Author Topic: Critique: iStockPhoto Rejection (Read 11117 times)

adamknox · « **on:** August 30, 2010, 21:11 »

Hi,
These three photos were rejected from the iStockPhoto application process, and I was hoping for some critique. The iStock forums are locked until you are a member apparently. This is my second attempt and I am fairly certain the "reason for rejection" was stock (ha!).

Quote

At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be diverse in subject matter, technical ability and should be your best work. Think conceptual, creative and most important think Stock photography. Try to avoid the average eye level push the button perspective of a common subject. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.

We welcome you to return after the number of days specified and upload 3 fresh samples of your work and we will re-process your application. Please note that you will not be able to upload new samples until this waiting period has passed.

For more information on Composition and Impact, please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=13 [nofollow]

For more information on Suitable Stock Photography, please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=146 [nofollow]

For more information on files that we do and don't need please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_5.0_neededfiles.php [nofollow]

After searching around online all I can think is that I need to vary the content of my submissions more. I know that these are not the typical stock photos the reviewers are looking for (isolated objects, telemarketers, or business people shaking hands), but I thought they would make it in to the pool. I suppose I didn't hit their "wanted photos" list, but I did manage to stay away from the "unwanted photos" list.

Any feedback is appreciated.
Thank you,
Knox

Image 1 [nofollow]
Image 2 [nofollow]
Image 3 [nofollow]

Blufish · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2010, 21:35 »

Can't look at the pics. Says they are locked.

adamknox · « **Reply #2 on:** August 30, 2010, 21:54 »

Quote from: Blufish on August 30, 2010, 21:35

Can't look at the pics. Says they are locked.

Sorry about that, I'm new to DropBox. Fixed!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** August 30, 2010, 22:02 »

Image 1 has a lot of noise in the OOF areas. The monkey is almost sharp enough. You might be able to downsize it to help with both, or do some selective blurring.

Image 2 is not sharp at the top of the plant where one would expect, and the OOF areas look like you maybe laid a blurred layer over them.

Image 3 would be great if it was sharper. Maybe a downsize.

As is, I don't think any would help your case. You need to try nailing a wildlife/nature, object and person.

Blufish · « **Reply #4 on:** August 30, 2010, 22:05 »

1. I think they are beautiful pics, but here is my humble opinion.
Image 1. A bit flat in tonal range and what locke said
Image 2. Same as above
Image 3. I just love and that's all!

I'm new so listen to locke!

adamknox · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2010, 23:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 30, 2010, 22:02

Image 1 has a lot of noise in the OOF areas. The monkey is almost sharp enough. You might be able to downsize it to help with both, or do some selective blurring.
Image 2 is not sharp at the top of the plant where one would expect, and the OOF areas look like you maybe laid a blurred layer over them.
Image 3 would be great if it was sharper. Maybe a downsize.
As is, I don't think any would help your case. You need to try nailing a wildlife/nature, object and person.

Sean, thanks for your advice.

Is downsizing something that is typically done for stock images? I'm new to the game.

Image 1: Mmm, good point about the noise. I guess I thought I could get away with it. My ISO was only at 500, so I thought this would be tolerable. Seattle Zoos on a cloudy day can be treacherous.

Image 2: Only had color post-processing applied (and lightly at that). I think the lens is just soft at the edges, and it was a close up shot. Maybe I'll ditch this one and retake it with the 35mm prime I've had my eye on.

Image 3: I did have trouble keeping this one as sharp as I would have liked. I didn't want to use any noise reduction or sharpening masks on it and lose any details inherit in the picture though. I guess I thought it could stand on it's own given the subject matter.

I'll try the content you suggested and reapply!
Thank you again for your comments, and please keep them coming.

I forgot to write the exif data for the pictures. Apologies.

Image 1: Monkey
Nikon D90: 1/500s, f/5.6, ISO 500, 300mm
Image 2: Small Plant
Nikon D90: 1/40s, f/8.0, ISO 320, 62mm
Image 3: Grizzly Bears
Nikon D90: 1/250s, f/9.5, ISO 200, 300mm

Orchidpoet · « **Reply #6 on:** August 31, 2010, 01:29 »

If I were you, I would downsize and resubmit the bears. It's a great shot.

As Sean said, the focal point may be at the wrong place for the plant. Your lower leaves were sharp, but the inspector may likely want the top young leaves to be sharp.

Since the bear photo is a keeper, you may want to work on the noise background of the monkey after you get accepted with some new pics.

FD · « **Reply #7 on:** August 31, 2010, 07:14 »

1. Noise in the background; bad composition: the monkey is cropped out in a bad way.
2. Top of plant out of focus; no commercial value whatsoever; boring composition.
3. Cool, but the bear is slightly unsharp; what lens do you use?

Three wildlife shots won't you make pass iStock. They need a variety: nature, people and preferably some still life/product shot/interior.

cathyslife · « **Reply #8 on:** August 31, 2010, 07:37 »

Aside from the technical flaws as already noted, I have rarely been able to get anything not shot at ISO 100 passed. I know others that have, but I think your best bet is to stick to 100. I think they are all three usable shots, composition-wise, but I am not an inspector. At one point, these would have been very acceptable but the bar has been risen and these would have to be pretty close to perfect in order to get them passed. Just my humble opinion.

click_click · « **Reply #9 on:** August 31, 2010, 07:49 »

There are tons of blogs and resources online that explicitly recommend new photographers to post their best shots in the IS forum first to get a valuable opinion about their commercial value and if they are suitable for application.

Shot #1 has way too much noise and nobody on the IS forum would have advised you to submit that shot.

Shot #2 is not focused properly and IS wants to see more of your creative side rather than a straight shot at a growing plant.

shot #3 is much better due to its much more rare subjects. Not everyone has a bear in the backyard not to mention such big mountains

This is more along the lines that IS wants to see.

Just post your future application images on the forum here and you will get proper feedback so you can avoid another rejection note from IS.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** August 31, 2010, 08:01 »

Quote from: click_click on August 31, 2010, 07:49

There are tons of blogs and resources online that explicitly recommend new photographers to post their best shots in the IS forum first to get a valuable opinion about their commercial value and if they are suitable for application.

Except you can't post unless you buy credits or are already approved.

michealo · « **Reply #11 on:** August 31, 2010, 08:05 »

Quote from: adamknox on August 30, 2010, 23:55

Seattle Zoos on a cloudy day can be treacherous.

Bear in mind many zoo animals are off limits for non released commercial photography ...

click_click · « **Reply #12 on:** August 31, 2010, 08:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 31, 2010, 08:01

Quote from: click_click on August 31, 2010, 07:49
There are tons of blogs and resources online that explicitly recommend new photographers to post their best shots in the IS forum first to get a valuable opinion about their commercial value and if they are suitable for application.

Except you can't post unless you buy credits or are already approved.

Got that wrong. He can read the IS forum (without being logged in) to gather some ground rules and important details posted by other applicants. Oftentimes it's enough just to see what others have done wrong to learn from their mistakes.

Of course he has to post the images somewhere else - and there are plenty of opportunities for that...

Gannet77 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 31, 2010, 08:30 »

These are for IS application, not for adding to the collection necessarily, and I don't think the noise or ISO issues are important for an application - and certainly they don't need releases. For submission though, you would do well to keep the ISO at 100 if possible and certainly less than the 500 you mention, unless you have a full frame camera maybe.

As FD-Regular said, what they want to see is more variety. Three wildlife/nature shots won't cut it unless perhaps they are all truly stupendous!

The monkey would be nice if it were all in frame and looking at you, but as it is I don't think it works.
I'm afraid the seedling does nothing for me at all, sorry. Lose it.
Bears are very nice, again, it'd be even better if they'd looked your way, but even so worth keeping.

Downsampling was suggested - it's something that is commonly done if the image is slightly out of focus or noisy, as it helps the apparent sharpness, but again I doubt it would be considered a factor in an initial application. Just try to use three different subjects, well lit and well composed.

lisafx · « **Reply #14 on:** August 31, 2010, 12:13 »

Very good critiques! At the risk of being redundant...

1. Way too much noise - shoot at ISO 100, or 200 if you must, but be prepared to use noise reduction software on the shadow areas at ISO 200
2. Nicely exposed and composed, but really not an interesting subject so pretty much unusable as stock.
3. Love the bears shot. I don't see anything wrong with it. If submitted with other more usable images I am sure it would be accepted.

disorderly · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2010, 12:48 »

One correction: the sweet spot for the Nikon D90 is ISO 200, not 100. In fact, that's true of the entire Nikon line. At ISO 100 you increase the chance of blowing out details even in RAW, details that may not be recoverable.

Blufish · « **Reply #16 on:** August 31, 2010, 12:52 »

Quote from: disorderly on August 31, 2010, 12:48

One correction: the sweet spot for the Nikon D90 is ISO 200, not 100. In fact, that's true of the entire Nikon line. At ISO 100 you increase the chance of blowing out details even in RAW, details that may not be recoverable.

I have found the same thing with my D90 so I shoot at 200 most of the time.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 31, 2010, 15:45 »

Best of luck on your next attempt.

Here's my take on the images:

Images 1 and 2 have almost no value in terms of stock. You will not be able to make any money uploading these types of images and, given istock's annoying upload process, it will take you forever and waste your time in the long run

Image 3 is wonderful. Images like this will have much more potential. The suggestions above are great, just keep in mind what they suggest and couple that with images that will have an impact. Also, most wildlife images just don't have that staying power. Don't be too discouraged if you don't get many downloads on your wildlife/landscape photos vs. other subjects

djpadavona · « **Reply #18 on:** August 31, 2010, 19:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 30, 2010, 22:02

The monkey is almost sharp enough. You might be able to downsize it...

There is a dirty joke in here somewhere.

adamknox · « **Reply #19 on:** September 01, 2010, 17:02 »

Thank you for your comments.

As noted by Sean I couldn't post in the IS forums because I haven't been passed the application process, and haven't bought content.

I thought I'd stick closer to their "wanted images" list for the next submission:

Grizzly Bears (resized for sharpness from 3463x2312 [nofollow] to 2500x1660 [nofollow] honestly that made me a little sad)
A person playing a tennis or some other sport. Any tips on removing logos from the shoot are welcome.
I'd like to try a concept shoot, but I'm not sure what yet. Maybe something indoors to show I can work in a variety of conditions.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thank you again for your thoughts and words,
Knox

FD · « **Reply #20 on:** September 01, 2010, 17:12 »

Quote from: adamknox on September 01, 2010, 17:02

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

What to shoot!
What sells?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Critique: iStockPhoto Rejection (Read 11117 times)

adamknox

Blufish

adamknox

Sean Locke Photography

Blufish

adamknox

Orchidpoet

FD

cathyslife

click_click

Sean Locke Photography

michealo

click_click

Gannet77

lisafx

disorderly

Blufish

ichiro17

djpadavona

adamknox

FD

Related Topics