MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Newbie Discussion => Topic started by: mtimber on September 16, 2010, 11:13
-
Hi all :-)
I have a rejected image at istock that I would like to learn from:
http://www.istockphoto.com//file_thumbview_approve/14161415/2/istockphoto_14161415-studio-potter-vases-x3-red-green-blue-b.jpg (http://www.istockphoto.com//file_thumbview_approve/14161415/2/istockphoto_14161415-studio-potter-vases-x3-red-green-blue-b.jpg)
This is the rejection reason which I assume is "generic" catch all?
Or are they saying they rejected the image for all those reasons?
Any advice would be appreciated.
On a big learning curve here. :-)
Mark
-
It have no commercial value, that's the big issue. It can be in focus and have a good lightning, I would reject it, because it might never sell IMO
-
It have no commercial value, that's the big issue. It can be in focus and have a good lightning, I would reject it, because it might never sell IMO
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
Which would indicate a lighting issue possibly?
Thank you for taking the time to reply. :-)
-
If the image is dull (sory), they tend to be much more harder at other aspects.
-
If the image is dull (sory), they tend to be much more harder at other aspects.
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
-
There is actually a problem with the flat dull colors and the lightning in the image as well. It look like everything is wrong.
You might have more success if you shoot each of the vases separately and overexpose by around 2 IL. Then adjust the curves using photoshop and use the pen tool to isolate your vases. You could also do some close up and do the same steps using photoshop. Good luck
-
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
No. Being not considered not useful for stock (no stock worthy) is one of the rejection causes stated on their tutorial.
-
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
No. Being not considered not useful for stock (no stock worthy) is one of the rejection causes stated on their tutorial.
It was rejected for lighting, not for lack of stock-worthiness.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a dishonest culture at the company (at the top, anyway). ;D
-
It should be brighter, just a bit more saturated, and with a little bit more contrast.
-
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
Yeah, lightning is flawed.... but my point is that if the photo is very stock worthy or with and art edge, they can bit a bit lenient at technical flaws, for what I've read.
In other words: if the photo was of two planes collidinfg in flight, a bit of noise wouldn't be such a problem. In my opinion.
-
There is actually a problem with the flat dull colors and the lightning in the image as well. It look like everything is wrong.
You might have more success if you shoot each of the vases separately and overexpose by around 2 IL. Then adjust the curves using photoshop and use the pen tool to isolate your vases. You could also do some close up and do the same steps using photoshop. Good luck
Thank you :-)
Why would I want to shoot these individually?
I do not understand your recommendation. :-)
-
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
Thank you. :-)
No. Being not considered not useful for stock (no stock worthy) is one of the rejection causes stated on their tutorial.
-
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
No. Being not considered not useful for stock (no stock worthy) is one of the rejection causes stated on their tutorial.
It was rejected for lighting, not for lack of stock-worthiness.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a dishonest culture at the company (at the top, anyway). ;D
What would you say was wrong with the lighting?
-
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?
-
Thank you all for your help so far.
I am here to learn from those that know more than me and I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience.
Mark :-)
-
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 is your monitor is calibrated, but first, you have to check the histogram of your original image. You will notice that your graph is empty on the right side, which means your image is underexposed. Sometimes, the graph can be blank on the right, but in this case not, because the background of the image is white. Yes, I boosted colors a bit, You don't have to do it so much, but you must do it a little, because your image is all greyish and a bit dull. Increase the contract to correct this, but watch not to make color banding on that white-gray gradient.
And yes, if you take a look at best selling IS images you will notice they all have saturated colors. Although IS says your images must look natural, I advice you to take a look at best selling images and decide yourself. The main point is not to ruin the quality of the image, or to make artifacts.
-
I don't know is your monitor is calibrated, but first, you have to check the histogram of your original image. You will notice that your graph is empty on the right side, which means your image is underexposed. Sometimes, the graph can be blank on the right, but in this case not, because the background of the image is white. Yes, I boosted colors a bit, You don't have to do it so much, but you must do it a little, because your image is all greyish and a bit dull. Increase the contract to correct this, but watch not to make color banding on that white-gray gradient.
And yes, if you take a look at best selling IS images you will notice they all have saturated colors. Although IS says your images must look natural, I advice you to take a look at best selling images and decide yourself. The main point is not to ruin the quality of the image, or to make artifacts.
I checked the histogram and although not pushed up hard to the right, it is heavily into the right. If I over expose when taking the shot, then I will just blow the whites out surely?
:-)
-
I don't know is your monitor is calibrated, but first, you have to check the histogram of your original image. You will notice that your graph is empty on the right side, which means your image is underexposed. Sometimes, the graph can be blank on the right, but in this case not, because the background of the image is white. Yes, I boosted colors a bit, You don't have to do it so much, but you must do it a little, because your image is all greyish and a bit dull. Increase the contract to correct this, but watch not to make color banding on that white-gray gradient.
And yes, if you take a look at best selling IS images you will notice they all have saturated colors. Although IS says your images must look natural, I advice you to take a look at best selling images and decide yourself. The main point is not to ruin the quality of the image, or to make artifacts.
I checked the histogram and although not pushed up hard to the right, it is heavily into the right. If I over expose when taking the shot, then I will just blow the whites out surely?
:-)
Now I already start to think that you don' get what I'm saying.
I'll post you two histograms. First one is your original histogram, with red arrow showing empty space on the right side of the graph. Second histogram is corrected one, with right slider moved to the left, and a little bit brightened curve on the graph, with maintained black part of the image.
You don't have to increase the exposure in your camera. Do it in Photoshop, or any other editing program that you use and your whites won't be blown out.
-
I don't know is your monitor is calibrated, but first, you have to check the histogram of your original image. You will notice that your graph is empty on the right side, which means your image is underexposed. Sometimes, the graph can be blank on the right, but in this case not, because the background of the image is white. Yes, I boosted colors a bit, You don't have to do it so much, but you must do it a little, because your image is all greyish and a bit dull. Increase the contract to correct this, but watch not to make color banding on that white-gray gradient.
And yes, if you take a look at best selling IS images you will notice they all have saturated colors. Although IS says your images must look natural, I advice you to take a look at best selling images and decide yourself. The main point is not to ruin the quality of the image, or to make artifacts.
I checked the histogram and although not pushed up hard to the right, it is heavily into the right. If I over expose when taking the shot, then I will just blow the whites out surely?
:-)
Now I already start to think that you don' get what I'm saying.
I'll post you two histograms. First one is your original histogram, with red arrow showing empty space on the right side of the graph. Second histogram is corrected one, with right slider moved to the left, and a little bit brightened curve on the graph, with maintained black part of the image.
You don't have to increase the exposure in your camera. Do it in Photoshop, or any other editing program that you use and your whites won't be blown out.
Thank you, I will give that a try. :-)
-
I have another here which is totally baffling me...
Link:
http://www.istockphoto.com//file_thumbview_approve/14161226/2/istockphoto_14161226-antique-english-porcelain-cups-x9-leaning-a.jpg (http://www.istockphoto.com//file_thumbview_approve/14161226/2/istockphoto_14161226-antique-english-porcelain-cups-x9-leaning-a.jpg)
Reason for rejection:
Please crop your file to the original native resolution of your camera. The composition of this file contains an unnecessary addition of negative/blank space, which is not beneficial for this file.
Are they saying I have added space? (Which I have not...)
Or are they saying that I have included too much blank space?
:-)
-
too much space.. sometimes they don't care.. the majority of agencies accepts it..
AGAIN! please forget IS for a while... they don't deserve us (big or small contributors)..
What about zoom IN the picture (or get closer) and vertical perhaps? it would be more appealing and would fill the frame a lot better!
-
too much space.. sometimes they don't care.. the majority of agencies accepts it..
AGAIN! please forget IS for a while... they don't deserve us (big or small contributors)..
What about zoom IN the picture (or get closer) and vertical perhaps? it would be more appealing and would fill the frame a lot better!
Thank you.
I thought the whole point was to allow space for writing etc?
As to using Istock.
I appreciate your concerns, but I want to learn stock photography and Istock's high standards are the perfect training vehicle for me.
So I am using them as a teaching aid. :-)
-
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?
-
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. :-)
-
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.
-
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?
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?
Hmm __ it is a distinct possibility.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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...
-
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?
Hmm __ it is a distinct possibility.
I'd have to agree.
-
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 :-)
-
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...
-
Not very welcoming here is it?
-
I do appreciate dreamfarers help and others that have offered constructive criticism however.
:-)
-
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.
-
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...
-
Please remember folks.
There is a distinct difference between someone querying advice to understand it and someone not listening to advice...
-
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.
-
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 :-)
-
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.
-
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?
-
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?
Google my name.
-
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?
Google my name.
:D A obvious answer (http://www.gifmania.co.uk/planes/long-range-airliner/avion11.gif)
-
:D A obvious answer ([url]http://www.gifmania.co.uk/planes/long-range-airliner/avion11.gif[/url])
Geez, you could've at least used one of my images! (wink)
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=26&page=1) which is intended to help people with rejections.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=26&page=1[/url]) 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.
-
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...
-
If stock photography makes everyone this grumpy, I might have to review my decision...
;)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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"... :-)
-
... 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.
-
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 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..)
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..)
-
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
-
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?
-
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 (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?
-
...
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.
-
...
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...
-
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?
-
Ah Ha, say the magic word, Lighting, and win yourself an educational link. :D
http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ (http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/)
Strobist where you can spend days or a week or longer, learning about lighting, for free.
-
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.
-
Ah Ha, say the magic word, Lighting, and win yourself an educational link. :D
[url]http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/[/url])
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. :-)
-
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.
-
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? ;-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :-)
-
Ah Ha, say the magic word, Lighting, and win yourself an educational link. :D
[url]http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/[/url] ([url]http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/[/url])
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 :-)
-
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!
-
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"?
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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? :-)
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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. :-)
-
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".
-
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. :-)
-
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. :)
-
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. :-)
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
ROFLMAO
-
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.
That would probably be more beneficial for both of us.
There is absolutely no point you being on this thread whatsoever.
-
But there is. Tyler pays me a nickel a post, as the mere mention of my username drives google crazy.
-
Ka-ching!
-
But there is. Tyler pays me a nickel a post, as the mere mention of my username drives google crazy.
Have you ran out of downloads to count? ;-)
-
But there is. Tyler pays me a nickel a post, as the mere mention of my username drives google crazy.
That would explain the profusion of pointless posts on a newbie forum where you have displayed no real intent on helping a newbie then? ;-)
-
That would explain the profusion of pointless posts on a newbie forum where you have displayed no real intent on helping a newbie then? ;-)
I'm trying to poke you into moving in the right direction faster, for I fear that your reticence to move forward conceptually will cost you the goodwill of the others who have generously given of their time so greatly. Yea, thou it seemst as if mine words have fallen upon deaf ears.
-
Locke, I for one have missed you lately
-
That would explain the profusion of pointless posts on a newbie forum where you have displayed no real intent on helping a newbie then? ;-)
I'm trying to poke you into moving in the right direction faster, for I fear that your reticence to move forward conceptually will cost you the goodwill of the others who have generously given of their time so greatly. Yea, thou it seemst as if mine words have fallen upon deaf ears.
And I am poking you because people will be drawn to the thread to offer their viewpoint just because of the heat from the thread.
Who needs another unanswered post amongst hundreds...
-
Actually, I apologise for deliberately prodding you Sean, it was not appropriate.
Mark
-
Mark, let me offer a suggestion on how to come to understand stock. I do this knowing full well that you won't accept my suggestion, because no one else I've offered this to has taken it up.
One catchphrase that used to be common around the traps is that a stock photographer needs to 'think like a designer'. One way for a non-designer to do this is to engage in battles (Photoshop compositing competitions) in the istock Steel Cage. Once you start trying to put together a photocomposite design, you start to see how all those shadows in the wrong direction, the images that have such strong character that they don't fit with anything else in the design, often the sheer impossibility of finding the right image among millions, etc etc make life so difficult. And sometimes how a single image can inspire a theme. Most importantly no single image works on its own, everything is a part of a larger whole. This is where stock photography is so different from other forms of photography.
-
Mark, let me offer a suggestion on how to come to understand stock. I do this knowing full well that you won't accept my suggestion, because no one else I've offered this to has taken it up.
One catchphrase that used to be common around the traps is that a stock photographer needs to 'think like a designer'. One way for a non-designer to do this is to engage in battles (Photoshop compositing competitions) in the istock Steel Cage. Once you start trying to put together a photocomposite design, you start to see how all those shadows in the wrong direction, the images that have such strong character that they don't fit with anything else in the design, often the sheer impossibility of finding the right image among millions, etc etc make life so difficult. And sometimes how a single image can inspire a theme. Most importantly no single image works on its own, everything is a part of a larger whole. This is where stock photography is so different from other forms of photography.
That is interesting.
You would think then that designers would like a specific type of lighting as standard?
(left lit, right lit etc).
-
Mark, let me offer a suggestion on how to come to understand stock. I do this knowing full well that you won't accept my suggestion, because no one else I've offered this to has taken it up.
One catchphrase that used to be common around the traps is that a stock photographer needs to 'think like a designer'. One way for a non-designer to do this is to engage in battles (Photoshop compositing competitions) in the istock Steel Cage. Once you start trying to put together a photocomposite design, you start to see how all those shadows in the wrong direction, the images that have such strong character that they don't fit with anything else in the design, often the sheer impossibility of finding the right image among millions, etc etc make life so difficult. And sometimes how a single image can inspire a theme. Most importantly no single image works on its own, everything is a part of a larger whole. This is where stock photography is so different from other forms of photography.
That is interesting.
You would think then that designers would like a specific type of lighting as standard?
(left lit, right lit etc).
Left or right doesn't matter too much, one can always flip an image. Fairly flat lighting is preferred though (think beauty lighting) because it's much easier to paint in shading that isn't there than to remove shading that is there. Check out this battle (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=186121&page=1) - they restricted themselves to variations on the one head image (same head for all the designs)
-
Mark, let me offer a suggestion on how to come to understand stock. I do this knowing full well that you won't accept my suggestion, because no one else I've offered this to has taken it up.
One catchphrase that used to be common around the traps is that a stock photographer needs to 'think like a designer'. One way for a non-designer to do this is to engage in battles (Photoshop compositing competitions) in the istock Steel Cage. Once you start trying to put together a photocomposite design, you start to see how all those shadows in the wrong direction, the images that have such strong character that they don't fit with anything else in the design, often the sheer impossibility of finding the right image among millions, etc etc make life so difficult. And sometimes how a single image can inspire a theme. Most importantly no single image works on its own, everything is a part of a larger whole. This is where stock photography is so different from other forms of photography.
But then if it is flat lighting, then don't you have issues of loss of contrast etc?
Mark :-)
That is interesting.
You would think then that designers would like a specific type of lighting as standard?
(left lit, right lit etc).
Left or right doesn't matter too much, one can always flip an image. Fairly flat lighting is preferred though (think beauty lighting) because it's much easier to paint in shading that isn't there than to remove shading that is there. Check out this battle ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=186121&page=1[/url]) - they restricted themselves to variations on the one head image (same head for all the designs)
-
By flat I mean like this (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13240367-pure-beauty.php) rather than, say, Rembrandt lighting.
-
By flat I mean like this ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13240367-pure-beauty.php[/url]) rather than, say, Rembrandt lighting.
I had a look at that image.
I could see that they had blown out the background.
Lit from the sides.
Lit from the front on an overhead.
They have in effect lit from 3 angles that allows usage in many different ways.
I think I am grasping your point. :-)
Mark