pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Critique need for Shutterstock Application  (Read 20238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

graficallyminded

« Reply #50 on: February 15, 2008, 13:12 »
0
Keep trying man, I bet I wouldn't get back into Shutterstock if I had to reapply now.  I think they are trying to tighten up ship so to speak.  I have two friends that are pro photographers that just got denied.  Just keep on trying.  To get onto iStockphoto I had to apply like 5 or 6 times...it was crazy.


« Reply #51 on: February 15, 2008, 15:25 »
0

« Reply #52 on: February 15, 2008, 18:20 »
0
First shot imho has 2 problems that really comes down to 1: you had to use a zoom to put in evidence the wireless ear piece and to blur out the ininspiring background using an adeguate aperture.

The second shot has a lot better composition but direct flash kills the model's eyes and if MP large preview is faithful to original it is way out blurred out by noise reduction, so much that it seems out of focus.

« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2008, 18:28 »
0
First shot imho has 2 problems that really comes down to 1: you had to use a zoom to put in evidence the wireless ear piece and to blur out the ininspiring background using an adeguate aperture.

The second shot has a lot better composition but direct flash kills the model's eyes and if MP large preview is faithful to original it is way out blurred out by noise reduction, so much that it seems out of focus.

Thanks ale1969 for the comments. They were not part of the application I was just trying to show them to Pixart as he asked if I had ever tried doing shots with models. That is the only place they are posted and I am trying to learn from them. However, they were shot several months ago and my skills have increased dramatically since then ...

Mark

« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2008, 23:09 »
0
I will try to convince  you again , try with  3-4 interesting textures , you cant go wrong  there , noise is almost invisible , and on SS they don't reject photos for "we have too much of those " reasons.

 Again , avoid skies , especially avoid processing images with sky , don't take unnecessary risk.

Good luck
 

« Reply #55 on: February 16, 2008, 01:44 »
0
you can make cheap DIY Studio Lighting.
here is the Link:
http://www.diyphotography.net/the-strip-light-that-wont-strip-you


« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2008, 01:14 »
0

« Reply #57 on: February 27, 2008, 16:59 »
0
I will try to convince  you again , try with  3-4 interesting textures , you cant go wrong  there , noise is almost invisible , and on SS they don't reject photos for "we have too much of those " reasons.

 Again , avoid skies , especially avoid processing images with sky , don't take unnecessary risk.

Good luck
 



I just got in a few hours ago.

I used 4 white isolations, 1 true and 3 with light shadows, one of the ones with light shadows was rejected.

I had 1 cityscape, approved
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2261674159/in/set-72157602933123778/
Much different processing, honestly the processing on this Flickr image looks like crap, overfiltered and oversaturated.  This was part of my IS application as well, a rejection on the first try prompted the reprocessing.

1 texture, approved

1 shot of some really interesting gas meters (honestly) on a brick wall approved
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2238384500/in/set-72157603843108654/
Also part of my IS application

1 shot of ice being dropped into a glass of water, strobed in the dark on a dark surface approved
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2262379956/in/set-72157602938076813/

1 architectural shot denied (for shadows, though one of the main interesting points of the shots was the shadows)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2270316132/in/set-72157602934009472/

1 shot of a landing airplane, denied for noise (has to be on the plane, the sky is actually a flat color (IE painted), once I blurred for noise I got banding, the sky was uniform enough though so I just painted the whole thing).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/2275824639/
Part of my IS application

The IS application shots I listed were all approved.

Not all my shots are on my Flickr account (sorry, I don't post isolations or textures, Flickr is for my actual artistic photo pursuits, not my stock pursuits, though there is a little overlap, almost all Flickr shots are a slightly different processing than my stock shots).

If anybody has the time to look at my "abstract architecture" set.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/waldo4/sets/72157603438672995/
I'd love to know if you think that some of them are stock worthy, or it is a stock worthy style, it is my favorite type of photography and IMO what I am best at.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2008, 17:09 by Waldo4 »

« Reply #58 on: February 27, 2008, 17:45 »
0
Quote from: Waldo4

If anybody has the time to look at my "abstract architecture" set.


They are excellent, I would put them on Alamy or Photoshelter rather than the micros.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
12976 Views
Last post November 11, 2009, 17:27
by bsites
32 Replies
22106 Views
Last post March 27, 2010, 09:47
by nancypics
28 Replies
39441 Views
Last post February 04, 2010, 22:00
by Rosco0101
20 Replies
9264 Views
Last post May 17, 2010, 05:13
by pimpampoen
10 Replies
4483 Views
Last post July 21, 2011, 11:26
by wake6

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle