MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Isolations and more isolations!  (Read 15462 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« on: November 12, 2010, 11:38 »
0
OH man!!!   I just looked around some searches in an agency and well?  I couldnt believe it!  first 4 or 5 pages were all isolations, every single one of them, incredible!!  even more incredible was the fact that most of them only had around 2 or 3 DLs.
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.


« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2010, 15:27 »
0
I've quit doing isolations (cut out in PS), as most of the ones I did recently were rejected by IS.  After many days of work isolating them.

So I say, to heck with it - if customers want a large object photographed "en scene" to be cut out and isolated they can darn well do it themselves.  That is, if anyone can get the objects they want past the inspectors, photographed in available light, without "flat dull lighting" rejections (if unenhanced) or "overprocessed" (if even slightly enhanced).

« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2010, 16:29 »
0
I  have no idea what some reviewers are smoking when they reject a perfectly cut out image. Poor lighting, incorrect white balance, even "stray" pixels with perfectly clean white areas. Maybe some dead pixels on their monitors? And you are right about too much work for too little return. How about a buyer's request button that offers the photographer an extra $20-$50 to cut out an image to order?

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2010, 16:42 »
0
The only way I have found to get isolations accepted is to shoot them that way in studio.  Then it takes practically no effort to just dodge out any stray areas of gray.  They don't sell well enough to justify spending a lot of time on cutting something out of a location, IMO, even if they would be accepted. 

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2010, 17:36 »
0
The only way I have found to get isolations accepted is to shoot them that way in studio.  Then it takes practically no effort to just dodge out any stray areas of gray.  They don't sell well enough to justify spending a lot of time on cutting something out of a location, IMO, even if they would be accepted. 

That's the way I do it....not in the early days though. I'd spend hours trying to isolate an image. It's easy if you shoot it on a white background then dodge out the bad areas.

fxegs

  • FXEGS http://fxegs.photoshelter.com

« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2010, 18:03 »
0
I think like lisafx and donding, if you can do it with a white background in studio, it works perfectly. If not, forget it; as you all say, it's too much work for those rejections or minimum gains, I have a few pics isolated in different ways in PS, all of them from my beginnings. Now I produce the white background while shootong or I upload the photo in context. I don't want to waste my time stupidly.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2010, 18:13 »
0
I  have no idea what some reviewers are smoking when they reject a perfectly cut out image. Poor lighting, incorrect white balance, even "stray" pixels with perfectly clean white areas. Maybe some dead pixels on their monitors? And you are right about too much work for too little return. How about a buyer's request button that offers the photographer an extra $20-$50 to cut out an image to order?

most of the inspectors are dilettants. I remeber pagin' thru some 'guidance' pages just to get a laugh, and on the one dealing with isolations even the example pic was at fault.... amateurs...
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 18:25 by molka »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2010, 18:17 »
0
The only way I have found to get isolations accepted is to shoot them that way in studio.   

...and you can still get rejections for bad isolation. I got pic rejected at istock for bad isolation, that had no isolation. : D very professional : )

« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2010, 18:35 »
0
Virtually all of my isolations are accepted at all agencies and I don't even use studio lighting. I like the subtle shadows produced by using natural light.


« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2010, 18:42 »
0
That's a gorgeous pic, epantha. But I have to say that I have submitted isolated images with a soft shadow like that and they have gotten rejected at IS. I was told to clean them up.

« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2010, 19:12 »
0
Curious, because IS has taken many of my isolations with shadows (I also like the natural look).  Well, it's been two years, but...


« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2010, 19:24 »
0
Curious, because IS has taken many of my isolations with shadows (I also like the natural look).  Well, it's been two years, but...

Exactly. I think their standards have changed because I have some with shadows in my port, too, from a while ago.

vonkara

« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2010, 19:39 »
0
I had this one accepted this month and have ben made using the pen tool. But I am a pixel pimp, I usually make my path, cloning and noise control at up to 200% to 300%. Almost 50% of my portfolio are isolation made with pen, and yes it's time consuming



I usually select 0 with the selection tool and watch if there is any pixel that bump out of the normal object line... If you want to do isolation with Istock, it's the way it work...almost. Even studio isolation can hide small ghosts near the isolated line
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 19:42 by Vonkara »

« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2010, 19:53 »
0
This photo was accepted recently, uploaded late October.



Most of my white background photos have subtle shadows but I also do complete isolations with clipping paths if the subject lends itself to that type of treatment (hard edges like the bottle above). Four of the eight of my most popular files on IS are isolated on white, two with clipping paths, two with natural shadows.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 19:57 by epantha »

« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2010, 20:52 »
0
I fancy myself a wizard with the pen tool otherwise cutting out from the background is way too difficult and time consuming. I did a large series using antique black and white portraits as raw material for composites and all the figures were cut out. But I had no inspectors to worry about.

lagereek

« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2010, 02:08 »
0
Well I was thinking more in the terms of,  how can an agency hope to survive, promoting isolations only?

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2010, 02:54 »
0
Well I was thinking more in the terms of,  how can an agency hope to survive, promoting isolations only?

Maybe they have enough? "isolated on white"
Getty bought an entire agency "PhotoObjects.net"

SS = 2,299,943
IS = 108,502 search results for Cut Out (don't bother trying "Isolated" it's futile!)
DT = 1,612,624 images
FT = 114,155 files
Thinkstock: 941,622 results

Somehow I think IS has more than that but there's proof of the CV imploding upon itself.

Heck with only 100,000 isolated objects, one would think there was still some room for some more.  ::)

My favorite for fun: "Tomato Slice" on FT = 13679 files, and SS = 26,266
I bet people are still shooting and submitting that too?
The quest for the perfect tomato slice image...
50% are Isolated on White!


« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2010, 04:34 »
0
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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2010, 04:49 »
0
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.


Thanks for the tip. I'd figure that the time and money and the fact that someone does it right, would be well worth paying for that service!

Here's the link:  http://tinyurl.com/2fdmdnl

He's #90 on the charts and almost 4000 images. Pretty good.

« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2010, 06:15 »
0
when one mention natural light, does it mean outdoor light?

« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2010, 06:40 »
0
when one mention natural light, does it mean outdoor light?

Yes, that's what I use. It's free! :)

« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2010, 09:58 »
0
when one mention natural light, does it mean outdoor light?

Yes, that's what I use. It's free! :)
I really like your flower picture. But how do you get the white backgrounds only with natural light? I tried to do this several times, but every time the background is greyish.

rubyroo

« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2010, 11:58 »
0
I really like your flower picture.

Epantha, I agree with Sunbird here.  That's a beauty  :)

« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2010, 12:09 »
0
I also use natural light from large windows.  There is some edition in my case, but I begin by calibrating WB before shooting.  I also use a white board or card for boucing the light (I don't have a proper reflector).

WarrenPrice

« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2010, 12:30 »
0
when one mention natural light, does it mean outdoor light?

Yes, that's what I use. It's free! :)
I really like your flower picture. But how do you get the white backgrounds only with natural light? I tried to do this several times, but every time the background is greyish.

Sunbird ... make sure that your "white background" is white.  I've used white poster board and tri-fold boards from Hobby Lobby or Michael's that are "almost" white. 
Also, metering on a white board will cause you to under expose by two f/stops.  Make sure that you are metering on the subject and not the background.  Same is true of "black" backgrounds ... reading on the black background will cause you to over expose by two f/stops.

Try using the 'Spot Meter' setting in your camera and set it to Manual Exposure. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
12058 Views
Last post September 16, 2007, 10:33
by tdoes
8 Replies
4221 Views
Last post September 09, 2007, 19:36
by pemulwuy
10 Replies
4152 Views
Last post April 22, 2008, 14:12
by Adeptris
6 Replies
5505 Views
Last post August 20, 2008, 09:27
by MikLav
5 Replies
3359 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 18:23
by icefront

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle