I rather like the shot myself.
The cloud reflections in the sunglasses suggest that it is an outdoor scene.

However, looking at other shots from the series where the sunglass reflections were not 'shopped', reveals a large reflector held in front of the model and other stuff that was laying around the studio 

I like the image, it has the effect that reminds me of a polaroid that'd been left out in the sun for a while, and from what I can see he/she has done it quite well.

Though I do agree that if I'd uploaded that I'd have got the big 'overfiltered' rejection reason, mind you I am bitter because I've just had a virtual slap on the wrists by one inspector for trying to sneak a deliberate and described overfiltered image through for the second time, maybe I should go exclusive 

The photographer is reflected in at least 3 of the images

love it!

It's a great and very effective image and very much in the style of work which has been current of certainly a decade or more. Anyone who has followed contemporary magazine and fashion photography is going to understand that.

And there is nothing wrong with being able to see reflected stuff going on in the studio or location. It's a time old tradition at least back to Cecil Beaton and probably much further. In this context it adds to something like the back story.

When you can see stuff reflected - or at the edges etc - then it also becomes a picture about a picture being taken. Which adds something.

Strange, there is a site that is consistently rejecting my images from a series because of the reflections. For that particular site i have to mask the reflection to get my images accepted.

Patrick H.

It is a very creative photo.  I like it too.

But I agree with the OP it would never have been accepted from a non-exclusive.

It is a very creative photo.  I like it too.

But I agree with the OP it would never have been accepted from a non-exclusive.

Lets just assume for a moment that your statement is true Lisa, even though I have some doubts.

I think we can all agree that the shot has artistic merit.
But do such shots actually sell as stock? I would venture a guess that there is not much call for this sort of work.

Yes, I see that the shot has 23 or so downloads thus far, but I don't feel that would have happened if it were not featured on the front page.

In short, what I am saying is; these shots are used to attract people to the site. Sexy, artsy etc. are not what stock is primarily about. Just look at Yuri or Sean or LisaFX  .

So yes, IS accepts these type of photos but they are not bread and butter files. They are the 'HEY COME LOOK OVER HERE" shots that can be used for the splash page, web and print promotions for IS.

Get 'em in the door to see the Corvette, but sell them the Malibu because thats what they can actually use.

Sorry, I avoid flickr like the plague. It hurts my eyes 

Wait.... they have Chevys at Flickr?

Sorry, I avoid flickr like the plague. It hurts my eyes 

Wait.... they have Chevys at Flickr?

now now, don't go insulting Istock's little idiot sister 

I like it. 

But now I wonder, is it really acceptable to have all the reflected stuff in the glasses? (Not talking about the IOTW but the rest in the series). Knowing it was there would drive me nuts. I do like what Alias says about it... puts kind of a romantic spin on it.

And there is nothing wrong with being able to see reflected stuff going on in the studio or location. It's a time old tradition at least back to Cecil Beaton and probably much further. In this context it adds to something like the back story.

When you can see stuff reflected - or at the edges etc - then it also becomes a picture about a picture being taken. Which adds something.

I can see it being a "time old tradition" with film but does it still apply to digital? Or have we just come to a point of over scrutinizing every pixel?

yes, even as an exclusive I have received rejections for my "reflected mini scene"....

Would it not depend upon the nature and style and theme of the image? So the fact that we get reflections for rejections does not mean that all reflections will result in rejections. And there is always the scout system and the critique forum.

Listen, I am not complaining about rejections.  Frankly, with an approval rate at istock in the 90% range, I am doing pretty well there.   

If I feel strongly about an image, I will submit to Scout and have had most of my scout submissions approved.   In the case of sunglass rejections I felt it was a legitimate rejection - I'm actually shocked that it wasn't applied to some of the images in the series under discussion. 

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. 

Maybe it is just huge inconsistencies between individual reviewers, rather than from exclusive to non.   I don't know, nor do I stay up nights worrying about it.  However as someone who very vocally praised istock as the most consistent reviewing process in the industry for years, I have been sorry to see it become so random and inconsistent over the past year or so. 

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.

interesting...
I can sort of deduce, only from these comments, which people are istock exclusives and which are not.

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?

I was commenting on the front page photo, not the rest in the series.

Quote from: Clivia on April 16, 2009, 03:43

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.

Quote from: alias on April 15, 2009, 15:06

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)

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.   

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 

Quote from: lisafx on April 16, 2009, 12:35

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
 

Quote from: alias on April 17, 2009, 03:36

Quote from: lisafx on April 16, 2009, 12:35

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
 

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

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.

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

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. 

Quote from: Vonkara on April 18, 2009, 00:31

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. 

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   

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   

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.

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.


GREAT INFO, thanks FD!
I now know what my next shoot will be about 

Description: Dream house balcony close up with so much light reflection... Printer friendly

arghhh ! this must be the house that inspired Bruce Springstein blinded by the light   
i am so blinded by the lens flare i need to put on 3 sunglasses under my batmask 
now i look like Robocop 

Quote from: FlemishDreams on April 18, 2009, 00:42

Quote from: Vonkara on April 18, 2009, 00:31

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. 

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

Holy Sh_t, I am seeing IStockphoto of the week here, I called it first...watch

vonkara, flemish, you guys are so out to lunch. don't you know penguins are black and white? blown out or not, i would say  to you vonkara, don't steal a penguin from the biodome, steal a polar bear.
you need a lot more penguins to fill the frame , whereas one frigging polar bear is enough to cover the whole thing. penguins still use up valuable black ink. polar bears don't.

Good mooaaninggg
I just wake up ffrroomm my wintterrr beearr timmeee slleep ssooo I missedd too see thattt arrttyyy farrtyyy cattlee phottooo off the weeekk whichh yoouu arrree all tallkkingg abbouttt.
plllssssss givvee meee ttheee llinnkkk offff thhattt warrmm laaadyyyyyyyy inn thatt gllaasseess tooooo warrrrrrrrrrmm mee liiiittleeeeee offff bittttt aanddd teell yoou abouutt myyy oppinonnnnn.
Maayybee sheee cooulld conceenttraatee reffleecttionss likeee parrabolliccc gllasses andd melllt meeee frrommmmm myy frozzzenn statteeeeee.
brrrrrr
ittss stiill too coold affterr deeep ddreeeamm I neeed it pleeeeeasee maayybee Ittt willllllllll helpp.
I yustt trrrrrry tooo findd itt butt noww onn the phtoooo of thee weeeeeeek iss twooo froozeeen inn thee ice yappiees and i feeell evenn mooreee coolderrrrrrr.
Gimeee linkk offf thatt warmmmmmm ladyy in thatt copyyrigtheedd glllasessss plsssssssss...
I allsooo hoope thattt fireemannnnnnzzz froom stookaa woouldnn huurtt myy froozzenn booneess and myy portt froomm searrchhh egggine anndd droopp myy foolioo in thee baack becaussee off my frozzenn oppinionn.
I donntt sayy myy oppinioon jusssstttt yet, soo donntt pushh that trrrigger soo fasttttt...
Pusshh afterrr I see thatt famoouss hot ladyyyy innn thatt glass reffllectionnzzzzzz
PLZ..... and THNX anyhow