MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Worst photo you came acroos on any of the agencies  (Read 10875 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 14, 2017, 03:16 »
0
I came across one on Adobe, that I just couldn't resist not to show it, because I just can't believe this was accepted. And it's actually on the first page for "Relevance" for it's main keyword.  Check out the noise.

https://eu.fotolia.com/id/175604491

EDIT:
I just checked keywords. Animal in the photos is deer, keywords include impala, giraffe, antelope....
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 03:20 by Dumc »


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2017, 03:27 »
+5
I think it's quite a nice image, but you're right... the grain is a bit excessive! Not entirely sure it would qualify for a 'worst photo you've come across' award though!

« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2017, 03:39 »
+6
If that's the worst you've seen I would look a little longer.  ;D

« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2017, 03:40 »
+1

« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2017, 03:49 »
0
If that's the worst you've seen I would look a little longer.  ;D

I+m talking about technical prespective of photo, that is, noise.

« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2017, 04:05 »
+5
If that's the worst you've seen I would look a little longer.  ;D

I+m talking about technical prespective of photo, that is, noise.

Photos with more noise can sell as wall art for a million dollars. It's only the stock agencies that have this hangup on noise free images.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 04:09 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2017, 04:54 »
+1
And it's actually on the first page for "Relevance" for it's main keyword.  Check out the noise.

What keyword did you use?

Since relevance is largely based on sales, apparently it's a good enough photo for the buyers.

Is it the greatest photo of a roe deer? No. But as a buyer, I would buy it over this one completely noise free: https://us.fotolia.com/id/165053312

« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2017, 05:15 »
+1
If that's the worst you've seen I would look a little longer.  ;D

I+m talking about technical prespective of photo, that is, noise.

Photos with more noise can sell as wall art for a million dollars. It's only the stock agencies that have this hangup on noise free images.

It was the past, and I'd like to see those times back.. They could still select for images well produced quality-wise. But for example Shutterstock just gave up quality control completely. I don't understand why.

Now it's starting to feel worthless that i'm putting in time try to process images well, caring about noise, sharpness, tonal range, try to avoid overprocessed look...  Now it seems to be that I may be able to just upload photos from a camera phone.

Is there some place nowadays which would value if i'd upload only selected, quality images, and isn't Rights Managed or Exclusive?
Some agancy that focuses on having a nice quality collection instead of 100million images?

namussi

« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2017, 05:23 »
+1

« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2017, 05:24 »
+3
https://www.fotolia.com/id/63950072

I actually like this photo a lot. It not that typical, spectacular stock-style image, just a simple shot of a moment. But looking at it really gives me nice, familiar feelings of walking in the fields in winter on an overcast day. Such calmness, cold and space. Now i really started to look forward for these times of the year. I can almost feel the winter smell of this kind of surrounding.
But I don't think it will sell-well :D.  Which is a pity. I'd prefer thing like anywhere instead of smiling people

« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2017, 05:26 »
+1
Some corkers here.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-completely-unusable-stock-photos?utm_term=.ll9EKVKK8#.io3Xb8bbP

Now we're talking! These are mostly unexplainable. (Actually once i had a photo of mine on presented on this site :D. And the photo has some sales, and even come across it in usage somewhere)

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2017, 05:27 »
0
I'll have to mention mine. One of my earliest pics uploaded to SS in the summer of 2012. Surprised it got through when QC standards were a lot higher than they are now.

« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2017, 05:28 »
+1
Some corkers here.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/60-completely-unusable-stock-photos?utm_term=.ll9EKVKK8#.io3Xb8bbP

Now we're talking! These are mostly unexplainable. (Actually once i had a photo of mine on presented on this site :D. And the photo has some sales, and even come across it in usage somewhere)

Ah, it's not that site..  seeing the pictures I just automatically assumed i was looking at awkwardstockphotos.com and didn't check the surroundings

angelawaye

  • Eat, Sleep, Keyword. Repeat

« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2017, 08:16 »
+2
The guy sleeping on a birthday cake - haha. Now that is out of the box thinking! These are hilarious.

Chichikov

« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2017, 09:31 »
+3
The worst photo?
Hmm if only you could see my portfolio  :-[

I'll have to mention mine. One of my earliest pics uploaded to SS in the summer of 2012. Surprised it got through when QC standards were a lot higher than they are now.

I am reuploading many photos that were rejected 5 years ago for some (obscur) reasons
All are being accepted.
And you know what? They also sell!!!

« Last Edit: October 14, 2017, 09:35 by Chichikov »

Quasarphoto

« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2017, 09:46 »
0
Bored?

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2017, 10:10 »
0
Quote
And you know what? They also sell!!!

haha nice, well I guess better late than never. Hopefully you managed to upload it to other agencies. 

Here's another one that for some reason got through. Let's just say I had some issues with my cheap tripod at the time.



« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2017, 12:07 »
+8
https://www.fotolia.com/id/63950072

I actually like this photo a lot. It not that typical, spectacular stock-style image, just a simple shot of a moment. But looking at it really gives me nice, familiar feelings of walking in the fields in winter on an overcast day. Such calmness, cold and space. Now i really started to look forward for these times of the year. I can almost feel the winter smell of this kind of surrounding.
But I don't think it will sell-well :D.  Which is a pity. I'd prefer thing like anywhere instead of smiling people

That image is by Dumc. And I think its "at least as bad" as the one he pointed out. Dumc could defend his image, the other guy can not (because he doesnt know about it being posted here). I think its bad form to post other contributors images and putting them down.

« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2017, 12:14 »
+1
Ofcourse it's not nearly as bad as his.

« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2017, 14:39 »
+4
https://www.fotolia.com/id/63950072

I actually like this photo a lot. It not that typical, spectacular stock-style image, just a simple shot of a moment. But looking at it really gives me nice, familiar feelings of walking in the fields in winter on an overcast day. Such calmness, cold and space. Now i really started to look forward for these times of the year. I can almost feel the winter smell of this kind of surrounding.
But I don't think it will sell-well :D.  Which is a pity. I'd prefer thing like anywhere instead of smiling people

That's what I was going to say, it reminds me of something I'd shoot with my old gear and/or in a hurry. Stock-like, absolutely not; decent, yes. I think being "Not Stock-Like", is probably a good quality to have these days

« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2017, 18:07 »
+3
The deer image if a lot better and might b a lot better for blogs than many of the "better" images.

Not everyone wants studio perfect looking images. There are many uses for images and in order to increase sales it might be a good idea to have more than isolated on white studio photos.

« Reply #21 on: October 15, 2017, 02:18 »
+2
Well I guess y'all should stop complaining about quality drop on stock agencies then.

« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2017, 03:14 »
0
Well I guess y'all should stop complaining about quality drop on stock agencies then.

And with 160+ slightly different pictures of roe deer, I guess no more complaints about oversaturation either.  ;)

« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2017, 03:32 »
0
I did that bout 90% accepted and some selling quite OK
The worst photo?
Hmm if only you could see my portfolio  :-[

I'll have to mention mine. One of my earliest pics uploaded to SS in the summer of 2012. Surprised it got through when QC standards were a lot higher than they are now.

I am reuploading many photos that were rejected 5 years ago for some (obscur) reasons
All are being accepted.
And you know what? They also sell!!!

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2017, 03:50 »
0
Quote
I did that bout 90% accepted and some selling quite OK

I dislike digging through old pics to find something half decent. Once in a while I'll do it and re-work on something special, as the attached from 2012. In hindsight, I butchered the post-processing the first time round.

I rather shoot new stuff.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
4388 Views
Last post October 29, 2008, 12:58
by hali
7 Replies
6976 Views
Last post November 04, 2009, 18:18
by Fastmediamarco
12 Replies
4791 Views
Last post November 06, 2013, 05:58
by bunhill
0 Replies
2208 Views
Last post August 21, 2014, 12:42
by luissantana
7 Replies
4784 Views
Last post October 15, 2017, 08:31
by Quasarphoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors