Author Topic: Isolated objects on IS, with shadow or without it? (Read 8786 times)

Dreamframer · « **on:** November 14, 2008, 16:11 »

I would like to know what you guys think about adding a shadow to isolated objects in PS. What reviewers like more, isolated objects with light shadow or isolated objects without it? And do designer really like more objects with shadow? I am asking this because I usually make images of isolated objects without shadow, but I think I saw somewhere, in some thread which I can't find anymore, that designers buy more isolated objects images with shadow because they are more useful. So, I don't know what to do....to add shadow, or not to add shadow

If I were a designer, I would personally buy more images without it, because I could place objects from image on any other surface, and apply any kind of shadow from any angle...
What you think? What should I do? Help! I am working on this image 2 hours already and I can't decide

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** November 14, 2008, 16:20 »

Show us the image. Really, I think it depends sometimes. But 99% of the time, a fake added shadow looks pretty cheesy. If it has a natural shadow, I leave it or tone it down.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2008, 16:40 »

The object is shinny metal surgical scissors. So I isolated it. It had pretty dark shadow below some parts, and flares all over the paper which I used for white surface...

hali · « **Reply #3 on:** November 14, 2008, 16:52 »

hey whitechild, you can try using a reflector to soften (lighten) the shadows.
and once that is done, maybe if you still think the shadows are too much,
you can dodge them off in PS.
as for flares, i usually use a gobo . something dark to "go between: the path of the light so it does not splash too much on to the background.
hope i explain correctly.

epantha · « **Reply #4 on:** November 14, 2008, 16:56 »

I work as a designer and prefer objects with no shadows because most of the time I have to remove them to put them on a colored background. For IS I upload two types of isolations - objects isolated on white with a natural shadow and objects isolated on white with no shadow and a clipping path. The ones with clipping paths sell very well for the most part.

bittersweet · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2008, 17:10 »

You can also use a natural shadow and add a clipping path which eliminates the shadow. This is the most versatile file to offer. I agree with Sean about adding a fake shadow. If I really want that, I can do it myself.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #6 on:** November 14, 2008, 17:59 »

Ok guys, thank you all! You helped a lot!

crazychristina · « **Reply #7 on:** November 14, 2008, 18:19 »

Just a point to bear in mind - a clipping path is only available for the largest size image. As soon as a smaller jpg is made from a large one, the clipping path is lost.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** November 14, 2008, 18:22 »

I seldom have a totally isolated image, I normally leave natural shadows, but I think they have to be very soft.

Maybe without shadows they would sell more, I don't know (the first is one of my best-sellers in IS). But at least I don't remember having them rejected because of the shadows.

Regards,
Adelaide

Dreamframer · « **Reply #9 on:** November 14, 2008, 18:27 »

Quote from: averil on November 14, 2008, 18:19

Just a point to bear in mind - a clipping path is only available for the largest size image. As soon as a smaller jpg is made from a large one, the clipping path is lost.

averil, does it mean that if you have clipping path on your images, there is more possible that you will sell more L and XL files because of usefulness of clipping path?

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2008, 18:36 »

Clipping paths puzzle me. If they are not checked by inspectors (are they?), what is the value of them? And even if inspectors check them, if you don't claim to have a clipping path when you upload, would they know it? And if they would not, and you add this to your description and keywords, who would know it doesn't have a clipping path?

I think that, as long as the isolation is good (and this is something I'm sure inspectors check), having a clipping path or not is irrelevant. I, for one, would not give any consideration for having this stated in the description.

Regards,
Adelaide

bittersweet · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2008, 21:05 »

Quote from: whitechild on November 14, 2008, 18:27

Quote from: averil on November 14, 2008, 18:19
Just a point to bear in mind - a clipping path is only available for the largest size image. As soon as a smaller jpg is made from a large one, the clipping path is lost.

averil, does it mean that if you have clipping path on your images, there is more possible that you will sell more L and XL files because of usefulness of clipping path?

Yes, and there have been plenty of designers who have stated that when presented with two similar objects and one has a clipping path, they will choose the one with the clipping path. If they want to drop an object into an existing composition, it will save them a lot of time if they do not have to create their own.

That being said, I have downloaded medium sizes several times and the clipping path has been intact even though I didn't expect it to be.

To answer your question, Madelaide, it would be pointless to take the time to create a clipping path if you are not going to include it in the title and description of the image. Yes, the inspectors will check to make sure that it isn't a crappy clipping path with a bazillion points that you've created with your magic wand tool. As stated before, plenty of designers consider the clipping path a valuable time saver, even if you personally do not.

epantha · « **Reply #12 on:** November 15, 2008, 07:14 »

When you click on the clipping path and make it a selection in Photoshop, you get a very clean copy to paste into other applications with no stray pixels to worry about. Also, a clipping path allows you to place a jpeg into a page layout program such as InDesign with a transparent background. Similar to a .psd or .png file. I don't know much about how the clipping paths work with Windows applications, if at all.

I have sometimes gone 3 or 4 rounds resubmitting objects with clipping paths that had been rejected by IS because they usually don't tell me what is specifically wrong with the path and I just have to guess. All of the other agencies take the clipping path objects (no shadow) without question.

If you are using isolated objects and your background is white in your document, natural shadows are the best way to go.

stokfoto · « **Reply #13 on:** November 15, 2008, 10:16 »

Once I got a file rejected by SS for lacking of shadow,which was an isolated image with clipping path.then I put the shadow back and it got approved.but was only one time experience so I still try to avoid shadows.

Pixart · « **Reply #14 on:** November 15, 2008, 13:27 »

If it has a shadow at all you can't even call it an isolation - because it isn't completely isolated.

I admit though that objects look a lot more attractive with a shadow. Depends on what the buyer intends to do with it I guess.

I don't know, do sites other than IS support clipping paths?

araminta · « **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2008, 13:58 »

There are two different usage for a designer for an "isolated" image: use it as it is on a white background (on a web site, a magazine or a newspaper... shadow is required here) or use it as a design element (no shadow).

I always keep some shadow on my isolations because I think it is very difficult to add a realistic fake shadow while it is quite easy to remove a light shadow by using simple Photoshop adjustments.

And I think that the market for the first usage of isolations is bigger than the market for the second usage, but this is just my guesstimate.

Concerning the fact that you cannot call "isolation" a photo with a shadow, it depends on the definition of the word "isolation"

I've never had any rejection for that reason.

tubed · « **Reply #16 on:** November 16, 2008, 20:41 »

I havn't had the greates luck with Istock and isolations.. They are pretty picky, just taken some and rejected others for weird reasons.. But I really don't pay much attention to them anyways they are falling behind..

shank_ali · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2008, 18:21 »

I can't understand the rejection...the isolation appears to feathered or rough,when the object is not isolated.I shoot against white cardboard and blow out the background using my speedlight off camera.I usually remove and shadow in adobe.
Just had a first sale on some childrens wooden building blocks with the word 'boy' in blue letters.
I once was told when i started on istock it would be difficult to come up with new idea's...What utter nonesence as the human mind has no bounds to it's imagination..
Nb i just got a total rejection replaced with an acceptance from Scout.3 hardback books isolated on white.Her explaination said...i have had another look and although there is pinning of the highlights in the image it is a usable image and has been added to your portfolio...

Dreamframer · « **Reply #18 on:** November 21, 2008, 09:03 »

So, I guess it's best to keep natural shadows if they are soft and nice, and to add clipping path for those designers who want to isolate object. Also, it's good to add "clipping path" in description

bittersweet · « **Reply #19 on:** November 21, 2008, 09:55 »

Quote from: whitechild on November 21, 2008, 09:03

So, I guess it's best to keep natural shadows if they are soft and nice, and to add clipping path for those designers who want to isolate object. Also, it's good to add "clipping path" in description

and in the title, if you can. That way when it's next to a similar image, a designer who prefers a clipping path may choose yours just because of that. I have two similar images in my portfolio. One with a clipping path (titled " xxxx w/clipping path") and one without. The one with the path outsells the other by more than 4x. This could be due to other factors, but I think at least part of it is the clipping path.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Isolated objects on IS, with shadow or without it? (Read 8786 times)

Dreamframer

Sean Locke Photography

Dreamframer

hali

epantha

bittersweet

Dreamframer

crazychristina

madelaide

Dreamframer

madelaide

bittersweet

epantha

stokfoto

Pixart

araminta

tubed

shank_ali

Dreamframer

bittersweet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors