pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: what? third reject from istock  (Read 9184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 01, 2009, 18:55 »
0
So I am a little t'd off as I have had initial images rejected for the 3rd time at istock ...
the standard BS

At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto.

'Scuse me ... I could be blind so I am posting a link to the full size images here 
http://www.pbase.com/imagefusion/image/113258760/original
http://www.pbase.com/imagefusion/image/113258744/original
http://www.pbase.com/imagefusion/image/113258728/original

Just for the sake of background.  I am a full time commercial photographer and instructor  and have been so for... well a lot of years.  I have a BFA in photography.   

I am NOT the greatest photographer in the world ... and would never claim to be and I honestly am still learning constantly ... but will some one tell me what the heck is wrong with these images.  (the one of the dog has a pending sale (non exclusive) and the one of the jet has been sold several times through other agencies.

I contribute to alamy and I have had 1 reject in 3 years. 

Any Ideas ???

« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 19:22 by thenomad »


bittersweet

« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2009, 19:04 »
0
Let me preface this by saying that I'm an illustrator. :) Two things that struck me right away as potential problems: the dog (Dogs are near impossible to get accepted there, unless they are really unusual shots. They are on the "not needed" list. Yours does not look like a snapshot, but it could be that they just auto reject those subjects on applications.) and the plane (There is a trademark issue because of the name clearly visible on the plane. Part of the application is understanding the rules of this kind of stuff, so it may be that this was a reason for the rejection.)

This is COMPLETE speculation based on known "pet peeves" of the site. I'm sure others can comment on other possibilities.

Sorry for your frustration.

Edited to add:
You said these are full size images? I'm only seeing an approx. 800 x 500 image.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 19:07 by whatalife »

« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2009, 19:04 »
0
If I have to guess reasons:
1. Not enough commercial potential. What would this image sell?
2. Maybe they need more copyspace, subject too central?
3. Nothing comes to my mind.

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2009, 19:15 »
0
You'll need to post full sized (watermarked) copies of your images. We can't tell anything from these small versions.
Your photographic background counts for nothing at iStock; the images have to speak for themselves.
Also, the iStock critique forum is very, very helpful, again you have to post full size images, e.g. on your own website or on Vox. People won't spare your feelings, but it's tough love.

« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2009, 19:19 »
0
hmmmm... on the size issue ... under the image there should be a button that says "original" that should bring up the full size of the image

On the dog ... you may have a point ... but this image is under a pending sale right now to a vet magazine ...  the others have sold RF before also

The jet logo might be an issue also but if that is the case then no aircraft should be allowed for the same reason ... after all a 747 is clearly identifiable as well a 747

« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2009, 19:23 »
0
You'll need to post full sized (watermarked) copies of your images. We can't tell anything from these small versions.
Your photographic background counts for nothing at iStock; the images have to speak for themselves.
Also, the iStock critique forum is very, very helpful, again you have to post full size images, e.g. on your own website or on Vox. People won't spare your feelings, but it's tough love.

I have modified the link to go to full size

bittersweet

« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2009, 19:25 »
0
On the dog ... you may have a point ... but this image is under a pending sale right now to a vet magazine ...  the others have sold RF before also

The jet logo might be an issue also but if that is the case then no aircraft should be allowed for the same reason ... after all a 747 is clearly identifiable as well a 747

I'm sorry to say that if this is your stance on these particular items, you will have a very long and frustrating experience with istock. 1. They don't care where your image sold before. 2. They don't care about your opinion of why Joe's photo got through and yours didn't.

Not trying to be rude, but if you want to play at istock, you gotta resign yourself to play by their rules, or just not play at all.

« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2009, 19:25 »
0
Your first and third images are artistic, the dog is ok. I saw small amount of color fringes on all three.

However the market is very saturated, so you need to find some images with the WOW effect in your next application. My 1 cent. Wish you better luck next time.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 19:30 by Freedom »

« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2009, 19:29 »
0
Quote

I'm sorry to say that if this is your stance on these particular items, you will have a very long and frustrating experience with istock. 1. They don't care where your image sold before. 2. They don't care about your opinion of why Joe's photo got through and yours didn't.

Not trying to be rude, but if you want to play at istock, you gotta resign yourself to play by their rules, or just not play at all.

No felling of rudeness at all :) and your points are well taken

« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2009, 19:45 »
0
If I was an iStock application inspector I'd have rejected them for the following reasons:

Image 1: Low commercial value. The purpose of your application is to show that you know how to make 'good' commercial imagery, and by 'good' I mean images that have the potential to sell more than a trivial amount. This image does not pass muster in that regard.

Dog: Focus or motion blur issues around the tail. There's also a bit of dirt on his/her ear that should be cloned out.

Jet: Copyright issues - the manufacturer's brand name is clearly visible. For any agency to accept this as a creative image (as opposed to an editorial) is just plain wrong. If it was my image I'd remove the background and landing gear, then stick it in a bright sky to give the impression of flight. But then again what do I know about aircraft imagery?


If you truly have no clue as to why these were rejected and/or consider the rejection reasons to be 'BS', then iStock is definitely not the place for you.

« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2009, 20:40 »
0
^^^ Well nailed __ couldn't have put it better myself.

« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2009, 21:15 »
0
If you're like me, IStock will frustrate the heck out of you.  Some people will tell you that IStock's people are the embodiment of all photographic knowledge; and if you don't get it - well, just go back to whatever small town you came from, and forget the big city.   The reality is, you may get a photo rejected, then resubmit it later and have it accepted. You may see your best selling photos rejected for imaginary "artifacts", or for poor "feathering" when none was performed.    You may find it impossible to submit some photos because their "controlled vocabulary" contains no keywords for it.   Bottom line, there's  certain kinds of images, and styles, they just don't want because they think they're not cool enough for iStock's customers.  Who knows.

Your photos are fine. Nice exposure, color, lighting, focus. The one of the porch with beams and benches may not have much stock value; it's hard to assign a topic to it. The one of the dog is a nice example of a certain breed. The jet is a nice closeup - you do have to remove that trademark.

Don't let IStock drive you nuts.  To get in you need some snappy shots that just ring their bell; it's hard to guess what might do it.  If you get in, submit photos now and then, expect a lot of rejections, don't waste a lot of time trying to figure them out.



« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 22:54 by stockastic »

« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2009, 22:53 »
0
If you truly have no clue as to why these were rejected and/or consider the rejection reasons to be 'BS', then iStock is definitely not the place for you.


On the first image I will give you the benefit of the doubt... It is viable only for a buyer that is looking for a specific shot
On the 2nd image UM ... OK I will clone out the dirt before I send it out to the buyer that sent me the PO on it today... It was a nonexclusive  deal that still allows me to offer it RF

ETA:  It wasn't dirt is was a dark hair that was poking out cloned it out anyway
 
On the jet you may be right ... It is coming off its 2nd RM contract but the previous purchasers have been aviation interests where the logo was clearly not an issue. 

ETA:  Just looked at your site and now I get your airplane comment ... very nice images you have there :)

But you may be right iStock may not be my venue as many of the images that I would consider suitable for istock are coming off previous RM agreements or stuff that I see better suited for the micro marketplace.

Thanks for you opinion
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 00:08 by thenomad »

« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2009, 01:55 »
0
I've been an exclusive contributor at iStock for the last two years and moderating the German forum - but I'm in no way involved in applications and I'm not even an inspector, so take my advice as a fellow contributor. ;-)

The basic message of the rejection was not for technical reasons but "your images don't have the right commercial appeal to our customers". This is certainly not meant as disencouragement but as a hint that iStock is looking for a certain type of images. I wouldn't even say that your images wouldn't come through inspection after you are approved as contributor.

But for iStock to work it needs images that have potential to sell not two or three times. There's too much effort involved on all sides to pay back $10 only. iStock is a mass market and - though many images won't make more than those 2 or 3 sales - it pays off by images that sell 100 or 1000 times. So you need to prove that you are able to select the images by their mass market value.

Actually I'd oppose some of the opinions above: The jet plane seems to be the only of the three images having some commercial appeal. For successful submission you would need to remove the type signature of course. But I think it would make a good microstock image.
The dog is... well, maybe cute but certainly not a potential bestseller. With the plain grass around (not a clear image of the dog only but not a very interesting background/surrounding either) it looks a bit snapshotty.
And the third image is very artsy but definitely not commercial - you might sell it as an art print and hang it on a wall but that's not iStock's main market.

What iStock is looking for is generic images that could be used in hundreds of places for hundreds of purposes. Find three images in your library that you could imagine showing on three different websites or brochures about three completely different stories or products and you might be on your way. After you're accepted as contributor, then you can still try to upload what you consider best and find out if inspectors and buyers share your opinion.

(just wanted to add: Despite some people's negative opinion, iStock's fellow contributors are pretty helpful to people who have an open mind and want to understand how iStock is judging images... I encourage you to post your images either in iStock's Critique Request forum or here on MSG before applying the next time. I am sure you will get a lot of feedback. And never assume that whatever others nor iStock say is meant in any way to judge your overall photography skills)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 02:02 by MichaelJay »

Milinz

« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2009, 04:06 »
0
I've been an exclusive contributor at iStock for the last two years and moderating the German forum - but I'm in no way involved in applications and I'm not even an inspector, so take my advice as a fellow contributor. ;-)

The basic message of the rejection was not for technical reasons but "your images don't have the right commercial appeal to our customers". This is certainly not meant as disencouragement but as a hint that iStock is looking for a certain type of images. I wouldn't even say that your images wouldn't come through inspection after you are approved as contributor.

But for iStock to work it needs images that have potential to sell not two or three times. There's too much effort involved on all sides to pay back $10 only. iStock is a mass market and - though many images won't make more than those 2 or 3 sales - it pays off by images that sell 100 or 1000 times. So you need to prove that you are able to select the images by their mass market value.

Actually I'd oppose some of the opinions above: The jet plane seems to be the only of the three images having some commercial appeal. For successful submission you would need to remove the type signature of course. But I think it would make a good microstock image.
The dog is... well, maybe cute but certainly not a potential bestseller. With the plain grass around (not a clear image of the dog only but not a very interesting background/surrounding either) it looks a bit snapshotty.
And the third image is very artsy but definitely not commercial - you might sell it as an art print and hang it on a wall but that's not iStock's main market.

What iStock is looking for is generic images that could be used in hundreds of places for hundreds of purposes. Find three images in your library that you could imagine showing on three different websites or brochures about three completely different stories or products and you might be on your way. After you're accepted as contributor, then you can still try to upload what you consider best and find out if inspectors and buyers share your opinion.

(just wanted to add: Despite some people's negative opinion, iStock's fellow contributors are pretty helpful to people who have an open mind and want to understand how iStock is judging images... I encourage you to post your images either in iStock's Critique Request forum or here on MSG before applying the next time. I am sure you will get a lot of feedback. And never assume that whatever others nor iStock say is meant in any way to judge your overall photography skills)



I am very sorry for iStock due to they are too picky and they overpolitize the acceptance proccess. Also, they are way too teady in finding errors on images which sometimes aren't errors.

But, what the heck I know about that or other people who are non-exclusives there. It seems to me that iStock has invented some new kind of photography or better to say HOW NEED TO LOOK ANY OF IMAGE ACCEPTED IN THEIR BASE.... So, they rule in their part of the market and many 'crap' images from others are sold on other places for even much better money...
So, there is something I noticed and iStock more likes images straight from camera which are technically perfect in accordance to their own rules in sort of stock imagery.

michealo

« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2009, 04:56 »
0
commercial photographer just means you make money from it

Image one: From a PS? Snapshot, no commercial value, poor lighting and flat dull colours

Image two: Poor lighting, composition, poor use of DOF, no commercial value

Image three: Poor lighting, poor composition, possible IP issues

« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 05:05 by michealo »

« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2009, 04:57 »
0
Well I give up on I stock on the illustration site....
I send them in for the fourth time all different kind of stuff but still a big no no for I stock....
I don't bother anymore ,I know my vector stuff will sell on other sites ...My sales at I stock are far from good on the photo site...
If one agency don't want your stuff pick another agency who will ....  

Milinz

« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2009, 05:12 »
0
commercial photographer just means you make money from it

Image one: From a PS? Snapshot, no commercial value, poor lighting and flat dull colours

Image two: Poor lighting, composition, poor use of DOF, no commercial value

Image three: Poor lighting, poor composition, possible IP issues



Heh? Come on... You have such images on your HDD or you delete all such images?

Nevertheless I am sure that dog image can earn very good money on RM as well it may bring about $1000-$1500 of income. So, it may not be worth of iStock market strategy due to they give you just 20 cents on dollar earned (for start), but on some other places that image can make some money.

Today it is almost impossible to make some image which will sell like crazy on any agency... There is already market saturated on that as well too many contributors are taking their chances on hit.

« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2009, 05:46 »
0
(I write this without reading other posters comments)

image1: I see no commercial potential here. I have no idea how this image could be used. Hilights are blown out. The image isn't as sharp as it could/should

image2: It's an okay dog photo. But the stock sites are already filled with better ones.

image3: Blown out highlights. Logo in the airplane. the composition is a bit awkward, this image would be hard to use: it doesn't look appealing as it is, neither does it have any copy space.

« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2009, 07:37 »
0
commercial photographer just means you make money from it
No it means that I do commercial work (b2b) as opposed to portraitutre or nature or wedding and yes I make my living at it  so um whats your point

quote author=michealo link=topic=8056.msg101212#msg101212 date=1243936560]



Image one: From a PS? Snapshot, no commercial value, poor lighting and flat dull colours

Yep a very expensive nikon PS called the d300
 


Image two: Poor lighting, composition, poor use of DOF, no commercial value

Image three: Poor lighting, poor composition, possible IP issues



Um Ok
You may want to check your monitor Gamma

« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 08:06 by thenomad »

« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2009, 07:51 »
0
At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto

#1.  Subject matter  Interesting photo but limited commercial value, more artsy than utilitarian.

#2.  Subject matter.  Not unique enough to fly on initial application as it's an oversaturated market but I think it might be accepted and sell if you made it in because it's a nice pet portrait of a specific breed.  Be sure to include breed information in description and keywords.

#3.  Overall composition.  Remove all names or identifiable marks.  When in doubt, clone it out.

« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2009, 08:00 »
0
Thank you all for you opinions ... I see that the mentality of micro is much different than mid and RM.
2 and 3 has generated more than 2K of income combined in those sectors

I guess the IP issue on the aircraft was not a issue with the past buyers as they were both aviation interests (one is a Cessna parter) .

A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.



« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2009, 08:03 »
0
A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.

Yes, you do have to work at it a bit harder to compete.

« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2009, 08:08 »
0
Thank you all for you opinions ... I see that the mentality of micro is much different than mid and RM.
2 and 3 has generated more than 2K of income combined in those sectors

I guess the IP issue on the aircraft was not a issue with the past buyers as they were both aviation interests (one is a Cessna parter) .

A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.




You're absolutely right the standards are different.  RM controls how an image is used whereas RF doesn't.  You should run into the IP issue with any RF vendor as they can't control how the image is used and we live in litigious times.  As for the dog, I disagree with some of the others, I believe it is stock but I could also see how you would do better as a RM photo since it's greatest value is to people who cater to that breed of dog or their buyers.

« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2009, 08:09 »
0
A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.

Yes, you do have to work at it a bit harder to compete.
So I am wondering is the ROI worth it  ??? But that is for a different thread

« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2009, 08:11 »
0

http://www.pbase.com/imagefusion/image/113258760/original
http://www.pbase.com/imagefusion/image/113258744/original
http://www.pbase.com/imagefusion/image/113258728/original




First of all: never give up, never surrender ;)
first image: a little soft, perhaps due to noise reduction. And as others mentioned before: I don't see any commercial value in it and istock probably didn't either.
second image: good composition, dog is centered, nice blurred background. The eyes of the dog look a little disturbing to me :D Sorry I can't help it ;) Don't know why this got rejected, perhaps it is just that they already have thousands of dogs in their database and pets are on their instant-reject-list as are flowers btw.
third image: nice. Perhaps it would have been better to have the entire plane in the image. Cropping maybe makes the image look nicer somehow but this is not art but stock photography. I had a cropped airplane rejected because of that. If you have a photo of an entire plane a buyer can decide on his own what part he wants and this maximizes the usability of your image.

istock has a nice critics forum where you can post your next-attempt-images before uploading them there. The users there are all very kind and will try to help you getting approved :)

« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2009, 08:18 »
0

You're absolutely right the standards are different.  RM controls how an image is used whereas RF doesn't.  You should run into the IP issue with any RF vendor as they can't control how the image is used and we live in litigious times.  As for the dog, I disagree with some of the others, I believe it is stock but I could also see how you would do better as a RM photo since it's greatest value is to people who cater to that breed of dog or their buyers.

points well taken.  And that is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that post.  What i have been doing is tailored to buyers that may NEED a image as opposed to "mass market".  I am happy when a image sells once and needing to change my bedsheets if it sells twice.  Most of my collection is that way.  

For instance I have a image that was a one time sale for 2400 (perpetual exclusive) that would languish forever in RF but was the right shot for the buyer that was looking for a creative image of a specific building.  So yeah ... I get the point

« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2009, 08:21 »
0


First of all: never give up, never surrender ;)
first image: a little soft, perhaps due to noise reduction. And as others mentioned before: I don't see any commercial value in it and istock probably didn't either.
second image: good composition, dog is centered, nice blurred background. The eyes of the dog look a little disturbing to me :D Sorry I can't help it ;) Don't know why this got rejected, perhaps it is just that they already have thousands of dogs in their database and pets are on their instant-reject-list as are flowers btw.
third image: nice. Perhaps it would have been better to have the entire plane in the image. Cropping maybe makes the image look nicer somehow but this is not art but stock photography. I had a cropped airplane rejected because of that. If you have a photo of an entire plane a buyer can decide on his own what part he wants and this maximizes the usability of your image.

istock has a nice critics forum where you can post your next-attempt-images before uploading them there. The users there are all very kind and will try to help you getting approved :)


No the dogs eyes are just wierd ... :) Good points ... thank you !

« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2009, 08:56 »
0
2 and 3 has generated more than 2K of income combined in those sectors


Can you please explained this?
You said that you earn 2000$ with this 2 photos in RM sites?
Is this right?

« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2009, 09:03 »
0
The market is flooded, that's it in a nutshell. The microstocks now have millions of photos, and reviewing new photos in detail costs money.  Cheaper to reject them right off the bat for subject matter.  Photos they might have wanted 2 years ago, they don't want today. 


« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2009, 09:09 »
0
A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.

Yes, you do have to work at it a bit harder to compete.
So I am wondering is the ROI worth it  ??? But that is for a different thread

When u find your style, and workprocess and the wheel is rolling its defenitly worth it. The ones that complains, believe they are the best there is, but still cant get their stuff approved ???

« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2009, 11:27 »
0
2 and 3 has generated more than 2K of income combined in those sectors


Can you please explained this?
You said that you earn 2000$ with this 2 photos in RM sites?
Is this right?
through RM channels correct ...

for instance the airplane image has been licensed twice a one year exclusive  and a one year use specific license (it was used as a part of a trade show setup for a aviation operator) 


The dog for a vet magazine .  These are licensed (RM deals that were direct marketed )

Actually the plane went for the 1st time through photoshelter .  I have been working through channels like direct broker requests and marketing to buyers directly .  It is a much different mindset than micro

« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2009, 11:37 »
0
A rethink on my part seems to be needed if it is worth it to me to add micro to my mix.

Yes, you do have to work at it a bit harder to compete.
So I am wondering is the ROI worth it  ??? But that is for a different thread

When u find your style, and workprocess and the wheel is rolling its definitely worth it. The ones that complains, believe they are the best there is, but still cant get their stuff approved ???
I guess than any new venue requires a reevaluation of what you do to fit that style requirement .  A little more research on my part into what the micro venue is looking for is needed

Just as a clarification ... I asked if the ROI is worth it ... the question is not from the aspect of the approval process but from the aspect of adding another dimension to what I do ...micro vs mid (custom) vs my commercial work they all have different requirements .  What I do for a commercial client likely would not move for a RF image .  I need to figure out the rules of the road for RF.

« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2009, 11:58 »
0
sorry to say it , but I absolutely can't see anything artistic in the first photo, it tells nothing  to me. the dog image is just plain boring, nothing happens there, nowadays ads need to catch people's attention more than ever. the plane, well it tells nothing neither, not enough edgy or abstract to be a background  nor enough to be a design element or a good story content...  With all the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll in advertising industry you really need to make something more outrageous each time to be able to compete, even on Istock

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2009, 12:07 »
0
I would say if you are able to pull in 2k from those images selling RM then you would be better off sticking with RM.

As others have said, the subject matter is just never going to get you any volume sales, and without volume there is no point in doing micro. 

An image selling 1 time for hundreds or thousands of $ is great.  An image that has only 1 or 2 times sales potential at $1 isn't worth bothering to upload.

« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2009, 12:13 »
0
sorry to say it , but I absolutely can't see anything artistic in the first photo, it tells nothing  to me. the dog image is just plain boring, nothing happens there, nowadays ads need to catch people's attention more than ever. the plane, well it tells nothing neither, not enough edgy or abstract to be a background  nor enough to be a design element or a good story content...  With all the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll in advertising industry you really need to make something more outrageous each time to be able to compete, even on Istock

I am not a big fan of fetish and crying woman but there is a market for it ... the rest of my reply I will keep to myself

« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2009, 12:14 »
0
I would say if you are able to pull in 2k from those images selling RM then you would be better off sticking with RM.

As others have said, the subject matter is just never going to get you any volume sales, and without volume there is no point in doing micro. 

An image selling 1 time for hundreds or thousands of $ is great.  An image that has only 1 or 2 times sales potential at $1 isn't worth bothering to upload.

very true

« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2009, 12:19 »
0
sorry to say it , but I absolutely can't see anything artistic in the first photo, it tells nothing  to me. the dog image is just plain boring, nothing happens there, nowadays ads need to catch people's attention more than ever. the plane, well it tells nothing neither, not enough edgy or abstract to be a background  nor enough to be a design element or a good story content...  With all the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll in advertising industry you really need to make something more outrageous each time to be able to compete, even on Istock

I am not a big fan of fetish and crying woman but there is a market for it ... the rest of my reply I will keep to myself

well nobody talked about fetish and crying women, but if that dog would be jumping in the air to catch a ball with rim lighting from a kicker it would be much more appealing and intresting.

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2009, 12:24 »
0
FWIW, I don't think you have to bother with "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll" to sell in the micros.

I think that, regardless of the subject matter, pictures that are the most difficult to obtain will sell the best.  As an instructor you may have access to lighting equipment, studio space, locations, etc. that the average snapshooter can't get access to.

For example, I just saw a series of doctors in an operating room working on a patient go through istock's queue.  They appeared to be real - there was lots of medical equipment in the background, bright light over the operating table, etc.  Details that convinced me it was shot on location (or very very cleverly staged).  I am totally jealous because I don't have access to that type of location and wouldn't likely be able to produce such images.  Neither will 90% of other contributors.  That guy will clean up with those images.  

I really think as micro becomes more and more competitive the difficult-to-get shots will be the ones that do big volume.  

« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2009, 12:26 »
0
sorry to say it , but I absolutely can't see anything artistic in the first photo, it tells nothing  to me. the dog image is just plain boring, nothing happens there, nowadays ads need to catch people's attention more than ever. the plane, well it tells nothing neither, not enough edgy or abstract to be a background  nor enough to be a design element or a good story content...  With all the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll in advertising industry you really need to make something more outrageous each time to be able to compete, even on Istock

I am not a big fan of fetish and crying woman but there is a market for it ... the rest of my reply I will keep to myself

well nobody talked about fetish and crying women, but if that dog would be jumping in the air to catch a ball with rim lighting from a kicker it would be much more appealing and intresting.
On that point we can agree !

« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2009, 12:31 »
0
by the way "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll" was meant to be a metaphor of giving it all in today's ADD society to be able to cope with your competition.

« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2009, 12:42 »
0
Lisafx I am learning that you are correct ...
I think that if I want to play in the RF field (and I am no longer sure that i do ) that a retink of the style of images that I will want to offer may need to change.
The imagery that I have been shooting has been "needs based" specific request type stuff or specialized

Vikavalter makes a good point in that a lit image of the the dog would be more compelling for micro. very true .

 BUT it would not have met the needs of the client that wanted a "simple image of a toy bread dog"

I guess it is a matter of what sells to  ->your<- market.  there are a bunch of photographers out there that make a living shooting birds... it would be like a bullet in my brainpan to shoot birds all day but for them it works.  Even though I think flowers and birds are as exciting as watching dirt rot I would not have the ghall to say that their work is "absolutely not artistic"   Too may years in the industry for that crap.  

so different strokes I guess




 

« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2009, 12:43 »
0
by the way "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll" was meant to be a metaphor of giving it all in today's ADD society to be able to cope with your competition.

Noted ! :) NP

Milinz

« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2009, 05:24 »
0
I've had rejected one of images from my series showing just detail of legs and mini skirt on a female model... Well - looking at picture you can't even know if it is male or female model at all!

They asked for model release... LOL! Visible recognizeable face is way out of frame as well that model can be anyone or no one...

Only thing which may be 'problematic' is hoisery which is embroidered with some floral pattern - thus that should not be problem because that image series are already on Fotosearch, JIU and so on...

I have that MR, but they may forget it because they are the ONLY ones asked that MR from me!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
6908 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 04:44
by litifeta
14 Replies
4883 Views
Last post October 26, 2007, 13:09
by snoozle
15 Replies
5750 Views
Last post July 17, 2010, 12:53
by borg
26 Replies
5073 Views
Last post April 09, 2017, 22:50
by YadaYadaYada
4 Replies
1820 Views
Last post January 24, 2019, 11:31
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle