Hi All,

I'm a fairly new hobbyist to photography...been shooting with Point and Shoots for years but recently bought me a D3100 SLR:) Loving it and decided to try and get accepted at Istockphoto (using the best from all my photos so at this stage is really mainly those shot with my Panasonic TZ8 not the SLR).

I have had 2 photos out of 3 accepted...one of a landscape and one of a squirrel.

Keep getting a third rejected. First rejection was for poor lighting on a daisy shot. I understand that.

Second rejection was for too much processing yet...I barely did anything to it apart from crop the right hand side and make it a touch warmer. The image did half in size though (as in MB) as it was a JPEG so that could be it. They have said:

 """""
Plaza de Espana with rowing boat.jpg
 
View 
Status: Rejected
Admin Note:
This image appears to be over-filtered/over-processed which has affected the image quality. This may include Photoshop filters & effects (over-sharpening, excessive adjustments to levels, curves, contrast, hues, gaussian blurs, saturation, added textures, noise reduction...) or other manipulations. We feel the image would have more value to designers with minimal or no post processing effects so that the designers could add their own post-processing effects. Some images can benefit from minor touch-ups to grab the viewer?s attention and there is no definitive line to what editing makes or breaks a great image but the end result should be a single image that can still be molded into a design. Inspectors judge images based on quality, composition and usability. If you require further explanation regarding this rejection, please submit a ticket to Scout (http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php [nofollow])

For more information about iStock Standards, please visit:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_1.0_account.php [nofollow] \n\n 
 
"""


My question is, is it realyl worth uploading the original because it is so similar to the version they have already rejected:

Original: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982074262/#in/photostream/ [nofollow]

Rejected Version:   http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982074116/#in/photostream/ [nofollow]


Alternatively should I just upload a fresh photo from one of the below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982074572/# [nofollow]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982073924/#in/photostream/ [nofollow]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982073752/#in/photostream/ [nofollow]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982073548/#in/photostream/ [nofollow]


Or do you think none of these are good enough and I need to take new photos? I probably wouldn't even be that bothered if it wasn't for the fact they have accepted 2 out of 3 which I was pretty chuffed about!!! If it helps, I don't think model/property releases matter for the application stage so I think they just purely go by how good the shot is. I feel my third shot should include a person as neither of my accepted two do.

Also apologies for the crude watermarks...never done one before and I was originall trying to post on Istockphoto forums until I realised I'm not able to until I pass:( Not gonna lie I've only joined up on this site today with this in mind, but to be honest I'm hoping this could be a great place to learn new skills and get to know people into photography.

Anyway, would appreciate any feedback. Be as harsh as possible please!!! if I get rejected again it'll be a month wait (I think?). At the moment I have 6 days left of my posy 7 day wait!

Thanks,

Andrew

Thanks for taking the time to post!

Surely though if they really didn't like the boater one, they would have rejected it for other reasons than processing?

Also I wasn't entirely sure what they're looking for...ie do they want a stock photo for a sample or do they want to see an interesting photo which is technically sound? I didn't think they necessarily were looking for a sellable stock photo for the samples? But then I don't really know which is why your feedback is so useful to me!

From the five images you posted, the first one (the one that got rejected) is actually the best.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982073752/#in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982073548/#in/photostream/

Easy call for the last two: These are both heavily underexposed, the second one dramatically, please throw them away.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982073924/#in/photostream/

This one with the Footpath sign could have done well as a stock motive. Though it is far too simple to be an application image. Do you think this is one of the three best images you have ever shot?

You could have uploaded it after the application if the image was taken properly. Unfortunately the sign is slightly out of focus. It is also quite a bit underexposed which would be possible to save if you have shot it in RAW. And there is also quite some vignetting in the corner which does not support the image but might have been acceptable (though I would correct it).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8982074572/#

This one would make a good stock image. But again, the focus is wrong: You can see the back of the jacket is focused but it should be on the face of the person. Also you should shoot images like this on a different time of the day. This would have been great at sunrise/sunset with an orange sky. Now the sky is all mushy and the clouds are totally blown out (check the color, it's all 255).


Well, going back to the original you uploaded and got rejected. I doubt that you will get it accepted - I was trying to figure out what went wrong with the image (besides it has been shot at the wrong time of the day again). There is a lot of pixelation going on at all the borders within the image (e.g. between the roof and sky). The mystery was solved when I looked at the File Info - I don' t know the camera exactly but an image shot at f 4 should have a very small area in focus and most of it blurred. The reason it isn't in this case is the tiny, tiny sensor in the camera that doesn't handle the incoming light properly. I would drop this image and avoid other images shot with compact cameras.

So my suggestion is to go out and shoot something new. Try to avoid shooting when the sun is high up, early mornings and late afternoons are giving softer lights and more saturated colors. In general, your images all look like snap shots - you are shooting what you see when you just happen to be in the place. That's totally fine for photography in general but for stock you should start with a plan WHAT to shoot, WHERE to shoot and WHEN to shoot. Don't just let it happen, you have to be the person who defines what the result will look like even before starting to go out and shoot.

A final comment: I think it's fine for the application at IS to have unreleased images (for SS all of those would be rejected if you don't provide MR). But just to be sure, you are aware that you will have to provide model releases for all recognisable people in your images, right? And you would have to remove the legible stuff on the guy's ear protector.

Ah thank you for the detailed critique!

So you don't reckon it's worth submitting the original boat photo due to it being so similar to the rejected version?

The footpath sign is drab but I shot it as my attempt at a "stock" shot...I hadn't even realised it was out of focus! You have a much sharper eye than me!

The old guy with the ear defenders...I do have a corrected version here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/8871235247/#in/photostream/ [nofollow]

Do you think that would be acceptable, because I think the exposure is now corrected?
I have a bit of hope in this one because I know it would be very difficult to use post application, but I think it's one of my better examples of a potential product shot and the image is pretty clean I think?

@Bud -
Just because 100 people on Flickr think your photo is great doesn't mean it is; and even if it is a great photo, it won't necessarily have any stock potential. Photos that people like to look at aren't usually commercial photos. Also a lot of Flickr groups have rules whereby you have to 'award' a certain number of images before you can post one yourself, so even pisspoor photos can get lots of awards.
I can say for sure that most of the photos which do best in stock would come in marginially above those with focus faults in a camera club competition and winners of many photo competitions mostly wouldn't sell well as stock.
It's a totally different mindset.

And as others have pointed out, it's really difficult for newbies nowadays. I used to think it was easier for total newbies to get into the mindset of stock, rather than people who had been keen amateurs for years. A famous example was ShankAli who in 2007 took four months and several attempts to get accepted on iStock (and one of the posters on this thread suggested he should give up!) and he's now doing well for someone who has a full time job.
Back in the day, there were a few examples like that, but I don't think there's much scope for that now. Getting your photos accepted is no guarantee they'll sell, and on iStock especially it's getting more and more difficult to get even views on new material, far less sale

The old guy with the ear defenders...I do have a corrected version here:

No, sorry. There is no way to "correct" an image that was shot wrongly. In this case it was just a matter of bad timing and light. No matter what you do, it will always remain that the face of the person is the darkest part of the image which is not what it should be in a stock image.

The same is true for the original/rejected image we started with. If you start with a bad quality image, there is no way to save it. Some people have much more photoshop skills than I have but I doubt anyone could turn this into a good image.

However, one more recommendation: iStock requires a minimum size of 1600x1200 pixels. There is no reason why you should upload larger images. So whatever you choose for a new image, you should downsize it to that size at least for the application - this will hide focus and noise issues a bit.

Thank you all for your advice. Regarding the downsizing...would this actually help the quality then for a lower size? I'd just do that via Photoshop? I am a bit of a newbie so please bear with me!!!

How about these two images...are these any better? The first one I am going for some sort of image along the lines of "hope"...shot against a red brick wall to give some texture but not detract from the model and I'm hoping it kind of adds to the atmosphere as it looks like it's shot in the street and she is looking into the sky, or just pondering her thoughts...or something...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/9010772442/# [nofollow]




The second photo below was a bit more ordinary...shot purely to illustrate the sheer length of the girl's hair. So I have her facing away from me, in order to give full focus to her hair...I think the hair does clash a bit with the background though which could be a sticking point? Also her pose is very rigid but this is sort of what I was going for...I want the hair to draw the viewer's attention.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/9010770320/# [nofollow]


*prepares for the onslaught*

Is istock the only site you have tried?  The "entrance exams" on IS and SS are easier if you have an idea about what stock sites in general are looking for so DT and FT, with no exam, are an easier starting point.

I can say for sure that most of the photos which do best in stock would come in marginially above those with focus faults in a camera club competition and winners of many photo competitions mostly wouldn't sell well as stock.
It's a totally different mindset.

oh how very true! i've submitted plenty of stock-sister images to comps, only to see inferior quality images win. A valid point about Flickr too. It might take you a while to get your head around it but the skills you gain shooting stock are immense. Rejections make you better.

I'm afraid that i agree with Sean. I wouldn't submit these for an application. It's been said fairly recently on the iStock critique forum that shots for applications need to show some sort of concept where possible.
If I was the OP I'd take some time to read the recent application threads on the iStock forum.

Quote from: Bud_um_tiss on June 10, 2013, 16:11

Thank you all for your advice. Regarding the downsizing...would this actually help the quality then for a lower size? I'd just do that via Photoshop? I am a bit of a newbie so please bear with me!!!

How about these two images...are these any better? The first one I am going for some sort of image along the lines of "hope"...shot against a red brick wall to give some texture but not detract from the model and I'm hoping it kind of adds to the atmosphere as it looks like it's shot in the street and she is looking into the sky, or just pondering her thoughts...or something...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bud_um_tiss/9010772442/# [nofollow]

Yes, I think the first image has a good chance to get accepted. It probably won't be a big seller but for the application it seems solid enough - there is a clear focus on the girl's eyes so you can see the single eyelashes, there is some copy space (where potential buyers could place their text message) on the right side and it's quite simple.

I just played around with the image for five minutes, a slight color correction and a Levels layer in photos to give it a bit more contrast and clarity. Have a look at the attached image with the comparison. As I said before, I'm not a photoshop guru but this is to give you an idea how I would process the image. There are lots of Photoshop tutorials available on Youtube for free that you can watch.

However, there is one technical problem with the image: If you look at the girl's hair close to her neck (more visible on the left side), it is almost pure black, you can't identify the single hair anymore as it becomes a wall of black color. This might be a reason for rejection, especially if you upload it after the application.

If you want to shoot people, I would recommend you check out the online stores to get a reflector - you will find some for $20 and it's the best investment you can make. You would have used it in this case to get more light on the girl's face, especially from the bottom left to light up the shadow areas.

The second image might work well on a clear background to show the long hair but I wouldn't use it for the application and I would re-shoot it in front of a white wall if possible.

Thanks for taking the time to do that! I think I need to learn how to get "the eye" to see things like how the white balance was off. I will get there!!! Would the shot have been better had I shot down on her and not shot from below?

Hi all...you probably don�t care but I wanted to say thank you to everyone...especially Sean and Michaeljay for your feedback. I've been accepted now! Which is wicked as it was mainly for the challenge I set myself. Have so far to go to become an expert photographer but really appreciate your critique as it has helped me a lot with my general photography. I�m hoping I can post some more photos someday for possible feedback if that were ok? So many things I don't even think of but need to.

Andrew

Lol shhhh. Let me bask in my artificial glory!