Author Topic: Rejected Istock image - advice please. (Read 35185 times)

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

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

vonkara · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2010, 11:26 »

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

mtimber · « **Reply #2 on:** September 16, 2010, 11:29 »

Quote from: Vonkara on September 16, 2010, 11:26

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. :-)

loop · « **Reply #3 on:** September 16, 2010, 12:37 »

If the image is dull (sory), they tend to be much more harder at other aspects.

mtimber · « **Reply #4 on:** September 16, 2010, 13:42 »

Quote from: loop on September 16, 2010, 12:37

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...?

vonkara · « **Reply #5 on:** September 16, 2010, 15:52 »

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

loop · « **Reply #6 on:** September 16, 2010, 16:00 »

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.

KB · « **Reply #7 on:** September 16, 2010, 16:15 »

Quote from: loop on September 16, 2010, 16:00

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).

Dreamframer · « **Reply #8 on:** September 16, 2010, 16:45 »

It should be brighter, just a bit more saturated, and with a little bit more contrast.

loop · « **Reply #9 on:** September 16, 2010, 17:11 »

Quote from: loop on September 16, 2010, 16:00

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.

mtimber · « **Reply #10 on:** September 17, 2010, 05:44 »

Quote from: Vonkara on September 16, 2010, 15:52

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. :-)

mtimber · « **Reply #11 on:** September 17, 2010, 05:44 »

Quote from: loop on September 16, 2010, 16:00

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.

mtimber · « **Reply #12 on:** September 17, 2010, 05:45 »

Quote from: KB on September 16, 2010, 16:15

Quote from: loop on September 16, 2010, 16:00
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).

What would you say was wrong with the lighting?

mtimber · « **Reply #13 on:** September 17, 2010, 05:47 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 16, 2010, 16:45

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?

mtimber · « **Reply #14 on:** September 17, 2010, 05:48 »

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 :-)

Dreamframer · « **Reply #15 on:** September 17, 2010, 07:27 »

Quote from: mtimber on September 17, 2010, 05:47

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 16, 2010, 16:45
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.

mtimber · « **Reply #16 on:** September 17, 2010, 09:04 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 17, 2010, 07:27

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?

:-)

Dreamframer · « **Reply #17 on:** September 17, 2010, 10:00 »

Quote from: mtimber on September 17, 2010, 09:04

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 17, 2010, 07:27

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.

mtimber · « **Reply #18 on:** September 17, 2010, 10:52 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 17, 2010, 10:00

Quote from: mtimber on September 17, 2010, 09:04
Quote from: Dreamframer on September 17, 2010, 07:27

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. :-)

mtimber · « **Reply #19 on:** September 17, 2010, 11:20 »

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

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?

:-)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 17, 2010, 14:28 »

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!

mtimber · « **Reply #21 on:** September 19, 2010, 06:47 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 17, 2010, 14:28

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. :-)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #22 on:** September 19, 2010, 06:54 »

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?

mtimber · « **Reply #23 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:25 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 19, 2010, 06:54

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. :-)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #24 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:39 »

Quote from: mtimber on September 19, 2010, 07:25

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 19, 2010, 06:54
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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rejected Istock image - advice please. (Read 35185 times)

mtimber

vonkara

mtimber

loop

mtimber

vonkara

loop

KB

Dreamframer

loop

mtimber

mtimber

mtimber

mtimber

mtimber

Dreamframer

mtimber

Dreamframer

mtimber

mtimber

luissantos84

mtimber

PaulieWalnuts

mtimber

PaulieWalnuts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors