MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Question about Stockxpert  (Read 11610 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 27, 2006, 08:25 »
0
Stockxpert is currently the hardest site for me at getting photos approved.  They have a fine acceptance balance between noise issues and detail that, in alot of cases, I see as being too nit picky considering how the photo may be used.  I see it that way because I coming at this from the designers perspective first!

I'm always working to improve my photography but I still think they've set their standards higher than some other sites.  Am I mistaken?

Does anyone with success on this site believe this is the case?  What subject matter do you have the most success at this site with?

Thanks for your help


« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2006, 09:18 »
0
They reject a lot of common images, that applies to me. But I never had problems with rare images. For me that is of penguins and icebergs. Of them they reject much less then for example IS. What I think is that StockXpert is looking more for unique motives while IS looks more on quality and motive is secondary.

« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2006, 09:37 »
0
Stockxpert is currently the hardest site for me at getting photos approved. 

Strange because it is the easiest stock for me. I've over 1000 photos there and the only ONE photo they didn't accepted was photo of angry man showing middle finger :) It is a very profitable stock for me too - even more then DT is. Maybe the matter is what kind of photos we are uploading there. I prefer working in the studio with models (popular topicks like business, medicine etc.). I'm using quite cheap DSLR but with good lenses (there's better cameras with much lower noise level).

« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2006, 09:37 »
0
They reject a lot of common images, that applies to me. But I never had problems with rare images. For me that is of penguins and icebergs. Of them they reject much less then for example IS. What I think is that StockXpert is looking more for unique motives while IS looks more on quality and motive is secondary.

I think you may be on to something! 

I've just had a vector rejected for unclosed paths but what's unclosed are just stroked paths which is part of the design (sales chart)!   This won't affect the files usage which is why I don't understand that reason given.



the unclosed paths are the lines forming the blue grid minuse the border.

« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2006, 09:52 »
0
Stockxpert is currently the hardest site for me at getting photos approved. 


Strange because it is the easiest stock for me. I've over 1000 photos there and the only ONE photo they didn't accepted was photo of angry man showing middle finger :) It is a very profitable stock for me too - even more then DT is. Maybe the matter is what kind of photos we are uploading there. I prefer working in the studio with models (popular topicks like business, medicine etc.). I'm using quite cheap DSLR but with good lenses (there's better cameras with much lower noise level).


I definitely see how this site can be profitabile!
Just when I think I have this site figured out I realise I don't.

This photo was rejected for lack of detail but I see alot of detail.  It was photographed outside and isolated later. The full size is approx. 26 x 35 inches

« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 10:10 by tdoes »

« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2006, 10:13 »
0



On this small thumb everything looks fine. Maybe the problem is on 100% view. Could you crop microphone's strainer with a little of white background and paste it here on 100%?

« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2006, 10:19 »
0
I'll do that when I get home later today!

Thanks

« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2006, 15:01 »
0
StockXpert has a reasonably low rejection rate for me, except for graphics (raster versions, I haven't uploaded the vector files).  Sometimes they get picky about lighting, more often about similar images (right now I had three images rejected for that reason).

It's indeed the first site I upload to, because they review fast and even there is something really wrong then I correct it before uploading to the others.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2006, 17:14 »
0
The only problem I've had with StockXpert is  keyword spamming.   I didn't understand why either,  as I use the same basic block of words that I use on SS and DT  whom both limit the quantity. I really don't like seeing KW Spamming myself, ticks me off. 
I mailed them asking what they objected to. Most  made no sense.  For example, I have a picture of Half Dome in Yosemite.  The words half dome were shot down as spam.  ??????   I used the word  'destination'  in travel shots,  they shot it down.   As a consequence, I am fanatically careful about what I use there and frankly, I feel I am  'under-keyworded'.

Picture-wise,  my rejection rate there is low based on technical.  High on " we've got enough of that stuff'.

« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2006, 18:22 »
0



On this small thumb everything looks fine. Maybe the problem is on 100% view. Could you crop microphone's strainer with a little of white background and paste it here on 100%?


Here it is.


« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2006, 18:35 »
0
The only problem I've had with StockXpert is  keyword spamming.   I didn't understand why either,  as I use the same basic block of words that I use on SS and DT  whom both limit the quantity. I really don't like seeing KW Spamming myself, ticks me off. 
I mailed them asking what they objected to. Most  made no sense.  For example, I have a picture of Half Dome in Yosemite.  The words half dome were shot down as spam.  ??????   I used the word  'destination'  in travel shots,  they shot it down.   As a consequence, I am fanatically careful about what I use there and frankly, I feel I am  'under-keyworded'.

Picture-wise,  my rejection rate there is low based on technical.  High on " we've got enough of that stuff'.

I had my share of that too, and after deleting some keywords that could be cause the rejection, I had a new rejection by keyword spam.

I just resumed uploading those two images. I guess i know why they are rejecting the image, but as it was a clowfish on is anemone I will not delete any keyword related to Symbiosis.
If all the other sites I work with accept that and they don't, maybe is because they are wrong.

« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2006, 05:01 »
0
Here it is.


Thanks! I wouldn't call it "lack of detail" but it doesn't have to be a real rejection reason. I can see other problem - I'm sure if you fix it (making another photos) there wan't be any problems with StockXpert admins.

ISOLATION. I strongly recommend to you plan photos like this one and do it different way. The best way is to use 4 lapmp like on the scheme below:

There is 4 lamps with softbox. Two of them illuminate white cardboar background. The rest illuminate photo object. It is possible to make it with less quantity of lamps (I think at least two). I have seen scheme of "home made" softboxes on the one of the stocks. It is possible to do it very cheap. But I'm absolutely convinced that it is profitable to invest and buy all this stuff. Higher quality of photos let you pay it off very quick. I have payed off all my equipment in first 2 months (really busy months).

About better quality and isolation - look at the picture below. Doing it this way I have pure isolation without time-consuming cutting off. Look at he needles - there are sharp and unsharp ones. It is almost impossible to cut it off correctly. With iluminated withe background you don't have problems like this.

« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2006, 08:04 »
0
Here it is.


Thanks! I wouldn't call it "lack of detail" but it doesn't have to be a real rejection reason. I can see other problem - I'm sure if you fix it (making another photos) there wan't be any problems with StockXpert admins.

ISOLATION. I strongly recommend to you plan photos like this one and do it different way. The best way is to use 4 lapmp like on the scheme below:

There is 4 lamps with softbox. Two of them illuminate white cardboar background. The rest illuminate photo object. It is possible to make it with less quantity of lamps (I think at least two). I have seen scheme of "home made" softboxes on the one of the stocks. It is possible to do it very cheap. But I'm absolutely convinced that it is profitable to invest and buy all this stuff. Higher quality of photos let you pay it off very quick. I have payed off all my equipment in first 2 months (really busy months).

About better quality and isolation - look at the picture below. Doing it this way I have pure isolation without time-consuming cutting off. Look at he needles - there are sharp and unsharp ones. It is almost impossible to cut it off correctly. With iluminated withe background you don't have problems like this.




They actually emailed me back and said there is a serious lack of detail in the hand!  I just don't agree with that!

I appreciate your info. on the four lamp isolation technique. I currently use a two lamp lightbox method on small  items and natural light outside w/ a backdrop method on large items.  I used a black background on the mic picture and gave it a clipping path to allow for further tweaking if neccessary.

I have some isolations they've accepted but I notice that they like images to be free of natural imperfections like dirt, fingerprints, scratches, dents (I had a isolated dumbell weight rejected for fingerprints and blur). 


As an artist I personally believe imperfections are what give objects realism, especially old items.

« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2006, 08:25 »
0
As an artist I personally believe imperfections are what give objects realism, especially old items.

As a designer I personally prefer dirt or scratch free objects. The same rules apply to human faces and bodies. It is better to remove even moles if they might look like spots. The same rule I have found on Alamy. I think that it is more popular opinion among other designers and stock owners/admins. It is a very simple thing to put some of scratches or dirt on the photo if design need it. Removing is much more time-consuming.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 08:27 by paperboy »

« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2006, 09:19 »
0
As an artist I personally believe imperfections are what give objects realism, especially old items.

As a designer I personally prefer dirt or scratch free objects. The same rules apply to human faces and bodies. It is better to remove even moles if they might look like spots. The same rule I have found on Alamy. I think that it is more popular opinion among other designers and stock owners/admins. It is a very simple thing to put some of scratches or dirt on the photo if design need it. Removing is much more time-consuming.


I was really referring to old items and the photo in particular that was rejected.  I agree clean objects are more popular to work with but I also feel that Stockxperts strict policy on clean images shouldn't apply for every image, especially if takes the life from an image and makes it more plastic. Some items have more strength being sterile while others gain their strength from their imperfections.  Acknowledging that, if they haven't already, will give their catalog a better variety.

Just my opinion!

I do relate to what your saying because I'm also a designer!

dbvirago

« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2006, 09:38 »
0
They rejected 26 of my last 30, almost all of which were 'thanks but we are not looking for such images now'. Hitting 60-75% acceptance on other sites. Frustrating

« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2006, 16:55 »
0
I had one image rejected for "too dark".  I lighten it just a bit (though I think the whites  became too white) and then I got the "lack of detail" rejection.

This is the original version approved at FT: 


tdoes,

I also think the problem with yours was the isolation, the edges around it are a bit odd.  There was a step-by-step procedure here some time ago for editor isolation that worked very well.

paperboy,

I have used two lights in some subjects, now I bought a third one (and I'm talking about ordinary lamps), but I'm still struggling to find a good material to diffuse the light on reflective surfaces.  I bought a kind of tissue used for art restoration (it looks a lot like lens tissue), but it still haven't solved the problem.

Regards,
Adelaide

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2006, 20:47 »
0
A material you may wish to try is the diffusion film used on theatrical spotlights.  You can get it at most theatrical supply stores.  Fairly inexpensive.  It comes in 2' to 3' square sheets and is very heat resistant so can be used with most any type of light.  It can be combined with different colored gels to get most any lighting effect you desire and to get greater diffusion, combine multiple clear sheets.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3005 Views
Last post January 31, 2008, 16:20
by photojay
13 Replies
5039 Views
Last post August 13, 2008, 08:53
by epantha
15 Replies
4901 Views
Last post November 18, 2008, 19:49
by madelaide
2 Replies
2657 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 13:30
by hroe
6 Replies
3391 Views
Last post April 09, 2009, 01:43
by marcbkk

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle