MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ha...ha...ha... IStock Photo of the week  (Read 16576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2009, 18:14 »
0
From an artistic standpoint, I like the photo alot. But that doesn't change the technical standards by which images get reviewed. Or at least it shouldn't.

Exclusive or non, blown out highlights are blown out highlights. Wouldn't that photo have been just as effective if that bright light were toned down just a tad...enough to show the reviewers that there are some color pixels in the white area? I think so.

But whatever. There have been some other doozies on the front page of late.


batman

« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2009, 21:56 »
0

edited -------
Exclusive or non, blown out highlights are blown out highlights. ...
...enough to show the reviewers that there are some color pixels in the white area? I think so.

you could say the reviewer was wearing "rose-colored glasses", perharps?  ;)
or the reviewer "could not see the (white) forest from the (color pixels) trees"?  ;D

(edited)
The point was made by others in this thread that there is a double standard between what is accepted from exclusives vs. independents.  I never used to think there was, but recently it has begun to seem that might be the case.  Certainly the series the IOTW was plucked from seems to suggest it. 

aw lisafx ! :o i am truly astonished at this remark? IS  double standard ?  :o
oh surely you jest  ;)
mine,mine, tis sacrilegious to say such things about the infallible  :o
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 22:01 by batman »

« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2009, 03:01 »
0
interesting...
I can sort of deduce, only from these comments, which people are istock exclusives and which are not.

« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2009, 03:38 »
0
The blown out highlight in this instance is trying to convey glamour, emphasizing the girl is hot so it's nothing wrong with it.

I also suspect IS has double standards for exclusive and non, but at least some inspectors are willing to accept experimental uses of lighting, which is a good thing.

« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2009, 03:43 »
0
If he wants to emphasize the theme of summer and that the girl is hot, would it not work better without  the reflection of a tubby photographer in a stripy teeshirt. standing in a messy room?
These are stock pictures, not fine art. Can you imagine them blown up on a billboard with the reflections six foot tall?

« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2009, 03:47 »
0
I was commenting on the front page photo, not the rest in the series.

If he wants to emphasize the theme of summer and that the girl is hot, would it not work better without  the reflection of a tubby photographer in a stripy teeshirt. standing in a messy room?
These are stock pictures, not fine art. Can you imagine them blown up on a billboard with the reflections six foot tall?

« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2009, 04:51 »
0
I was commenting on the front page photo, not the rest in the series.

If he wants to emphasize the theme of summer and that the girl is hot, would it not work better without  the reflection of a tubby photographer in a stripy teeshirt. standing in a messy room?
These are stock pictures, not fine art. Can you imagine them blown up on a billboard with the reflections six foot tall?

OK, I was commenting on the series.

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2009, 12:35 »
0


Maybe you do not get why the images work, their style :) Could be that.

I'm sure you're right.  It's probably just that I don't "get" what makes a good stock photo. ;)

batman

« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2009, 12:40 »
0


Maybe you do not get why the images work, their style :) Could be that.

I'm sure you're right.  It's probably just that I don't "get" what makes a good stock photo. ;)

rofl  alias ,
 or maybe lisafx is not an experienced microstock seller and do not know what she is talking about. i wish people like lisafx learn to "get" what makes a good stock photo before she "opens her big mouth"
(wink to lisafx, as i think alias comment  is truly hilarious)

« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2009, 19:51 »
0
Lisafx is an experienced one but the most successful photographers all have their own styles, or they are just followers.

In history, the most successful artists all got laughed at before they became the mainstream. Who set the rules? The artists who were willing to explore and experiment, and not those who laughed at other people's experiments.

The POTW is a good choice to allow experiments from the conventional plastic looks. My two cents.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 19:54 by Freedom »

batman

« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2009, 20:02 »
0
Lisafx is an experienced one but the most successful photographers all have their own styles, or they are just followers.

In history, the most successful artists all got laughed at before they became the mainstream. Who set the rules? The artists who were willing to explore and experiment, and not those who laughed at other people's experiments.

The POTW is a good choice to allow experiments from the conventional plastic looks. My two cents.

good to know that we agree to disagree.
that's the purpose of this forum.   8)

The blown out highlight in this instance is trying to convey glamour, emphasizing the girl is hot so it's nothing wrong with it.


you be careful not to inhale too much hot air from the hot girl's highlight  ;)
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 20:06 by batman »

alias

« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2009, 03:36 »
0
It's probably just that I don't "get" what makes a good stock photo. ;)

Sure you would want to leave open the possibility that you still have new ideas and techniques to understand. Just like how we do not always get the music which other people like. So for example, what sounds like random noise to one person might seem like the epitome of the zeitgeist to someone else. And then later we see those influences everywhere.

The type of publication or campaign which might appreciate the style of that image might not be able to use yours. And vice versa. But it is in all of our interests that the agencies attempt to service as much of the potential market as possible.

batman

« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2009, 08:46 »
0
It's probably just that I don't "get" what makes a good stock photo. ;)

Sure you would want to leave open the possibility that you still have new ideas and techniques to understand. Just like how we do not always get the music which other people like. So for example, what sounds like random noise to one person might seem like the epitome of the zeitgeist to someone else. And then later we see those influences everywhere.

The type of publication or campaign which might appreciate the style of that image might not be able to use yours. And vice versa. But it is in all of our interests that the agencies attempt to service as much of the potential market as possible.

wunderbar, so this means all those previously rejected images by IS for "over-exposure, lens flare,
out of focus,etc..." are now welcome for RESUBMIT. we are all looking forward to IS new interest in looking at the possibilities.
this is the best news we've had in a long time from IS reviewers.
good reason to celebrate. luvly to hear from you , and three cheers for the new IS .  drinks on the house... rofl
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 08:49 by batman »

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2009, 09:10 »
0


wunderbar, so this means all those previously rejected images by IS for "over-exposure, lens flare,
out of focus,etc..." are now welcome for RESUBMIT.

LOL!  Better get an exclusive crown before resubmitting your blown highlights, distracting reflections, etc. though ;)

Good luck batman!

« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2009, 10:24 »
0
It's probably just that I don't "get" what makes a good stock photo. ;)

Sure you would want to leave open the possibility that you still have new ideas and techniques to understand. Just like how we do not always get the music which other people like. So for example, what sounds like random noise to one person might seem like the epitome of the zeitgeist to someone else. And then later we see those influences everywhere.

The type of publication or campaign which might appreciate the style of that image might not be able to use yours. And vice versa. But it is in all of our interests that the agencies attempt to service as much of the potential market as possible.

 

wunderbar, so this means all those previously rejected images by IS for "over-exposure, lens flare,
out of focus,etc..." are now welcome for RESUBMIT. we are all looking forward to IS new interest in looking at the possibilities.
this is the best news we've had in a long time from IS reviewers.
good reason to celebrate. luvly to hear from you , and three cheers for the new IS .  drinks on the house... rofl
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

As everything, "over-exposure, lens flare,out of focus" can be done with artistic and creative talent and purpose and without any of that, for example if the photographer gets that by accident, without intending it; or intending it but getting a final flawed product, because of lack of talent, technique etc
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 10:27 by loop »

« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2009, 13:22 »
0
Loop, I agree with everything you said, however I have to echo with Lisafx's sentiment that it seems that most experimental and creative shots are accepted from the exclusives, and few from non.

On the other hand, Scout may be more open-minded and can allow another opportunity. Except, or is it still the case, that photographers are allowed only three tickets per month?

« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2009, 13:29 »
0


I really don't know, Freedom, but the fact is that I'm exclusive and I've had files rejected for flares, out of focus, etc. No idea if I would have had more if I wasnt't exclusive.

« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2009, 13:35 »
0
That's fair, Loop. I always love to get inspirations from JJRD's lightboxes, but I doubt my photos will likely make it to them.

:(
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 00:06 by Freedom »

« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2009, 23:56 »
0
These are stock pictures, not fine art. Can you imagine them blown up on a billboard with the reflections six foot tall?
Well it would certainly save on print ink.

vonkara

« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2009, 00:31 »
0
These are stock pictures, not fine art. Can you imagine them blown up on a billboard with the reflections six foot tall?
Well it would certainly save on print ink.
LOL you are right. I can see the flow of designers searching for blown out pictures because of the mighty recession Haha

« Reply #45 on: April 18, 2009, 00:42 »
0
LOL you are right. I can see the flow of designers searching for blown out pictures because of the mighty recession Haha
Yes and the carbon footprint, global warming and other replacements for the boogieman that make us swallow higher taxes. That's one of the secrets of Yuri Arcurs' success on billboards: his shots are very light and high key. In times where they like to tell us that every Google click will make the sea level rise by 1m, you shouldn't underestimate the contribution of less barrels of print ink in saving the planet.  ;D

« Reply #46 on: April 18, 2009, 01:42 »
0
I bet Yuri will be delighted to learn that he is saving the planet.

batman

« Reply #47 on: April 18, 2009, 08:07 »
0
LOL you are right. I can see the flow of designers searching for blown out pictures because of the mighty recession Haha
Yes and the carbon footprint, global warming and other replacements for the boogieman that make us swallow higher taxes. That's one of the secrets of Yuri Arcurs' success on billboards: his shots are very light and high key. In times where they like to tell us that every Google click will make the sea level rise by 1m, you shouldn't underestimate the contribution of less barrels of print ink in saving the planet.  ;D

then I guess John Lennon was way ahead of our times when he released the Beatles white album cover and the single with no music on one track   ;D

imagine (ha!ha! another John Lennon hit) ... the next few weeks reviewers are going to be flooded with lots of blown out images to spread the new look of micro images that Istock is pioneering .
woo hoo, flake out image here we go !  bracket +2 +3   ;D
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 08:09 by batman »

vonkara

« Reply #48 on: April 18, 2009, 09:12 »
0
LOL you are right. I can see the flow of designers searching for blown out pictures because of the mighty recession Haha

Yes and the carbon footprint, global warming and other replacements for the boogieman that make us swallow higher taxes. That's one of the secrets of Yuri Arcurs' success on billboards: his shots are very light and high key. In times where they like to tell us that every Google click will make the sea level rise by 1m, you shouldn't underestimate the contribution of less barrels of print ink in saving the planet.  ;D
I see now, this guy is a genius, he actually discover the secret of success in microstock. I just goes re-photoshop all my portfolio, here some of the next successful shot of mine

   

Now I will be rich it's sure


« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2009, 09:25 »
0


Now I will be rich it's sure


Cover the two shrubs with snow since they just suck black print ink. Freezingpictures would never sell so well if 80% of his shots weren't snow. He would sell even more if the rest wasn't those dreaded black pinguins but polar bears with white sunglasses and giant lens flare.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3779 Views
Last post January 07, 2010, 20:25
by willie
52 Replies
17115 Views
Last post April 16, 2010, 12:25
by lagereek
177 Replies
26710 Views
Last post October 31, 2014, 12:13
by gostwyck
2 Replies
1853 Views
Last post November 14, 2016, 02:30
by Chichikov
6 Replies
3697 Views
Last post April 14, 2018, 12:22
by loop

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle