Author Topic: Pics for comments on iStock Submission (Read 6611 times)

tab62 · « **on:** December 14, 2012, 22:34 »

Hi MSG Folks,

Here are 8 pics that I would like to hear what you think or consider are acceptable for my iStock Submission test. I can only submit 3 for the test thus hoping to get a feel of which 3 out of the 8 will work best-

Here is the link (via Photobucket) for you to view the pics. Thank you very much for taking the time to review and comment on my images-

http://s1343.beta.photobucket.com/user/tigerpix62/media/Photo12.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

Tom

cidepix · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2012, 23:56 »

what's so enticing about IS and their %15 to %20 royalty.. It is no longer 2006..

we are already in the swamp.. why try hard to get into swamp while you are lucky to be out..

m@m · « **Reply #2 on:** December 15, 2012, 00:10 »

#4 and #1 in that order...IMPO

enstoker · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2012, 01:14 »

Nice trout!
Bravo.

#4 Nice microstock photo. Winner not only for IS.

Enjoy.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2012, 02:16 »

Pretty good but I agree. Why try so hard to get into a swamp. Contrary to what many here believe its NOT a good idea to have too much spread, it used to be but not nowdays.

stay lucky.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 15, 2012, 03:01 »

I-Stock is my #2 site so better to spend effort there then the smaller sites

enstoker · « **Reply #6 on:** December 15, 2012, 04:07 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 15, 2012, 03:01

I-Stock is my #2 site so better to spend effort there then the smaller sites

Imagine smiley with thumb up here.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2012, 07:37 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 15, 2012, 02:16

Pretty good but I agree. Why try so hard to get into a swamp. Contrary to what many here believe its NOT a good idea to have too much spread, it used to be but not nowdays.

stay lucky.

But you yourself say that iS is doing well for you!

tab62 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 15, 2012, 10:31 »

Looks like we got side tracked on the iStock sucks again.

I really need help on my request since I have failed 5 times already.

So image number #4 and #1 appear to be a good bet. Yeah, I know iStock is going to be frustrating but I submit to Panther media and others that never sell a singe penny for a full month at times thus feel that iStock has to be better than companies like Panther.

Thank you all and look forward to my comments.

Tom

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:29 »

To get things back on track...

First off, Tom, I am impressed with these pictures. I think you have incorporated some good stock concepts here.

The three I would use are second one of the guy looking at the alarm clock. The one where he's lying in bed. Also the one of the little girl sick in bed and the one where she's lying down reading outdoors. Very nice lighting on those two bedroom shots, and great compostion on the outdoor reading shot. Those out of focus trees in the background leave a nice amount of copyspace.

I would have preferred the fish photo and her great natural expression, except the fishing rod bisecting the picture is a huge distraction. If you ever reshoot something like this, I would suggest either having her hold it up upright in one hand, or else have it sort of behind her on the ground in a vertical rather than horizontal orientation toward the camera without going out of the frame, where it is visible but isn't a distraction.

On the first photo of the guy in bed, it's a great pose, but his face seems a bit underexposed and looks like there might be some noise there.

The tennis ball photo is very cute - love all the photos of this model! But the disembodied hand holding the tennis racket over head makes no sense to me and, IMO, ruins the picture.

The woman on white is good, but I would have cropped it closer. Not cropped out any of her body, but just in tighter around her, as her expression is anguished but gets lost in all that white. Also, white background is so played out that unless it is exceptional I doubt the Istock reviewers will be impressed.

I hope that advice helps. You never know what the reviewers are going to like, but those are my picks anyway. Best of luck!

tab62 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:49 »

Thank you such much Lisafx! If were to shorten the fishing pole I wonder if that would help? I will be more careful on our next fishing trip session- since this is my daughter she has no choice but to be my model lol! at least for the next few years until she turns into a teenager...

m@m · « **Reply #11 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:01 »

I agree with Lisa that the fishing rod could have being positioned better, but I think that the natural expression on the girl over rides the mistake, give it a try Tom!...as Lisa also mentions "You never know what the reviewers are going to like".

tab62 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:08 »

I am thinking about modifying that pole to fix in the photo (it was an 8' pole)- you like fishing because that is what you do all day long in the keys lol! My sister lives in Islamorada for almost 20 years...

Tom

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #13 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:12 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 15, 2012, 07:37

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 15, 2012, 02:16
Pretty good but I agree. Why try so hard to get into a swamp. Contrary to what many here believe its NOT a good idea to have too much spread, it used to be but not nowdays.

stay lucky.

But you yourself say that iS is doing well for you!

Yeah its doing pretty well actually but Im not submitting for entry, been there 7 years. To start at IS nowdays? just imagine.

m@m · « **Reply #14 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:17 »

I don't know about fishing all day long, but I do take the boat out every chance I get...

Your sister must live right down the road from me, I'm in Tavernier Key about a ten minute ride to the Islamorada Key entrance.

tab62 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 15, 2012, 12:19 »

She live there as well in your town!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #16 on:** December 15, 2012, 13:01 »

It's a bit of a shot in the dark to make recommendations when I can't see the images at 100%. Perhaps I'm not using Photobucket correctly or possibly you have to have an account, but all I can see is the small images in the slideshow. iStock is very picky on technical issues - focus, noise, artifacts - and I can't offer an opinion on those at a small size.

Dropbox is free and would let you post watermarked full size images if in fact Photobucket doesn't.

Given that caveat, I think two people pictures and one of something else would be good to show variety. However the outside shot of the deck won't do. Lighting is so dull, sky is blown, the flower box is awkwardly cropped and there should be more or less of the house, IMO (and I realize that might require re-arranging the furniture to make a good stock shot).

Don't submit the girl with the fish as I think the lighting will get it rejected even if the composition issues weren't there.

I like the shot of the girl lying down with the book, but the background is very dark and not very attractive. I don't know if you used a reflector or just had great light, but the lighting on her face is very nice

I think the concepts of the guy in bed and the girl taking meds are great. I'm not as sure as Lisa is that the lighting is OK. The shadows look quite pronounced and the guy's hand looks almost blown (in the one of him lying down). That's the sort of thing iStock is very picky about.

I definitely think you're heading in the right direction, but IMO you should try again on these concepts and get the lighting and composition spot on before you apply again. I assume there's a very long wait for the next try?

Hope this helps

kingjon · « **Reply #17 on:** December 15, 2012, 14:31 »

Tom, I would suggest also to downsize the image to the minimum accepted. They are very picky on the application- you can submit full size once accepted. I always do very little post processing for IS - I might add a bit of saturation, a slight S-curve and tweak the lighting slightly.

leaf · « **Reply #18 on:** December 15, 2012, 15:38 »

I haven't read what everone else has written and it's probably just as well so you can have another opinion instead of just me agreeing with someone else's opinion.

I'd go with the any of the first four images. Pick one from the man series (I feel the first one is the best).. his arm is a little bright in the second one.

The girl with the fish is OK but but looks much more like a family pic snapshot. The lighting on the models face isn't great and the rod really breaks up the composition.

The Tennis shot was a decent concept and image but I'd straighten the image and get the hand out of the top. It is just distracting and serves no purpose. The space where the hand is, should be saved for copy space for the buyer.

The woman on white is OK, but is just more cliche stock than the others (like handshakes and goldfish).. so I think the other images would have a better chance at impressing the reviewers.

The patio looks like a snapshot again. It looks like you walked outside on your patio and clicked the shutter at regular standing height (the way most snapshots are taken). The best way to make things NOT look like a snapshot is take them from any other position than standing position. Architecture shots are usually taken from a height around your waist (doorknob height) and make sure the image is completely horizontal and vertical. It looks like a flash went off and overexposed the railing and made the deck bright in the foreground and is a bit dark in the background.

Freedom · « **Reply #19 on:** December 15, 2012, 16:31 »

I like the girl taking medicine, girl reading on the lawn, and second man with alarm clock. I really like the girl in tennis court, but like Lisafx said, the tennis racket was not a good idea. You have good concepts and composition, however, special attention should be paid to the highlights (overblown details?) and shadows(noise?), iStock is very picky on technical details. Since we cannot see the photos at 100%, you should make sure the focal points were correctly set and sharp.

heywoody · « **Reply #20 on:** December 15, 2012, 18:20 »

I won't presume to comment on the pictures but don't the IS tests accumulate? I think I submitted 3 and 1 got through, then 2 with1 through again and then a final 1. They may not have a lot of fans but still much more worthwhile than any of the others except SS.

tab62 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 15, 2012, 18:56 »

5 attempts and not a single one cleared. That's like batting (Baseball) 15 times and not getting on base a single time thus my batting average is .000 with iStock. I've learn a lot this past year- still suck- and feel this is my best attempt coming up...

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** December 15, 2012, 20:38 »

It might help if you told us what your rejection reasons were before.

fritz · « **Reply #23 on:** December 15, 2012, 20:42 »

The only chance has #4 girl on grass. Don't forget! The winning combination is portrait, studio shot and concept and they have to be technically perfect to get in. Little or no post processing 1600x1200 size.
Just for illustration I get approved 4 years ago with these files

In 2012 I'm not sure are they good enough for application. Ok for others but for IS

They have very high standards.
Best

tab62 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 15, 2012, 20:50 »

the majority of my rejects were just objects (flowers) dumped on a table or a terrible portrait that lacked concept and technical aspects.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pics for comments on iStock Submission (Read 6611 times)

tab62

cidepix

m@m

enstoker

ClaridgeJ

Pauws99

enstoker

ShadySue

tab62

lisafx

tab62

m@m

tab62

ClaridgeJ

m@m

tab62

Jo Ann Snover

kingjon

leaf

Freedom

heywoody

tab62

ShadySue

fritz

tab62

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors