pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejected Istock image - advice please.  (Read 23802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 19, 2010, 15:23 »
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.


I am listening folks. :-)

I have just been absorbed in trying to figure out exatly what istock wants technically.

I am storing up the other points and appreciate them.


« Reply #51 on: September 19, 2010, 15:28 »
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.

I disagree.

Istock have already accepted me, now there is a learning curve I have to go on, that they themselves make plain, that everyone who starts stock photography has to go on.

That is the system istock and the other agencies use.

It is there game, their rules and I am playing it their way.

Simple logic is that once I can get my images on istock they are acceptable everywhere.


And I have already invested 16,000 in equipment and software just to get into this game.

So be assured I take this seriously...

« Reply #52 on: September 19, 2010, 15:29 »
0
If stock photography makes everyone this grumpy, I might have to review my decision...

 ;)

« Reply #53 on: September 19, 2010, 15:32 »
0
Good shots.

But what stops someone copying your niche?

Nothing ... I have plenty of competitors, and just because I'm successful now doesn't mean I always will be. I'm always keeping an eye on my competition and looking for ways to improve what it is I do - my livelihood depends on it!

« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2010, 15:35 »
0
If stock photography makes everyone this grumpy, I might have to review my decision...

 ;)

Either that or your mindset: By posting questions here you are in effect asking your direct competitors to help you compete against them better. Some people will be better at this than others, but (just about) everyone who bothers to respond does so with a genuine helping hand.

« Reply #55 on: September 19, 2010, 15:41 »
0
Good shots.

But what stops someone copying your niche?

Nothing ... I have plenty of competitors, and just because I'm successful now doesn't mean I always will be. I'm always keeping an eye on my competition and looking for ways to improve what it is I do - my livelihood depends on it!

The best niches are the ones everyone else misses...

Or the niches they cannot get access to.

That is the same in every business.

« Reply #56 on: September 19, 2010, 15:42 »
0
... Simple logic is that once I can get my images on istock they are acceptable everywhere.

Not necessarily - just because one agency accepts an image dosn't mean another one will.
And just because an image sells well at one agency doesn't mean it'll sell well at others, either.

« Reply #57 on: September 19, 2010, 15:44 »
0
If stock photography makes everyone this grumpy, I might have to review my decision...

 ;)

Either that or your mindset: By posting questions here you are in effect asking your direct competitors to help you compete against them better. Some people will be better at this than others, but (just about) everyone who bothers to respond does so with a genuine helping hand.

I understand you point.

I have been selling full time on Ebay for many years, succesfully I suppose...

I know how online business forums work.

But as this is the forum for "newbies", I would expect to get a little bit of leeway as a "newbie"... :-)

« Reply #58 on: September 19, 2010, 15:47 »
0
... Simple logic is that once I can get my images on istock they are acceptable everywhere.

Not necessarily - just because one agency accepts an image dosn't mean another one will.
And just because an image sells well at one agency doesn't mean it'll sell well at others, either.

I have picked that up from these forums, I have been reading here quite a while. :-)

Which is why I would never go exclusive.

It seems it is best to filter the images through the big agencies, someone somewhere will end up taking your image if it is decent I imagine.

« Reply #59 on: September 19, 2010, 16:08 »
0
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2010, 16:36 by averil »

« Reply #60 on: September 19, 2010, 16:47 »
0
I am nobody at microstock but I can tell you that you need to get what stock really is (do some research on agencies, photos, concepts, style).. then the hard work begins.. it won't be easy to start but you will get there if have some skills (with time they will certainly grow).. the next BIG "problem" is giving better stock photos than the "competitors".. (I think I am in the middle of these two..)

1 - what is stock? (research hard..)
2 - do it very clean and give the best (not easy)
3 - work........!

but I can tell you that reaching sharply ain't easy... :P (I am not talking about the niche but the HIGH quality photos he can deliver..)

« Reply #61 on: September 19, 2010, 17:16 »
0
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.

I am working on the lighting at the moment.

I am thinking of backlighting off of a white background and then bouncing the front with a white reflector.

I can see now that many of my images had lots of hot spots in them, which I need to figure out how to get around.

« Reply #62 on: September 19, 2010, 17:19 »
0
I am nobody at microstock but I can tell you that you need to get what stock really is (do some research on agencies, photos, concepts, style).. then the hard work begins.. it won't be easy to start but you will get there if have some skills (with time they will certainly grow).. the next BIG "problem" is giving better stock photos than the "competitors".. (I think I am in the middle of these two..)

1 - what is stock? (research hard..)
2 - do it very clean and give the best (not easy)
3 - work........!

but I can tell you that reaching sharply ain't easy... :P (I am not talking about the niche but the HIGH quality photos he can deliver..)

We built a worldwide antiques business from scratch, with no prior knowledge.

That sort of gives us a background in determination. :-)

The quickest way to learn is from our mistakes, so we are not frightened of getting it wrong...

« Reply #63 on: September 19, 2010, 17:25 »
0
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.

I am working on the lighting at the moment.

I am thinking of backlighting off of a white background and then bouncing the front with a white reflector

I tried this but found the reflector at the front didn't fill the shadows enough (and it was really close). I now bounce a second light off a very large reflector at front to give more control in filling front shadows without creating additional shadows.

« Reply #64 on: September 19, 2010, 17:31 »
0
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.

I am working on the lighting at the moment.

I am thinking of backlighting off of a white background and then bouncing the front with a white reflector

I tried this but found the reflector at the front didn't fill the shadows enough (and it was really close). I now bounce a second light off a very large reflector at front to give more control in filling front shadows without creating additional shadows.

My problem is that I do not have a great deal of space to work in unfortunately.

So to get a very large bounce panel in place is going to be difficult.

Also getting around the problem of reflection of the camera and tripod itself on circular shiny objects is not simple it seems...

I have watched some videos on the internet, but they tend to use objects with flat faces.

Now I know it can be done as others are doing it.

Will have to research some more I think.

« Reply #65 on: September 19, 2010, 17:37 »
0

We built a worldwide antiques business from scratch, with no prior knowledge.

That sort of gives us a background in determination. :-)

The quickest way to learn is from our mistakes, so we are not frightened of getting it wrong...

When I started I didn't have any knowledge also so everything is possible, hard work get us there sooner or later (depending on what we give to the market..)

« Reply #66 on: September 19, 2010, 18:08 »
0

We built a worldwide antiques business from scratch, with no prior knowledge.

That sort of gives us a background in determination. :-)

The quickest way to learn is from our mistakes, so we are not frightened of getting it wrong...

When I started I didn't have any knowledge also so everything is possible, hard work get us there sooner or later (depending on what we give to the market..)

Thank you for the encouragement. :-)

Mark


« Reply #67 on: September 22, 2010, 12:36 »
0
A further question.

The consensus seems to be that the first shot suffered from "poor lighting".

Could someone please be a little more explicit as to what that actually means in relation to this image?

« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2010, 12:37 »
0
Here is the link again:

http://www.istockphoto.com//file_thumbview_approve/14161415/2/istockphoto_14161415-studio-potter-vases-x3-red-green-blue-b.jpg

Is it the number of highlights that is the issue?

Or is it that it should have more contrast etc?

« Reply #69 on: September 22, 2010, 12:47 »
0
...
Is it the number of highlights that is the issue?
Or is it that it should have more contrast etc?

It's just a dull and lifeless image. There's no 'magic' or 'spark'.
If you can't see what it needs you should travel around the various photo sites (Flickr, Photo.net, digital-photography-school, ...) and look at as many images as you can. Every time you see one that makes you stop and look longer or closer, take a few seconds and ask yourself why that is. Then revisit this image and encorporate some of what you learned.

« Reply #70 on: September 22, 2010, 13:02 »
0
...
Is it the number of highlights that is the issue?
Or is it that it should have more contrast etc?

It's just a dull and lifeless image. There's no 'magic' or 'spark'.
If you can't see what it needs you should travel around the various photo sites (Flickr, Photo.net, digital-photography-school, ...) and look at as many images as you can. Every time you see one that makes you stop and look longer or closer, take a few seconds and ask yourself why that is. Then revisit this image and encorporate some of what you learned.

I accept it is not a particularly inspiring image and not suitable for stock, but that was not the stated rejection point.

I did indeed go and have a look at many of the images of similar items.

At first I thought it might be the light reflections where a little to heavy and numerous (I believe they are). But then I saw plenty of other items that were similar.

So then the only conclusion I can come to, is that the colour needs boosting as initially suggested by one poster and contrast could be deepened.

We take over 200 images a week and they have to be exact representations of the colour of the item.

It would seem that reality of colour has little to do with Stock Photography and I have to just boost colours beyond the natural, which breaks my natural inclination to accuray of image quality...

« Reply #71 on: September 22, 2010, 13:15 »
0
I accept it is not a particularly inspiring image and not suitable for stock, but that was not the stated rejection point.
...

According to what you've already said, the image was indeed rejected for because it was dull and flat:

I forgot to add, it was rejected for these reasons, or one of them at least:
-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance
...

This shouldn't be such a difficult thing to warp your head around. As far as your shots having "exact representations of the colour of the item" goes, that is completely optional. You're not supposed to be making true-to-life images for a catalog, you're supposed to be making images to illustrate or augment a particular concept, so you're allowed to take as many liberties with colour, contrast, shadows, etc. as you need to. For a large part, the people who are good at taking these liberties are successful, and the people who aren't, aren't. Which side of that fence do you want to be on?
 

RacePhoto

« Reply #72 on: September 22, 2010, 13:16 »
0
Ah Ha, say the magic word, Lighting, and win yourself an educational link. :D

http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/

Strobist where you can spend days or a week or longer, learning about lighting, for free.

« Reply #73 on: September 22, 2010, 14:54 »
0


This shouldn't be such a difficult thing to warp your head around. As far as your shots having "exact representations of the colour of the item" goes, that is completely optional. You're not supposed to be making true-to-life images for a catalog, you're supposed to be making images to illustrate or augment a particular concept, so you're allowed to take as many liberties with colour, contrast, shadows, etc. as you need to. For a large part, the people who are good at taking these liberties are successful, and the people who aren't, aren't. Which side of that fence do you want to be on?
 

Thank you, I think that is where I am going wrong. So I am going to try to lift some of the images up a little with colour and contrast.


I have a table top studio, custom built with daylight continous lighting to give me an exact rendition of colours.

I do also have a large softbox, but I have been avoiding using that as I did not want flat images, I may throw some of the glossier items in there, what do you think?

I will be trying to take some liberties...

Mark :-)

PS.

For those that may not have realised, the background is in fact a grey background, it is not a white background, that may also be throwing the images I fear.

« Reply #74 on: September 22, 2010, 14:55 »
0
Ah Ha, say the magic word, Lighting, and win yourself an educational link. :D

http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/

Strobist where you can spend days or a week or longer, learning about lighting, for free.


Thank you for the link, I will have a good read. :-)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2495 Views
Last post August 25, 2011, 19:18
by deyu16
15 Replies
3343 Views
Last post August 20, 2015, 01:33
by Pauws99
0 Replies
1135 Views
Last post May 20, 2016, 06:41
by suz7
5 Replies
2354 Views
Last post January 29, 2017, 16:59
by Lecaro
1 Replies
1165 Views
Last post December 10, 2018, 11:21
by Not Today

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results