Author Topic: AOTW SarahLen (Read 19279 times)

Graffoto · « **on:** July 21, 2008, 16:35 »

I was just looking at the portfolio of this weeks 'Artist of the Week', SarahLen.

No doubt they are wonderful character studies, but why were these not rejected for overfiltering or 'overprocessed from their original quality'?

I mean this is really a very grunge style that only occurs with a lot of post processing (or a touch of Lucisart).

Am I missing something, or is this style just 'hip' enough that IS will take it even though they are aware that it is heavily manipulated?

jsnover · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2008, 16:47 »

IS does not reject all processing - there are lots of great examples of things that have been pushed quite a bit. I think this artist's work is gorgeous - more like a painting than a straight photo.

They have zero tolerance for some of the very saturated scenics that SS will happily accept, and it's much harder to predict which files will pass IS inspection when you heavily post-process.

I think the strong and clear style is probably a big help, and if you look at a 100% view (they are XXL files) the detail is gorgeous.

atomiccupcake · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2008, 16:58 »

First, let me qualify this by saying that I'm an illustrator, not a photographer.

However, isn't the majority of that effect coming from a ringflash, not photoshop? They look like the pictures my friend takes with her ringflash + some strobes.

Graffoto · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2008, 17:37 »

Quote from: atomiccupcake on July 21, 2008, 16:58

First, let me qualify this by saying that I'm an illustrator, not a photographer.

However, isn't the majority of that effect coming from a ringflash, not photoshop? They look like the pictures my friend takes with her ringflash + some strobes.

For certain this is not simply lighting, although that is a necessary foundation for this sort of work. It also is not a ringflash. Just check out the catchlights in the subjects eyes or the reflection from glasses. It looks more like softboxes of differing size from both sides.

I believe that the first person to popularize this style of post processing was Andrzej Dragan. Although his work is much more over the top than what I see from Sarahlen.

Dave Hill also has a similar post processing technique, although his results are also a bit different. In any case, it is more of an 'illustrated' look than a pure photograph.

Hence the reason for my original question... since it started out as a photograph, why the inspectors let it through. Although I think jsnover, pretty much answered my question.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2008, 21:34 »

yes I do agree that IS talks through both sides of their mouth, by rejecting many of overfiltering from the original, then highlighting something over the top. it sends conflicting messages.
or maybe we can just blame the reviewer, as one reviewer could be the one who rejects all over-filtering, then the next reviewer will take all that.

another thing, is this exclusive? maybe IS want to show they are going to be different and WACKY!

with the uncertainty that everyone is seeing lately, anything is possible!

jsnover · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2008, 21:52 »

Quote from: i am a horse now on July 21, 2008, 21:34

another thing, is this exclusive? maybe IS want to show they are going to be different and WACKY!

Not exclusive - she has 10 files and 14 downloads.

abimages · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2008, 00:58 »

Looks to me like some sort of HDR technique. Quite nice but certainly 'overfiltered'. $:-\$

RT · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2008, 04:16 »

Am I the only one who's wondering why she's artist of the week, I mean without being rude, a couple of weeks ago she uploaded 10 shots of people (possibly done in one studio session) who look related (family album?) that she's cross processed, and she's chosen as artist of the week!!

I'm not saying they're bad if you like that look, but to be totally honest apart from the interesting characters she's chosen, the photography isn't exactly awe inspiring.

I thought artist of the week was supposed to be someone who's demonstrated a bit more variety.

MikLav · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2008, 04:57 »

Very often IS selects AOTW among new members with small portfolio. I recall they commented about that a while ago saying they are doing that to promote new talents.

faber · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2008, 12:02 »

Quote from: RT on July 22, 2008, 04:16

Am I the only one who's wondering why she's artist of the week, I mean without being rude, a couple of weeks ago she uploaded 10 shots of people (possibly done in one studio session) who look related (family album?) that she's cross processed, and she's chosen as artist of the week!!

I'm not saying they're bad if you like that look, but to be totally honest apart from the interesting characters she's chosen, the photography isn't exactly awe inspiring.

I thought artist of the week was supposed to be someone who's demonstrated a bit more variety.

If you click on the business website you can see who he is (not "she"). No "mom with a camera" taking some pictures for the "family album". Just click on his pages "my work" and "bio/exhibition".....

Here are the infos listed at his istock account:

Business Name: Deniz Saylan
Business Website: www.denizsaylan.com

RT · « **Reply #10 on:** July 22, 2008, 15:02 »

Quote from: faber on July 22, 2008, 12:02

If you click on the business website you can see who he is (not "she"). No "mom with a camera" taking some pictures for the "family album". Just click on his pages "my work" and "bio/exhibition".....

Here are the infos listed at his istock account:

Business Name: Deniz Saylan
Business Website: www.denizsaylan.com

I've heard of Deniz Saylan before, and when I saw that you'd written this I was more surprsied to think he would be selling via iStock, so I checked the iStock account and just as you said the info was there - HOWEVER the blog was signed SarahLen, hmmn strange I thought, I wonder if it's one of his assisstants portfolio, guess what check the iStock page again, the business name is now Sarah Len and there's no website link!!

But you were right Deniz Saylan is a fantastic photographer and has done some amazing photo's, I'm not sure that you'll find the one's on iStock are his, same style and technique but a world away from his quality, which makes me think assisstant even more now.

Of course none of this matters really.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2008, 16:14 »

whatever, still, it's good to know somebody!
p.s.
anyone can introduce me to someone famous, or maybe a reviewer

atomiccupcake · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2008, 18:20 »

Quote from: faber on July 22, 2008, 12:02

Quote from: RT on July 22, 2008, 04:16
Am I the only one who's wondering why she's artist of the week, I mean without being rude, a couple of weeks ago she uploaded 10 shots of people (possibly done in one studio session) who look related (family album?) that she's cross processed, and she's chosen as artist of the week!!

I'm not saying they're bad if you like that look, but to be totally honest apart from the interesting characters she's chosen, the photography isn't exactly awe inspiring.

I thought artist of the week was supposed to be someone who's demonstrated a bit more variety.

If you click on the business website you can see who he is (not "she"). No "mom with a camera" taking some pictures for the "family album". Just click on his pages "my work" and "bio/exhibition".....

Here are the infos listed at his istock account:

Business Name: Deniz Saylan
Business Website: www.denizsaylan.com [nofollow]

Where do you see that? I see

Business Name: Sarah Len

and no business website on the profile page: http://www.istockphoto.com/sarahlen [nofollow]

What page are you at for the Deniz Saylan info?

Edit: (ah - read another post. Are you saying it used to say Deniz Saylan and it changed to SarahLen? At any rate, istock would have an id that matched the copyright name they list, right?)

Edit again: There IS NO copyright line on his/her image pages, like there is on the rest of ours. Something VERY irregular is going on.

jsnover · « **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2008, 18:53 »

Quote from: atomiccupcake on July 22, 2008, 18:20

Edit again: There IS NO copyright line on his/her image pages, like there is on the rest of ours. Something VERY irregular is going on.

There's a preference somewhere that lets you choose whether or not to show your real name in the copyright. I would assume if it's not there it's because someone doesn't want the world to know that she/he is selling stock/microstock.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2008, 19:16 »

Quote from: jsnover on July 22, 2008, 18:53

There's a preference somewhere that lets you choose whether or not to show your real name in the copyright. I would assume if it's not there it's because someone doesn't want the world to know that she/he is selling stock/microstock.

although i never can quite understand why anyone is ashamed of telling who they really are. not unless the photos are crappy or embarassing.
but that's their choice.

then again : wow, 10 files , 21 downloads , and on IS.
like , isn't this, something you only dream of ... for IS?
i have to congratulate whoever she is, or he is..or whatever !

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2008, 20:26 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 22, 2008, 19:16

Quote from: jsnover on July 22, 2008, 18:53
There's a preference somewhere that lets you choose whether or not to show your real name in the copyright. I would assume if it's not there it's because someone doesn't want the world to know that she/he is selling stock/microstock.

although i never can quite understand why anyone is ashamed of telling who they really are. not unless the photos are crappy or embarassing.
but that's their choice.

then again : wow, 10 files , 21 downloads , and on IS.
like , isn't this, something you only dream of ... for IS?
i have to congratulate whoever she is, or he is..or whatever !

Maybe some people have a day job that would perceive stock as a conflict of interest.

Pixart · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2008, 23:27 »

If you are exclusive on Istock you cannot upload to other sites, not even your rejected photos. I'm making a wild guess here that there's a few exclusives with more than one identity for other RF sites.

atomiccupcake · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2008, 00:12 »

Quote from: Pixart on July 22, 2008, 23:27

If you are exclusive on Istock you cannot upload to other sites, not even your rejected photos. I'm making a wild guess here that there's a few exclusives with more than one identity for other RF sites.

I dunno. Most sites require you to send in a government id, don't they? I can't imagine many people go to the trouble of faking their id.

People who hide their real name are hiding it from the customers, not the site admins. And SarahLen isn't exclusive at any rate.

hoi ha · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2008, 00:33 »

Quote from: Pixart on July 22, 2008, 23:27

If you are exclusive on Istock you cannot upload to other sites, not even your rejected photos. I'm making a wild guess here that there's a few exclusives with more than one identity for other RF sites.

Funny I always figured that to be true as well ... I find it hard to believe, given all the trouble some people have gone to in the past to promote their ports at istock (ratings syndicates, etc), that some people are not getting away with it .. and the only site that ever required ID from me was Fotolia ...

Cooper · « **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2008, 02:04 »

yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.

I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #20 on:** July 23, 2008, 02:33 »

Personally I think that most of them are really great images and I think Artist of the week is well deserved.

michealo · « **Reply #21 on:** July 23, 2008, 03:17 »

Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04

yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.

I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.

Its not that sinister, admins and top sellers (mostly exclusives) would tend to be more active on the site

Cooper · « **Reply #22 on:** July 23, 2008, 03:44 »

Quote from: michealo on July 23, 2008, 03:17

Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04
yes, it's all very strange. Note that many of the hugely glowing reviews are from istock admins and top sellers.

I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.

Its not that sinister, admins and top sellers (mostly exclusives) would tend to be more active on the site

Oh I know; It's just my cynical, conspiracy theory nature kicking in. Freezingpictures; no one ever said they weren't great images...

And yes, his portfolio still has Deniz Saylan as the business website.

bittersweet · « **Reply #23 on:** July 23, 2008, 05:58 »

Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04

I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.

It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.

In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.

Graffoto · « **Reply #24 on:** July 23, 2008, 09:11 »

Quote from: bittersweet on July 23, 2008, 05:58

Quote from: Cooper on July 23, 2008, 02:04
I agree that they're great images but would be interesting to see if any old schmuck could get them accepted.

It has been said over and over and over again by JJRD that the "overfiltered" rejection is not used in the case of artistic images that are very well done. Bruce himself has stated that their inspection philosophy is that for a borderline image, they are to look for a reason to accept. It is really sad that some people are so adamant that any rejection they ever get MUST be because they are not exclusive or because istock sucks or any other thing except the flicker of possibility that it might actually have something to do with the merits of their own images.

In my opinion, it's really rude and disrespectful to have even posted this thread at all. Any beef you may have with istock should not involve singling out and calling into question another artist's abilities on a public forum. It comes across as petty and jealous, and really lends no credence whatsoever to any of your conspiracy theories.

Hey Bitter, I am the OP so this must have been addressed to me.
I posted it as an honest question, since from a lot of my readings on this site people have stated over and over that IS does not like heavily processed images.

I certainly was not trying to be disrespectful to the artist, and if you read carefully you will see that I did say the I thought they are wonderful character studies. So, I actually am agreeing that the work is deserving of praise.

BTW, I don't have a 'beef' with IS and juggernaut that they are, I am sure that they don't need you coming to their rescue either.

BTW who is JJRD?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: AOTW SarahLen (Read 19279 times)

Graffoto

jsnover

atomiccupcake

Graffoto

tan510jomast

jsnover

abimages

RT

MikLav

faber

RT

tan510jomast

atomiccupcake

jsnover

tan510jomast

PaulieWalnuts

Pixart

atomiccupcake

hoi ha

Cooper

Freezingpictures

michealo

Cooper

bittersweet

Graffoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors