MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejected Istock image - advice please.  (Read 23831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2010, 07:44 »
0
This shot probably would be considered an isolation which the background is normally white. So, if a designer needs to add more white space they just expand the background and add more white. They could probably still expand the background with this image if  there's a little space so there's no reason for all of the extra space.
Could you explain what a designer might use this image for?
Trying to understand your point here. :-)
As it is on a graduated backdrop, it is not supposed to be a blown out background.
I pictured the space being used for text etc.
It is aimed at a certain segment of the market that needs and uses images of Antiques. :-)

My point is that you have created something that is so specific (rows of stacked antique cups leaning over) that a designer would need to be looking for that specific image in order for it to be useful. Are stacked antique cups in rows of three leaning over popular somewhere in the world? Like is this a traditional holiday scene somewhere? If not, then even if this does get accepted I'm guessing it will never sell or at best a couple times.

You may want to simplify the scene and do an isolation so it appeals to a wider range of buyers.

Yoy may very well have a fair point, which I will consider.

But people do want specific images of antiques, to use in publications.

Therefore an interesting shot, a generic shot, may be of value to people.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?


« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2010, 07:47 »
0
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?

Hmm __ it is a distinct possibility.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2010, 08:09 »
0
This shot probably would be considered an isolation which the background is normally white. So, if a designer needs to add more white space they just expand the background and add more white. They could probably still expand the background with this image if  there's a little space so there's no reason for all of the extra space.
Could you explain what a designer might use this image for?
Trying to understand your point here. :-)
As it is on a graduated backdrop, it is not supposed to be a blown out background.
I pictured the space being used for text etc.
It is aimed at a certain segment of the market that needs and uses images of Antiques. :-)

My point is that you have created something that is so specific (rows of stacked antique cups leaning over) that a designer would need to be looking for that specific image in order for it to be useful. Are stacked antique cups in rows of three leaning over popular somewhere in the world? Like is this a traditional holiday scene somewhere? If not, then even if this does get accepted I'm guessing it will never sell or at best a couple times.

You may want to simplify the scene and do an isolation so it appeals to a wider range of buyers.

Yoy may very well have a fair point, which I will consider.

But people do want specific images of antiques, to use in publications.

Therefore an interesting shot, a generic shot, may be of value to people.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?

The point of stock is to sell images. "Interesting" is subjective and doesn't necessarily mean sellable or valuable.

« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2010, 08:51 »
0
But people do want specific images of antiques, to use in publications.

Therefore an interesting shot, a generic shot, may be of value to people.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?

In microstock world you should think about wide audiences. Images of specific antiquities would be much better sold as RM, for exemple at Alamy. One RM sale may earn you enough money, while 2 or 3 microstock sales propably won't. And I can't see these images to be downloaded much more times than that.

You have also problems with levels. And your cropping too; in the first image you have included lots of copy space on the right, yet you have cropped very tightly in the other directions, especially in the top.

« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2010, 09:14 »
0
But people do want specific images of antiques, to use in publications.

Therefore an interesting shot, a generic shot, may be of value to people.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?

In microstock world you should think about wide audiences. Images of specific antiquities would be much better sold as RM, for exemple at Alamy. One RM sale may earn you enough money, while 2 or 3 microstock sales propably won't. And I can't see these images to be downloaded much more times than that.

You have also problems with levels. And your cropping too; in the first image you have included lots of copy space on the right, yet you have cropped very tightly in the other directions, especially in the top.

Isn't it also the case though, that you should not go fishing with a dragnet?

« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2010, 09:16 »
0
My primary focus at this point is to get to the technical level where my photo's will be acceptable.

The psychology of stock may take me a little while longer to grasp...

But if I cannot even get a photo accepted (18 out of 18 just rejected), then it is all a moot point. :-)

Mark

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2010, 09:46 »
0
I was going to answer with a detailed explanation but you don't seem to be hearing much of the advice being given here. And you're even disputing some of it.

How successful can someone be who only learns from what they want to hear...

« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2010, 09:50 »
0
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?

Hmm __ it is a distinct possibility.

I'd have to agree.

« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2010, 11:34 »
0
I was going to answer with a detailed explanation but you don't seem to be hearing much of the advice being given here. And you're even disputing some of it.

How successful can someone be who only learns from what they want to hear...

I assure you I am here to learn. :-)

My point is that I first have to gain the skills to get the technical standard correct.

I submitted these pictures knowing they would probably be thrown out, so that I could learn from them.

What I was querying, is a position that maintained that niche photography has no place on stock photography.


The reason I query this, is because I have another business where niche is very important, even in a very large trading area.

I am now interested in different responses so that I can learn from them.

I have also learned that it is often difficult to get 3 experts to agree on anything...

But listening to three experts will give you a balanced view.

Mark :-)

« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2010, 11:37 »
0
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?

Hmm __ it is a distinct possibility.

I'd have to agree.

So then offer some constructive advice...

« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2010, 11:38 »
0
Not very welcoming here is it?

« Reply #36 on: September 19, 2010, 11:40 »
0
I do appreciate dreamfarers help and others that have offered constructive criticism however.

:-)

« Reply #37 on: September 19, 2010, 11:47 »
0
So then offer some constructive advice...

Ok then. Go to Amazon and buy some books about microstock. You are currently so far behind the curve that you are basically wasting your time and ours.

« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2010, 11:51 »
0
So then offer some constructive advice...

Ok then. Go to Amazon and buy some books about microstock. You are currently so far behind the curve that you are basically wasting your time and ours.

That may well be so.

But that does not excuse your rude attitude...

« Reply #39 on: September 19, 2010, 11:55 »
0
Please remember folks.

There is a distinct difference between someone querying advice to understand it and someone not listening to advice...

« Reply #40 on: September 19, 2010, 13:52 »
0
Okay, here's some useful and friendly advice:

It's great that you want to 'up your game' in terms of technical quality - that should be everyone's goal whether they want to make money from their images or not. A big problem for you, as I see it, is that you're doing so by making imagery that has minimal commercial value and then trying to add it to the catalog of an agency that specializes in commercial imagery. See the problem here? You're currently heading down a long road where, at the end, your image-making skills will be much better than they are now, but you'll be really frustrated by your high rejection rate and low earnings - you'll undoubtedly be one of those who says "Microstock isn't worth it - too much effort, too little pay. There's no way anyone can make money doing this.", and that's not a place where you want to be.

« Reply #41 on: September 19, 2010, 14:02 »
0
Okay, here's some useful and friendly advice:

It's great that you want to 'up your game' in terms of technical quality - that should be everyone's goal whether they want to make money from their images or not. A big problem for you, as I see it, is that you're doing so by making imagery that has minimal commercial value and then trying to add it to the catalog of an agency that specializes in commercial imagery. See the problem here? You're currently heading down a long road where, at the end, your image-making skills will be much better than they are now, but you'll be really frustrated by your high rejection rate and low earnings - you'll undoubtedly be one of those who says "Microstock isn't worth it - too much effort, too little pay. There's no way anyone can make money doing this.", and that's not a place where you want to be.

I hear what you are saying. :-)

And it may well be that microstock is not the place for me.

But Istocks high standards will get my photo's technically proficient very quickly and that is my focus at the moment.

Once I have the technical side up, then I can start researching the science of stock photography in terms of marketable images.

I started my last busines with no knowledge whatsoever, which is a very in depth business.

And I learned to take everything one step at a time.

Hence my focus at the moment on learning all I need to get an image technically correct.

You have to show a child how to hold the pen before you teach them to write their name... :-)

I do however appreciate your thoughts and I will store that up for the next hurdle...


Mark :-)


« Reply #42 on: September 19, 2010, 14:50 »
0
Just know that commercial viability always trumps technical quality. If an image has technical flaws but is of superior commercial quality it just might be accepted, and if it's accepted it will sell. A technically superior image with minimal commercial value will likely be rejected - and even if it is accepted it probably won't sell. The whole point of submitting images to commercial agencies is to make money, and if you're not concerned with making money then you're missing the point, and will likely be wasting your time.

You are making a serious mistake by concentrating solely on the technical aspects of your image-making. If you choose to concentrate on only one aspect at a time, you'll be further ahead by adapting what and how you shoot to the commercial marketplace rather than jumping in to the technical "pixel-peeping" aspect of things.

« Reply #43 on: September 19, 2010, 14:58 »
0
Just know that commercial viability always trumps technical quality. If an image has technical flaws but is of superior commercial quality it just might be accepted, and if it's accepted it will sell. A technically superior image with minimal commercial value will likely be rejected - and even if it is accepted it probably won't sell. The whole point of submitting images to commercial agencies is to make money, and if you're not concerned with making money then you're missing the point, and will likely be wasting your time.

You are making a serious mistake by concentrating solely on the technical aspects of your image-making. If you choose to concentrate on only one aspect at a time, you'll be further ahead by adapting what and how you shoot to the commercial marketplace rather than jumping in to the technical "pixel-peeping" aspect of things.

Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?

« Reply #44 on: September 19, 2010, 15:05 »
0
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?

Google my name.

vonkara

« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2010, 15:09 »
0
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?


Google my name.


 :D A obvious answer     
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 15:13 by Vonkara »

« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2010, 15:15 »
0
:D A obvious answer     


Geez, you could've at least used one of my  images! (wink)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2010, 15:16 »
0
Not very welcoming here is it?


Mark,

In case you haven't noticed istock recently made some major changes that have a good percentage of their contributors anywhere from unhappy to enraged. You're not likely to find too many people that are happy to help with anything related to istock.

Also, as Sharply said so very well, you're going about this the wrong way. People are trying to give you guidance and you're insisting on focusing on only one factor and asking for a lot of handholding on some 101 level stuff. This probably isn't really helping you win any points for the warm welcome committee.

You may want to try the istock critique forum which is intended to help people with rejections.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 15:19 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2010, 15:19 »
0
You're missing the point, and will likely be wasting your time.

Not just your time, but the reviewer's as well.  If you try to use an agency's review process as a critique partner, you stand a good chance of pissing them off long before you achieve your goal.  What if they decide you're costing them money with your not-ready-for-prime-time images and begin rejecting you out of hand?  What if they go further and ban you for your abuse of the system?  I hold no love for iStock, but I wouldn't blame them if they saw you as a drain on resources with no upside and told you to go away and never come back.  I would.

« Reply #49 on: September 19, 2010, 15:21 »
0
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?

Google my name.

Good shots.

But what stops someone copying your niche?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2497 Views
Last post August 25, 2011, 19:18
by deyu16
15 Replies
3346 Views
Last post August 20, 2015, 01:33
by Pauws99
0 Replies
1139 Views
Last post May 20, 2016, 06:41
by suz7
5 Replies
2361 Views
Last post January 29, 2017, 16:59
by Lecaro
1 Replies
1186 Views
Last post December 10, 2018, 11:21
by Not Today

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results