MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejected Istock image - advice please.  (Read 23803 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #75 on: September 22, 2010, 15:03 »
0
It should be brighter, just a bit more saturated, and with a little bit more contrast.

Thank you for taking the time to give me a visual example. :-)

Your edited example really surprised, because on a colour corrected monitor, the first image is actually the correct colours.

So istock like you to overemphasize the colour?

I don't know how you colour calibrated your monitor but I believe you. However, on all my cheap UNcalibrated monitors (I tried on a desktop pc, a laptop and an internet tablet), the second one looks better. Maybe a lot of ordinary people - including many designers - are using pretty ordinary monitors and a bit of saturation and contrast helps.

Microstock is fiction.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 15:07 by microstockphoto.co.uk »


« Reply #76 on: September 22, 2010, 15:19 »
0
It should be brighter, just a bit more saturated, and with a little bit more contrast.

Thank you for taking the time to give me a visual example. :-)

Your edited example really surprised, because on a colour corrected monitor, the first image is actually the correct colours.

So istock like you to overemphasize the colour?



I don't know how you colour calibrated your monitor but I believe you. However, on all my cheap UNcalibrated monitors (I tried on a desktop pc, a laptop and an internet tablet), the second one looks better. Maybe a lot of ordinary people - including many designers - are using pretty ordinary monitors and a bit of saturation and contrast helps.

Microstock is fiction.

Or maybe stock photography has disabled people to being able to see a normal image as correct because they are used to looking at oversaturated images all the time? ;-)

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #77 on: September 22, 2010, 15:28 »
0
It should be brighter, just a bit more saturated, and with a little bit more contrast.

Thank you for taking the time to give me a visual example. :-)

Your edited example really surprised, because on a colour corrected monitor, the first image is actually the correct colours.

So istock like you to overemphasize the colour?



I don't know how you colour calibrated your monitor but I believe you. However, on all my cheap UNcalibrated monitors (I tried on a desktop pc, a laptop and an internet tablet), the second one looks better. Maybe a lot of ordinary people - including many designers - are using pretty ordinary monitors and a bit of saturation and contrast helps.

Microstock is fiction.

Or maybe stock photography has disabled people to being able to see a normal image as correct because they are used to looking at oversaturated images all the time? ;-)

Yes, too. Exactly what I meant with "Microstock is fiction": they want it more than real.

« Reply #78 on: September 22, 2010, 17:03 »
0


Or maybe stock photography has disabled people to being able to see a normal image as correct because they are used to looking at oversaturated images all the time? ;-)

Yes, too. Exactly what I meant with "Microstock is fiction": they want it more than real.

I will remember that statement.

Microstock is fiction...

It is now beginning to make sense.

« Reply #79 on: September 22, 2010, 18:31 »
0


Or maybe stock photography has disabled people to being able to see a normal image as correct because they are used to looking at oversaturated images all the time? ;-)

Yes, too. Exactly what I meant with "Microstock is fiction": they want it more than real.

I will remember that statement.

Microstock is fiction...

It is now beginning to make sense.

Ok some pictures with some well done photoshop (not a lot of processing..) are going to have a lot more sales.. I actually believe that I don't sell more because of that.. I don't edit nothing.. Just on panoramics shoots maybe.. just do some basic cloning, healing, align horizon (simple stuff..).. all my shoots are straight from camera..! a pro photoshop guy will earn a lot more in microstock.. I just dont have the patience to do it.. the keywording is already a pain so :P

« Reply #80 on: September 23, 2010, 04:44 »
0


Or maybe stock photography has disabled people to being able to see a normal image as correct because they are used to looking at oversaturated images all the time? ;-)

Yes, too. Exactly what I meant with "Microstock is fiction": they want it more than real.

I will remember that statement.

Microstock is fiction...

It is now beginning to make sense.

Ok some pictures with some well done photoshop (not a lot of processing..) are going to have a lot more sales.. I actually believe that I don't sell more because of that.. I don't edit nothing.. Just on panoramics shoots maybe.. just do some basic cloning, healing, align horizon (simple stuff..).. all my shoots are straight from camera..! a pro photoshop guy will earn a lot more in microstock.. I just dont have the patience to do it.. the keywording is already a pain so :P

I think you are right about the photoshop element. :-)

« Reply #81 on: September 23, 2010, 04:49 »
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.


I went through lighting 101 last night.

I believe you have answered my prayers possibly.

If I have a set up of 4 strobes, I can evenly blow out the background, diffuse some light off the ceiling and diffuse some front light through an umbrella.

I am now looking at buying two more strobes, some radio triggers and barn doors etc.

That should give me the control over light that I need.

The daylight lamps are not suitable for really controlling light the way I need.

The biggest blessing is that the link you have provided has shown me a way of doing this (adding 2 more flashes), for under 200.00 which I would have thought impossible!

Your link really helped and I appreciated your constructive advice.


Mark :-)

« Reply #82 on: September 23, 2010, 18:04 »
0
Also keep in mind that when it comes to microstock, images that tend to sell well are either isolated on white or they are in their own environment. An example would be a plate of food would do well isolated on white or on a nice table with silverware, a linen napkin, etc.  Microstock is indeed fiction. The images that sell the best are the perfectly red apple that you would never really find in the grocery store.

Another example is think about fast food photos. When you go into Burger King the whopper looks absolutely perfect, with water droplets on the slice of tomato and everything on the burger was strategically placed. The "perfect" photo makes you want to buy one. You know in reality though when you order it, it will not look like the picture. Hope this helps!

« Reply #83 on: September 24, 2010, 04:28 »
0
Also keep in mind that when it comes to microstock, images that tend to sell well are either isolated on white or they are in their own environment. An example would be a plate of food would do well isolated on white or on a nice table with silverware, a linen napkin, etc.  Microstock is indeed fiction. The images that sell the best are the perfectly red apple that you would never really find in the grocery store.

Another example is think about fast food photos. When you go into Burger King the whopper looks absolutely perfect, with water droplets on the slice of tomato and everything on the burger was strategically placed. The "perfect" photo makes you want to buy one. You know in reality though when you order it, it will not look like the picture. Hope this helps!

It does, thank you.

Now the next question is, is there anywhere where you can sell "natural images"?

« Reply #84 on: September 24, 2010, 05:27 »
0
The real problem is that we are barely in touch with reality at all. We filter out just about all experience that isn't important or isn't dramatic. Can you remember what the last dozen strangers you passed in the street look like? What building is five doors down from your place of work (if you don't work from home)? To make an impression something has to be out of the ordinary. Everyday reality is irrelevant and uninteresting. Who wants to buy images of that?

« Reply #85 on: September 24, 2010, 05:37 »
0
The real problem is that we are barely in touch with reality at all. We filter out just about all experience that isn't important or isn't dramatic. Can you remember what the last dozen strangers you passed in the street look like? What building is five doors down from your place of work (if you don't work from home)? To make an impression something has to be out of the ordinary. Everyday reality is irrelevant and uninteresting. Who wants to buy images of that?

But have you considered that life is what it is in the colours it is?

And those colours themselves reflect mood, experience and often our spiritual connection with those things around us.

The problem with stock imagery that I see immediately, is that it creating a plastic view of reality.

Think of your favourite images that you have seen.

Was it on istock?

Maybe the marketers demand for plasticity has driven the "life" out of stock photography, where it becomes little more than a formula to drive some sales driven ideology, rather than a sharing of creative expression...

I would say, do not sacrifice creativity for plasticity in our photography...

« Reply #86 on: September 24, 2010, 05:59 »
0
I would say, do not sacrifice creativity for plasticity in our photography...

I would say, concentrate on taking shots you can print out and put on your wall.   Because, for the nth time, you're not grasping how this whole thing works, practically.

« Reply #87 on: September 24, 2010, 06:13 »
0
I would say, do not sacrifice creativity for plasticity in our photography...

I would say, concentrate on taking shots you can print out and put on your wall.   Because, for the nth time, you're not grasping how this whole thing works, practically.

How about this:

Stock photography is based on taking images that the marketing sectors or groups want to use to promote themes or ideological viewpoints.

It is about anticipating and meeting the needs of the commercial sector in a broader sense so that an image can be used multiple times.

It is about marketing, and meeting the needs of marketing.

Do I now have right to take some images and upload them to istock? :-)

You should also probably look at how other people have responded to newbie questions, as so far you have displayed a lack of ability in how to communicate effectively with someone new to the market, others have not failed and seem to know how to use the newbie boards correctly.

They have been helpful and positive.

If you consider your time too valuable for newbies then can I suggest you keep your time to yourself? :-)

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #88 on: September 24, 2010, 06:23 »
0
From a theoretical point of view, photography cannot be reality, it's just a bidimentional representation of reality, influenced by the photographer's point of view and a lot of technical choices.

Given it's not reality, 'natural' doesn't make sense.

It follows that we must find the best possible representation for a defined goal. Which is different for stock, art, journalism, etc...

Also, to compensate for the lack of tridimensionality, motion and other sensations that are present in reality but not in its photographic representation, an intentionally exagerated (colour/saturation) picture can be a better representation of reality than a so-called 'natural' one.

Furthermore, a lot of transformations are already happening in-camera - especially if not shooting raw - so why should a machine be allowed to edit and not us?

Then, if this results in a 'plastic' look, it's just something went wrong during photoediting - not a reason against editing.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 06:30 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #89 on: September 24, 2010, 06:24 »
0
Stock photography is based on taking images that the marketing sectors or groups want to use to promote themes or ideological viewpoints.

It is about anticipating and meeting the needs of the commercial sector in a broader sense so that an image can be used multiple times.

It is about marketing, and meeting the needs of marketing.

You can type out the words, but for some reason, you seem intent on producing "natural images" of, presumably, some antiques that will not sell in any considerable volume to make it worth the time to produce.

How about you do your best to go out and shoot a good commercial concept, even with lighting or composition flaws, and then come back for ideas on how to improve?

rubyroo

« Reply #90 on: September 24, 2010, 06:31 »
0
It doesn't really matter what *we* think, or what *we* want.  We can all produce to our heart's content images that personally satisfy our soul - and that's fine.  However, if you want to succeed in microstock, what you produce has to be:

1.  Something that the agencies will accept

and

2.  Something that buyers are going to buy

The first thing you have to do is get the agencies to accept your work.  We all have had to go through the learning curve to find out how to do that.  Even traditional stock shooters of 30 years plus experience have stated that they found the microstock criteria challenging.

Once you have that mastered, you can work out what people are most likely to buy.

Once you have both of these mastered, they become the parameters within which you either work to a completely commercial objective - just producing what will sell, regardless - or you try to stretch yourself to weave in the kind of work that is more deeply satisfying to you - but still within those parameters.  If we all just do what we want and work outside those parameters, then essentially we'll all spend our lives in this forum asking why our work keeps getting rejected.   ;)

Hope that helps.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2010, 06:33 by rubyroo »

« Reply #91 on: September 24, 2010, 06:39 »
0
From a theoretical point of view, photography cannot be reality, it's just a bidimentional representation of reality, influenced by the photographer's point of view and a lot of technical choices.

Given it's not reality, 'natural' doesn't make sense.

It follows that we must find the best possible representation for a defined goal. Which is different for stock, art, journalism, etc...

Also, to compensate for the lack of tridimensionality, motion and other sensations that are present in reality but not in its photographic representation, an intentionally exagerated (colour/saturation) picture can be a better representation of reality than a so-called 'natural' one.

Furthermore, a lot of transformations are already happening in-camera - especially if not shooting raw - so why should a machine be allowed to edit and not us?

Then, if this results in a 'plastic' look, it's just something went wrong during photoediting - not a reason against editing.

Interesting thoughts, some good points.  :-)


« Reply #92 on: September 24, 2010, 06:41 »
0
Stock photography is based on taking images that the marketing sectors or groups want to use to promote themes or ideological viewpoints.

It is about anticipating and meeting the needs of the commercial sector in a broader sense so that an image can be used multiple times.

It is about marketing, and meeting the needs of marketing.

You can type out the words, but for some reason, you seem intent on producing "natural images" of, presumably, some antiques that will not sell in any considerable volume to make it worth the time to produce.

How about you do your best to go out and shoot a good commercial concept, even with lighting or composition flaws, and then come back for ideas on how to improve?

It is my intention how to learn to take good stock. Hence this discussion.

My experience so far has been in producing accurate images, which I am learning is not "stock".

« Reply #93 on: September 24, 2010, 06:42 »
0
It doesn't really matter what *we* think, or what *we* want.  We can all produce to our heart's content images that personally satisfy our soul - and that's fine.  However, if you want to succeed in microstock, what you produce has to be:

1.  Something that the agencies will accept

and

2.  Something that buyers are going to buy

The first thing you have to do is get the agencies to accept your work.  We all have had to go through the learning curve to find out how to do that.  Even traditional stock shooters of 30 years plus experience have stated that they found the microstock criteria challenging.

Once you have that mastered, you can work out what people are most likely to buy.

Once you have both of these mastered, they become the parameters within which you either work to a completely commercial objective - just producing what will sell, regardless - or you try to stretch yourself to weave in the kind of work that is more deeply satisfying to you - but still within those parameters.  If we all just do what we want and work outside those parameters, then essentially we'll all spend our lives in this forum asking why our work keeps getting rejected.   ;)

Hope that helps.

It does, thank you. :-)

bittersweet

« Reply #94 on: September 24, 2010, 08:02 »
0
I thought the whole point was to allow space for writing etc?

As everyone else has tried to explain, the technical is not the only consideration when creating good stock.

You need to try to get a basic understanding of the design process, and then try to think like a designer. I am a designer, and setting aside lighting issues, here are some possibilities of what I might think when I came across either of these images in a search:

"Hmm... they've left copy space, but I need a vertical image."
"I guess I could extend the background to create vertical, but there is very little chance that I want to flood the background of anything with this dull gray color, and because it is not a flat gray, the extension is going to look fake anyway unless I spend a whole lot of time on it."
"I wish this had a clipping path so that I could more easily use the background of my choosing."
"I could create my own clipping path... but I'm on a tight deadline, so I think I just download this other image with the white background and/or clipping path because it will SAVE ME TIME."

I'm being generous here, because I really wouldn't have hesitated to think so long on the photos unless they were something really unique that I really needed and for which I couldn't easily find a suitable replacement.

Unless the subject matter is truly exceptional, a designer is much more likely to choose the image that creates the least amount of extra work for him/her ... the image that can be dropped effortlessly into whatever design is being created.

Once you get past the "artistic" and start focusing on the "useful", you'll have progressed a long way in the right direction. For simple object shots, leave the artistic to the designers. :)

« Reply #95 on: September 24, 2010, 08:56 »
0
I thought the whole point was to allow space for writing etc?

As everyone else has tried to explain, the technical is not the only consideration when creating good stock.

You need to try to get a basic understanding of the design process, and then try to think like a designer. I am a designer, and setting aside lighting issues, here are some possibilities of what I might think when I came across either of these images in a search:

"Hmm... they've left copy space, but I need a vertical image."
"I guess I could extend the background to create vertical, but there is very little chance that I want to flood the background of anything with this dull gray color, and because it is not a flat gray, the extension is going to look fake anyway unless I spend a whole lot of time on it."
"I wish this had a clipping path so that I could more easily use the background of my choosing."
"I could create my own clipping path... but I'm on a tight deadline, so I think I just download this other image with the white background and/or clipping path because it will SAVE ME TIME."

I'm being generous here, because I really wouldn't have hesitated to think so long on the photos unless they were something really unique that I really needed and for which I couldn't easily find a suitable replacement.

Unless the subject matter is truly exceptional, a designer is much more likely to choose the image that creates the least amount of extra work for him/her ... the image that can be dropped effortlessly into whatever design is being created.

Once you get past the "artistic" and start focusing on the "useful", you'll have progressed a long way in the right direction. For simple object shots, leave the artistic to the designers. :)

That makes sense, thank you. :-)

« Reply #96 on: September 24, 2010, 08:59 »
0
I also have the option of resubmitting some of my images, but I think I will try to get the hang of shooting on a blown out background and take new images.

Just waiting for the equipment to arrive now.

I have found that trying to use daylight continous bulbs, gives me very little control over the light.

I am hoping switching to strobes with barn doors etc, will give me more control over the lighting.

« Reply #97 on: September 24, 2010, 09:06 »
0
I would say, do not sacrifice creativity for plasticity in our photography...

I would say, concentrate on taking shots you can print out and put on your wall.   Because, for the nth time, you're not grasping how this whole thing works, practically.

How about this:

Stock photography is based on taking images that the marketing sectors or groups want to use to promote themes or ideological viewpoints.

It is about anticipating and meeting the needs of the commercial sector in a broader sense so that an image can be used multiple times.

It is about marketing, and meeting the needs of marketing.

Do I now have right to take some images and upload them to istock? :-)

You should also probably look at how other people have responded to newbie questions, as so far you have displayed a lack of ability in how to communicate effectively with someone new to the market, others have not failed and seem to know how to use the newbie boards correctly.

They have been helpful and positive.

If you consider your time too valuable for newbies then can I suggest you keep your time to yourself? :-)

I love this. Some newbie who can barely use a camera tries to give a lesson on microstock to Sean J Locke  ::)

Mtimber - FYI Sean is probably the most helpful guy out there and is a very frequent contributor to IS's Help forum. You should be grateful for any words of wisdom he bestows upon you. When Sean speaks your job is to shut-up, listen, take note and then thank him.

« Reply #98 on: September 24, 2010, 09:39 »
0
I would say, do not sacrifice creativity for plasticity in our photography...

I would say, concentrate on taking shots you can print out and put on your wall.   Because, for the nth time, you're not grasping how this whole thing works, practically.

How about this:

Stock photography is based on taking images that the marketing sectors or groups want to use to promote themes or ideological viewpoints.

It is about anticipating and meeting the needs of the commercial sector in a broader sense so that an image can be used multiple times.

It is about marketing, and meeting the needs of marketing.

Do I now have right to take some images and upload them to istock? :-)

You should also probably look at how other people have responded to newbie questions, as so far you have displayed a lack of ability in how to communicate effectively with someone new to the market, others have not failed and seem to know how to use the newbie boards correctly.

They have been helpful and positive.

If you consider your time too valuable for newbies then can I suggest you keep your time to yourself? :-)

I love this. Some newbie who can barely use a camera tries to give a lesson on microstock to Sean J Locke  ::)

Mtimber - FYI Sean is probably the most helpful guy out there and is a very frequent contributor to IS's Help forum. You should be grateful for any words of wisdom he bestows upon you. When Sean speaks your job is to shut-up, listen, take note and then thank him.

I do not need or want help from anyone who has not learned basic civility to another human being.

Just because someone is proficient in something, does not give them the automatic right to be rude and condescending.

That is not the type of "help" I require.

And as this is a board for newbies, anyone that cannot handle newbie questions, should concentrate their efforts elsewhere in my opinion.

Plenty of posters here have given valuable constructive advice and they get my respect.

Rudeness does not get my respect no matter how proficient someone is in a given field of knowledge.

« Reply #99 on: September 24, 2010, 09:44 »
0
I'm terribly sorry I didn't take enough time out of my day to research your sensibilities and compose an appropriate response that would not irritate you.  I shall retreat to my hovel to count my downloads whilst you prepare yet another still life of random antiquities to take the world by storm.


 

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
2356 Views
Last post January 29, 2017, 16:59
by Lecaro
1 Replies
1167 Views
Last post December 10, 2018, 11:21
by Not Today

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results