MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: what? third reject from istock  (Read 8415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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
6512 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 04:44
by litifeta
14 Replies
4529 Views
Last post October 26, 2007, 13:09
by snoozle
15 Replies
5579 Views
Last post July 17, 2010, 12:53
by borg
26 Replies
4402 Views
Last post April 09, 2017, 22:50
by YadaYadaYada
4 Replies
747 Views
Last post January 24, 2019, 11:31
by Sammy the Cat

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results