MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Photography Discussion => Topic started by: crazychristina on July 01, 2009, 22:17

Title: The stock style
Post by: crazychristina on July 01, 2009, 22:17

I take a bit of trouble over colour and exposure - use an Expodisk and a meter where appropriate. Most of my rejections are for lighting. On another forum one member claimed to have an acceptance rate of 90%+ on istock, so I checked out his portfolio and couldn't believe how light his images were - typical outdoor shots, not studio.

I had a bunch of resubmits so I opened up in ACR, pushed the brightness slider a fair way to the right, upped the vibrance a good deal, and resubmitted. All accepted. So much for 'well-exposed' imagery. Truth seems to be that successful stock imagery is over-exposed and over-saturated (compared with reality).

Title: Re: The stock style
Post by: Phil on July 01, 2009, 22:51

I noticed this a little while back too, metered from grey card and watched the rejections for underexposure :) then looked at what was selling and the style and everything looked overexposed :)

Title: Re: The stock style
Post by: Xalanx on July 02, 2009, 01:31

Quote from: averil on July 01, 2009, 22:17

Truth seems to be that successful stock imagery is over-exposed and over-saturated (compared with reality).

You can correctly expose low key portraits. For high key it's better to overexpose a little, just before blowing highlights.

Title: Re: The stock style
Post by: Dreamframer on July 02, 2009, 03:33

Quote from: averil on July 01, 2009, 22:17

I take a bit of trouble over colour and exposure - use an Expodisk and a meter where appropriate. Most of my rejections are for lighting. On another forum one member claimed to have an acceptance rate of 90%+ on istock, so I checked out his portfolio and couldn't believe how light his images were - typical outdoor shots, not studio.

I had a bunch of resubmits so I opened up in ACR, pushed the brightness slider a fair way to the right, upped the vibrance a good deal, and resubmitted. All accepted. So much for 'well-exposed' imagery. Truth seems to be that successful stock imagery is over-exposed and over-saturated (compared with reality).

I agree completely

Title: Re: The stock style
Post by: Perry on July 02, 2009, 04:04

Quote from: Xalanx on July 02, 2009, 01:31

For high key it's better to overexpose a little, just before blowing highlights.

With digital cameras that is the correct way to expose anything. And before blowing highlights that means all the channels and numeral values (not just what it looks like for the eye).

Title: Re: The stock style
Post by: PixelBytes on July 02, 2009, 09:35

Good observation Avril.  I have noticed the same thing.  Also that contrast seems pushed to the max.   

I am guessing the reason this has developed as the "stock style" is because in order to be successful images have to be eye-catching in a sea of small thumbnails.

Of course the problem becomes how to boost contrast and saturation without introducing artifacts.  Maybe that is the reason for the slight over-exposure?  Fewer shadows to reveal artifacts?

Title: Re: The stock style
Post by: thesentinel on July 02, 2009, 12:20

This really should come as no surprise, stock is not used to sell reality, are all those smiling white teethed perfect skinned well dressed people reality!
Stock is like bright plastic processed over sugared over salted food selling an idealised non existent world!

Title: Re: The stock style
Post by: madelaide on July 02, 2009, 16:21

Quote from: thesentinel on July 02, 2009, 12:20

Stock is like bright plastic processed over sugared over salted food selling an idealised non existent world!

Nah, I sell varicose veins.   ;D