Author Topic: Isolations and more isolations! (Read 20856 times)

epantha · « **Reply #25 on:** November 13, 2010, 14:51 »

Thanks for the compliments on my peony photo.

I agree with Warren about using spot metering, I also use pure white board and a tripod. Bright cloudy days outside are best and you can adjust the highlight levels in Photoshop to get rid of light grey background. Only takes a few minutes!

fxegs · « **Reply #26 on:** November 13, 2010, 20:21 »

The way of epantha is the way I use, but I use a large sheet of white paper instead of the white board, but if you can I could be better to use the white board. And of course, the tripod. As she says, getting a pure white with PS is very simple most times.

epantha · « **Reply #27 on:** November 13, 2010, 21:44 »

Some very nice work in your portfolios fxegs. Welcome!

gaja · « **Reply #28 on:** November 14, 2010, 03:21 »

I'm always a bit uncertain about what to do when I keyword "isolations" with a shadow. Is it "isolated", or "over white"?

epantha · « **Reply #29 on:** November 14, 2010, 08:15 »

I use the words "isolated" and "white background" when there is a subtle shadow, but I think there are various opinions about which keywords are correct. To me "cut out" means there is no shadow.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** November 14, 2010, 08:24 »

Quote from: gaja on November 14, 2010, 03:21

I'm always a bit uncertain about what to do when I keyword "isolations" with a shadow. Is it "isolated", or "over white"?

in BigStock you can only place "isolated" if there is no shadow

RacePhoto · « **Reply #31 on:** November 14, 2010, 09:07 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 14, 2010, 08:24

Quote from: gaja on November 14, 2010, 03:21
I'm always a bit uncertain about what to do when I keyword "isolations" with a shadow. Is it "isolated", or "over white"?

in BigStock you can only place "isolated" if there is no shadow

As always, it's microstock, and there are no absolutes. I'll never know the answer, but the obvious is, this is on BigStock and it's titled "red push pin isolated on white"

Maybe they changed the rules, which is also typical Micro policy.

madelaide · « **Reply #32 on:** November 14, 2010, 11:18 »

Isolated doesn't necessarily means white background, although this is the most common.

heywoody · « **Reply #33 on:** November 14, 2010, 18:31 »

Some designers just like isolations. Sometimes I do a "proper picture" and an isolation of the main subject (can be done with virtually zero effort in 3D) and they seem to sell about equally.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #34 on:** November 14, 2010, 22:03 »

Quote from: heywoody on November 14, 2010, 18:31

Some designers just like isolations. Sometimes I do a "proper picture" and an isolation of the main subject (can be done with virtually zero effort in 3D) and they seem to sell about equally.

3D? You lost me?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #35 on:** November 14, 2010, 23:24 »

there must be a mistake on that picture, all pictures were reviewed time ago and contributors were notified that "isolated" keyword had been removed if there was a shadown in it

RacePhoto · « **Reply #36 on:** November 15, 2010, 00:11 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 14, 2010, 23:24

there must be a mistake on that picture, all pictures were reviewed time ago and contributors were notified that "isolated" keyword had been removed if there was a shadown in it

Oh my goodness a mistake or inconsistency on a microstock site?

Might be that the title of the image included isolated so it snuck through. I'm not saying that it's OK or that shadows are acceptable with the keyword "isolated" just that sometimes, stuff happens, and there are exceptions to the rules.

If you go and search for "Isolated on white" you will find many images with shadows. Could be that old ones are Grandfathered in, could be that the reviewers don't know the rules.

How many times have people had shots rejected for money and BS has this one which breaks the federal regulations for flat image? So strange.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 15, 2010, 01:11 »

eheh agencies and microstock!

heywoody · « **Reply #38 on:** November 15, 2010, 13:27 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on November 14, 2010, 22:03

Quote from: heywoody on November 14, 2010, 18:31
Some designers just like isolations. Sometimes I do a "proper picture" and an isolation of the main subject (can be done with virtually zero effort in 3D) and they seem to sell about equally.

3D? You lost me?

I don't have the kit to produce photos of the required technical standard so mostly submit 3d renders - depending on which tool, I can either render the subject directly on to pure white (or any other colour) or create a transparancy mask at the same time as the main image. Pity the agencies don't accept pngs as that has gotta mean less effort for designers...

RacePhoto · « **Reply #39 on:** December 07, 2010, 00:08 »

Quote from: oxman on November 13, 2010, 04:34

Check out Floortje at IS. The shooter is the king of iso. His styling is amazing.

As an art director, I love isolation with clipping paths. There are so many options. I love shooting for Isolations too... and just send the best shots to India for clipping paths for 99 cents in about 6 hours. Then I work the shadows and UL with clipping paths. I rarely get rejects doing that.

How do you send to India. How do they bill? Can you suggest someone who is reliable that you use?

I could use some clipping paths to improve shots and make some newer ones more acceptable.

-m-o-l-k-a- · « **Reply #40 on:** December 07, 2010, 03:26 »

Quote from: molka on November 12, 2010, 18:17

Quote from: lisafx on November 12, 2010, 16:42
The only way I have found to get isolations accepted is to shoot them that way in studio.

I got pic rejected at istock for bad isolation, that had no isolation.

Why don´t you let us see your iStock portfolio molka

, I know it´s not molkas portfolio...
Sorry, not trying to be mean... I just don´t want others to confuse me to you...

And about isolations... I do them like lisafx, in studiolighting. I don´t like to use too much time for photoshopping..

molka · « **Reply #41 on:** December 07, 2010, 06:34 »

Quote from: -m-o-l-k-a- on December 07, 2010, 03:26

Quote from: molka on November 12, 2010, 18:17
Quote from: lisafx on November 12, 2010, 16:42
The only way I have found to get isolations accepted is to shoot them that way in studio.

I got pic rejected at istock for bad isolation, that had no isolation.

Why don´t you let us see your iStock portfolio molka , I know it´s not molkas portfolio...
Sorry, not trying to be mean... I just don´t want others to confuse me to you...

And about isolations... I do them like lisafx, in studiolighting. I don´t like to use too much time for photoshopping..

Would that change any of those facts? Nope. I already posted a link to a number of pics tho.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 07, 2010, 07:29 »

Quote from: molka on December 07, 2010, 06:34

Quote from: -m-o-l-k-a- on December 07, 2010, 03:26
Quote from: molka on November 12, 2010, 18:17
Quote from: lisafx on November 12, 2010, 16:42
The only way I have found to get isolations accepted is to shoot them that way in studio.

I got pic rejected at istock for bad isolation, that had no isolation.

Why don´t you let us see your iStock portfolio molka , I know it´s not molkas portfolio...
Sorry, not trying to be mean... I just don´t want others to confuse me to you...

And about isolations... I do them like lisafx, in studiolighting. I don´t like to use too much time for photoshopping..

Would that change any of those facts? Nope. I already posted a link to a number of pics tho.

great portraits I remember that

grp_photo · « **Reply #43 on:** December 07, 2010, 07:57 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 13, 2010, 02:08

Well I was thinking more in the terms of, how can an agency hope to survive, promoting isolations only?

Looking at this thread: their contributors obviously think they can ;-)

Perry · « **Reply #44 on:** December 07, 2010, 08:04 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 12, 2010, 11:38

I mean, I feel sorry for the guys joining this crap, even more sorry for the ones producing this in the hope of mega sales.

A succesful "isolated" image can be a real bestseller, some of my bestsellers are objects on white. And if I also calculate the cost creating the image (easy setup in studio, no models, no model-releases) the earnings can be really good. I still do isolations, but I tend to search holes in the collection or make my images either better or somehow different from the ones already for sale. I also try to shoot some "difficult" subjects (some shiny, translucent or big&heavy objects that are too difficult for an amateur).
The problem is that it's very difficult to predict what sells, the buyers find some of my images appealing and download it several hundred times. And some images that I like has only a few downloads... you never know...

That said, I don't understand people who upload crappy isolated images of objects that are already done a thousand times.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #45 on:** December 09, 2010, 17:37 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 07, 2010, 00:08

Quote from: oxman on November 13, 2010, 04:34
Check out Floortje at IS. The shooter is the king of iso. His styling is amazing.

As an art director, I love isolation with clipping paths. There are so many options. I love shooting for Isolations too... and just send the best shots to India for clipping paths for 99 cents in about 6 hours. Then I work the shadows and UL with clipping paths. I rarely get rejects doing that.

How do you send to India. How do they bill? Can you suggest someone who is reliable that you use?

I could use some clipping paths to improve shots and make some newer ones more acceptable.

ANYONE? PLEASE?

Send to India? Who? How? How much?

Is there some secret handshake I need to get the answer? I asked oxman in PM and didn't get an answer, so I'm trying to forum for anyone who knows a reliable source.

Someone that you use oxman, would be the perfect answer.

rimglow · « **Reply #46 on:** December 10, 2010, 10:42 »

I'll do clipping paths for you, but not for .99. I would think a more reasonable price would be $10 per photo.

Roadrunner · « **Reply #47 on:** December 10, 2010, 15:07 »

For RacePhoto:
Here is a link I found regarding India Clipping Paths -
http://www.clippingpath-india.com/english/?gclid=CJGOsNix4qUCFYrt7Qod1E4mGQ

Good luck

RacePhoto · « **Reply #48 on:** December 10, 2010, 17:21 »

Quote from: Roadrunner on December 10, 2010, 15:07

For RacePhoto:
Here is a link I found regarding India Clipping Paths -
http://www.clippingpath-india.com/english/?gclid=CJGOsNix4qUCFYrt7Qod1E4mGQ

Good luck

I was hoping that the person who posted the message and said they found a good site, at a reasonable price would have shared it.

As for the Good Luck, no kidding, I need it!

Now I looked and since mine are shot on white, they will be the "easy" kind, probably 99c each. It's not that my shots aren't isolations, it's that I need a good quality clipping path and for 99c don't want to waste the time doing it myself. Time to make a batch, because I see the $10 minimum or a fee applies. Shouldn't be hard to find 10 or 20 shots for better quality. My reasoning is that if they sell better with a clipping path, I'll make back the investment in short time.

Then there is the batch I shot on red because I thought it would be better than White or black. SOOOO WRONG!

Best Wishes and thanks.

kingjon · « **Reply #49 on:** December 11, 2010, 08:47 »

thanks for the link. I'll give them a try also. Hopefully they do a good enough job for Istock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Isolations and more isolations! (Read 20856 times)

epantha

fxegs

epantha

gaja

epantha

luissantos84

RacePhoto

madelaide

heywoody

RacePhoto

luissantos84

RacePhoto

luissantos84

heywoody

RacePhoto

-m-o-l-k-a-

molka

luissantos84

grp_photo

Perry

RacePhoto

rimglow

Roadrunner

RacePhoto

kingjon

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors