MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: takestock on September 07, 2009, 14:34
-
Do you submit photos with image effects and do they sell for you?
Which sites are the best bet for submitting to?
-
I've never submitted one because most posters here have said it was a guaranteed rejection on any site. I've had many images rejected for "over filtering" when no filtering of any kind was used. Inspectors are super picky in this area.
-
depends what you mean by 'image effects'?
-
depends what you mean by 'image effects'?
I have seen photos that look to have been colorized and are in amomg the most popular.
-
depends what you mean by 'image effects'?
I have seen photos that look to have been colorized and are in amomg the most popular.
Also seen pics where effect frames have been added.
-
You can apply any filter if reviewer thinks it will sell the image. I also notice the most popular images are colorized and I started few threads about it. My images were basically the same as raw files except some minor editing, but I decided to apply effects just for experiment. And guess what? My rejection rate didn't increase. Now, even on IS, I have images with fake sun, bicolor filters, color layers applied to the image manually etc...
Week ago, I sold one file like this for EL on IS, which means buyers also love them. Just be careful not to ruin the image quality with filters. Print quality after filtering has to be excellent as before filtering, and the image has to look pleasing to the eye.
-
You can apply any filter if reviewer thinks it will sell the image. I also notice the most popular images are colorized and I started few threads about it. My images were basically the same as raw files except some minor editing, but I decided to apply effects just for experiment. And guess what? My rejection rate didn't increase. Now, even on IS, I have images with fake sun, bicolor filters, color layers applied to the image manually etc...
Week ago, I sold one file like this for EL on IS, which means buyers also love them. Just be careful not to ruin the image quality with filters. Print quality after filtering has to be excellent as before filtering, and the image has to look pleasing to the eye.
You said it all! IF it improves the overall look of the image ..... do it!
My best seller on BigStock is heavily filtered. It may look somewhat like sepia but it is not. I wanted a spiritual look and I played with it until I got it.
(http://static.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/3/7/7/large/773966.jpg)
Funny though on DT it has very low downloads. So it does depend on which site you add the image to.
EFFECTS: It depends what you call an effect.
This Log Cabin was photographed with a dull gray sky. No blue at all in the original so I put in a new sky. No one has ever questioned it.
(http://static.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/5/5/1/large/1559729.jpg)
-Larry
-
The whole concept of not filtering images is because, for the most part, we're not talking about photographers who are highly trained in image manipulation and spend a lot of time editing effects. It's the 100,000 photographers who got a copy of photoshop from a friend and think all the one-click filters are AWESOME !!!! .. A designer doesn't need the photographer to do a one-click filter .. they can do that themselves if they want to .. which they normally dont want to.
If you are taking the time to create professional effects then that's fine but clicking your mouse on a solarization filter or something that creates a million artifacts is going to just be a complete waste of time.
-
I have done some editing using colorize, sometimes on a transparent layer. In most cases, the edited image gets +-60% of the downloads of the original. One in IS in fact gets more dlds than the original, but I believe that the fact that it sold soon after approved, giving it a higher dld/mo ratio than the original, was responsible for having it ahead in searches.
One aspect is that it is not easy to have two versions approved. In many cases I did some other change, such as mirror. It's not however always possible:
(http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20061030/Stock-Market-Analysis-124331.jpg) (http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20061030/Stock-Market-Analysis-124332.jpg)
(http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20080221/Dry-Lake-Bed-622358.jpg) (http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20080411/Dry-Lake-Bed-682993.jpg)
-
Here are few of mine:
There was no Sun on the original images, but here it is on edited versions:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9598041/2/istockphoto_9598041-wheat-and-sun.jpg)
These skyscrapers barely reached 1/3 of the image in original image, and semi-transparent clouds around top of skyscrapers are not real:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7387289/2/istockphoto_7387289-skyscrapers.jpg)
And this image was so dark, and Sun was behind the cloud, so I added the Sun after, and applied bicolor filter, plus I manually colored the sand.
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9676337/2/istockphoto_9676337-paradisos-beach-in-greece.jpg)
I just sold for EL one of my manually colored images at IS. This one:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7385821/2/istockphoto_7385821-sunset.jpg)
-
You guys are so good at this! I can only do very basic juxtaposition of images, like here:
(http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb300V/20060805/OpenSky59884.jpg)
-
This image is very good Adelaide! The idea is also awesome!
-
Great images guys!
Here are some of mine:
The sky was originally covering only 1/3 of the background, the rest were leaves and two other bars:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7839751/2/istockphoto_7839751-reaching-goal.jpg)
This is heavily colored:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/8232608/2/istockphoto_8232608-red-clouds-at-sunset-above-trees-on-the-lake-tahoe.jpg)
This too:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9312928/2/istockphoto_9312928-beach-in-san-francisco-california.jpg)
and this:
(http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9623898/2/istockphoto_9623898-orange-clouds-sunset.jpg)
-
Nice shots Goldenangel.
-
I have done some editing using colorize, sometimes on a transparent layer. In most cases, the edited image gets +-60% of the downloads of the original. One in IS in fact gets more dlds than the original, but I believe that the fact that it sold soon after approved, giving it a higher dld/mo ratio than the original, was responsible for having it ahead in searches.
One aspect is that it is not easy to have two versions approved. In many cases I did some other change, such as mirror. It's not however always possible:
([url]http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20061030/Stock-Market-Analysis-124331.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20061030/Stock-Market-Analysis-124332.jpg[/url])
([url]http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20080221/Dry-Lake-Bed-622358.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://www.featurepics.com/FI/Thumb/20080411/Dry-Lake-Bed-682993.jpg[/url])
Wow Madelaide, you should merge those two photos of the dried cracked mud side by side together. It makes a really cool pattern!