptable? (Read 11398 times)

thenatureguy

cascoly

Jo Ann Snover

ravens

thenatureguy

Uncle Pete

thenatureguy

ShadySue

thenatureguy

cascoly

Uncle Pete

Jo Ann Snover

mj007

Uncle Pete

dragonblade

georgep7

dragonblade

Not Today

Roger Mitsom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors