MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Critique Requested - IStock Rejection how far am I ?  (Read 10903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 03, 2012, 23:38 »
0
*http://dl.dropbox.com/u/110464818/Sample%20Album/IMG_6654.jpg*

*http://dl.dropbox.com/u/110464818/Sample%20Album/IMG_8371.jpg*

*http://dl.dropbox.com/u/110464818/Sample%20Album/IMG_9777.jpg*

Just uploaded my first 3 photo for approval to be a contributor , I m getting a rejection which simply said that my photo is not good enough, the subject i choose for the photo are quite intersting(nature), it doesnt say i lack of variety , anyone can shed a light on these photo

Quote from: here are the standardized rejection notes
hank you for taking the time to apply as a contributor with iStockphoto.com.

The iStock administrators have asked that you upload new samples based on the feedback provided below. You're welcome to return in 3 days, upload some new samples and we'll re-process your application.

Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:

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.


Regards

Joseph


« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2012, 23:57 »
0
There are technical problems:

The sky/ mountain is overfiltered, just a little, but it appears smeared.
Combination of trees and sky/ mountain view is not the best composition

The fly, is LCV and noisy,
Same with the coral fish, noisy, and bad lighting.

Generally the pictures are interesting enough, but dont stand out as stock material.



« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2012, 00:13 »
0
There are technical problems:

The sky/ mountain is overfiltered, just a little, but it appears smeared.
Combination of trees and sky/ mountain view is not the best composition

The fly, is LCV and noisy,
Same with the coral fish, noisy, and bad lighting.

Generally the pictures are interesting enough, but dont stand out as stock material.

HMMPPPP.....
I see the flaw on photo 1,

On the ohter picture is it combinations of bad photos and bad PP skill or the photos are okay if processed differently
I m still loss on how is the light on the pgymy sea horse (fav macro object for UW btw) is bad, is it because to flat/dull?

what is LCV?

Correct me if i m wrong, Stock photo required as minimum enhancement on the color(no saturation of vibarance bump) and as little as noise as possible, and accurate WB....

« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2012, 00:26 »
+1
Even if all three images were technically perfect, none of them are really useful as stock images. Nature subjects are in general over supplied and except for the stunning shots, or very well known places, or something that works as a metaphor (climber conquering mountain, for example), it's not as much in demand.

LCV is limited commercial value.

Variety would be one outdoor shot - no puppies, kitties, sunsets or flowers - one shot of a person doing something and one studio still life. Don't include shots from a point and shoot (the underwater shot) as the quality is just not good enough.

Go and shoot three new images specifically for your applicatoin - don't dredge up images from 2009, 2010 and 2011 (when these images were shot), and don't try to reprocess these.

Sorry if blunt seems a bit harsh, but it's better you know where you stand. Look at the bestselling images in the categories you chose and see what you're competing against. The bar has become quite high at the top tier agencies.

« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2012, 00:51 »
0
HMMPPPP.....
I see the flaw on photo 1,

On the ohter picture is it combinations of bad photos and bad PP skill or the photos are okay if processed differently
I m still loss on how is the light on the pgymy sea horse (fav macro object for UW btw) is bad, is it because to flat/dull?


Low light conditions caused the image to be unresolved and out of DOF, the main area of interest, the sea horse, is partually hidden behind undetailled coral. Ther is a lot of noise in the out of dof areas. Major parts of the image is out of dof. The coral is loosing its colours and fades into brown spots.

what is LCV?

Correct me if i m wrong, Stock photo required as minimum enhancement on the color(no saturation of vibarance bump) and as little as noise as possible, and accurate WB....


That is what they say. Reality is that we are all competing and try to have our pictures stand out as a thumbnail. That means tweaking it to the limit, where the agencies do not reject it. Different agencies have different policies and they are not all consistant.

Shoot 3 different shots like these:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13024061-beech-wood.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8167146-sharpening-a-knife.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5801679-skateboarder.php?st=4e6cfb9
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 01:00 by JPSDK »

« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 01:05 »
0
Even if all three images were technically perfect, none of them are really useful as stock images. Nature subjects are in general over supplied and except for the stunning shots, or very well known places, or something that works as a metaphor (climber conquering mountain, for example), it's not as much in demand.

LCV is limited commercial value.

Variety would be one outdoor shot - no puppies, kitties, sunsets or flowers - one shot of a person doing something and one studio still life. Don't include shots from a point and shoot (the underwater shot) as the quality is just not good enough.

Go and shoot three new images specifically for your applicatoin - don't dredge up images from 2009, 2010 and 2011 (when these images were shot), and don't try to reprocess these.

Sorry if blunt seems a bit harsh, but it's better you know where you stand. Look at the bestselling images in the categories you chose and see what you're competing against. The bar has become quite high at the top tier agencies.
No blunt is good, sometimes we need a smack on the head...

I have always been a casual photographer, heard about the microstock i tought i ll give it a shoot see if i m good enough (without putting extra effort), not to defend my stand here, before uploading i did browse a little bit on what istock have on the specific underwater object and the landscape location, my image doesnt seem too far away in IQ, is the approval rate more lenient when you have become a contributor ?

I will definitly put more effort on the whole process and will produce a more suitable stock photo.

ps: I do enjoy U/W shots and to bring a whole DSLR down would cost as much as a new body ++, i do have access of rare seen U/W objects since I live on the tropics, so anyone manage to sell stock photo with those expensive point n shoot??

« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2012, 01:46 »
0
HMMPPPP.....
I see the flaw on photo 1,

On the ohter picture is it combinations of bad photos and bad PP skill or the photos are okay if processed differently
I m still loss on how is the light on the pgymy sea horse (fav macro object for UW btw) is bad, is it because to flat/dull?


Low light conditions caused the image to be unresolved and out of DOF, the main area of interest, the sea horse, is partually hidden behind undetailled coral. Ther is a lot of noise in the out of dof areas. Major parts of the image is out of dof. The coral is loosing its colours and fades into brown spots.

what is LCV?

Correct me if i m wrong, Stock photo required as minimum enhancement on the color(no saturation of vibarance bump) and as little as noise as possible, and accurate WB....


That is what they say. Reality is that we are all competing and try to have our pictures stand out as a thumbnail. That means tweaking it to the limit, where the agencies do not reject it. Different agencies have different policies and they are not all consistant.

Shoot 3 different shots like these:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-13024061-beech-wood.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8167146-sharpening-a-knife.php?st=4e6cfb9
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-5801679-skateboarder.php?st=4e6cfb9


those are great examples, they all have a simple story to tell, i guess that the idea , I think instead of phtographer mindset we have to change more to designer mindset, what do they need

outdoor shot, since building requires a property model release, is landscape like mountain a good idea? I m still looking for ideas for my outdoor shots

thanks for the tips

« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2012, 01:54 »
0
Mountains are fine, as long as they have a purpose for the designer.
Also bear in mind that there are already many mountain landscapes online, and a mountain with people doing things is always better than a bare landscape.
Not all houses are copyrighted. Its mostly an "American fear of lawsuits" thing.
I suggest:
A landscape (must be splendid)
A person doing something
A studioshot.
Stock composition, no noise, no lighting problems and sharp where it should be.

« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2012, 04:20 »
0
.... is the approval rate more lenient when you have become a contributor ? .....

Unfortunately no, not uncommon to have one or more of the "exam" shots rejected when you pass the test and submit them to the main collection.

« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2012, 03:44 »
0
Okay I need more critique before I submit my next 3 photo to istock

here is two shot which one of them i m gonna submit as an outdoor photo
pls comment on CV, technical aspect, and how much logo/brand reduction do i have to use, i m sure i need to remove brand and company name how bout code that doesnt make sense , and also on the 2nd photo do i need to remove the logo/code at all

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/110464818/Sample%20Album/PA060018.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/110464818/Sample%20Album/PA060019.jpg

cheers

« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2012, 03:56 »
0
1st one: underexposed, histogram not in the middle, dull colours, lens distortion (should be corrected) + horizon. And all numbers and brands must go away. Also there is noise, and you should resize the picture.

2nd one: Daring composition, wait with that till you have gotten in, It might however sell. Same problems with exposure  and noise as the above. Can be fixed. Gaussian blur 1 pix and resize, add contrast.
Youy do need to set white point and trim the histogram in levels.

« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2012, 04:48 »
0
I don't know if things have changed since I was accepted, but I do feel you may be overthinking this.

I don't recall exactly the images I used but I do know they were 35mm scans that hadn't been spotted to remove dust and scratches, and that was fine for my application - had to do a lot more work on them to get them accepted, but they were good subjects and that was what was needed.

As far as I know, all they want to see in the application is an eye for composition, a variety of subjects and enough technical knowledge to show you know what you're doing with a camera;  they don't care about property or model releases at this stage (that comes once you're in), nor do they mind if the images are a bit noisy or not likely to sell.

So try to select three different, interesting subjects, if possible at least one with people - though I didn't - that are well lit and well composed.  The examples from JPSDK are good.  They don't expect you to be perfect at the start, you'll have plenty of time to learn...

« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2012, 06:00 »
0
I don't know if things have changed since I was accepted, but I do feel you may be overthinking this.

I don't recall exactly the images I used but I do know they were 35mm scans that hadn't been spotted to remove dust and scratches, and that was fine for my application - had to do a lot more work on them to get them accepted, but they were good subjects and that was what was needed.

As far as I know, all they want to see in the application is an eye for composition, a variety of subjects and enough technical knowledge to show you know what you're doing with a camera;  they don't care about property or model releases at this stage (that comes once you're in), nor do they mind if the images are a bit noisy or not likely to sell.

So try to select three different, interesting subjects, if possible at least one with people - though I didn't - that are well lit and well composed.  The examples from JPSDK are good.  They don't expect you to be perfect at the start, you'll have plenty of time to learn...

Thx for the encouragement  did you see my original rejected photos, when they asked my best picutre, those are the ones i liked from my travel all be it not perfectly great quality some of them taken from a prosumer compact, those are not everyday shot and all has interesting subjects, so either my composition or my eyes is crap, i m open to suggestion if that so, or maybe they actually want a more suitable stock photos.

although its not a varied theme(all nature) its still taken under a very diverse situation n requires a diverse skill, landscape macro and UW with strobe

so i m trying at different angle on the picture i want to submit, i m gonna do outdoor those pile driver construction thing, 1 indoor baby shot doing something, and 1 still life pic, i m not entirely confident on my studio shot since i ve only been a few month shooting studio and recently add 2 lights (total of 3 now).

« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2012, 07:05 »
0
Well, as I mentioned, my application was 6 years ago and they may have different standards now!

I like the macro shot in the first three, though as mentioned it's not likely to be much of a seller, but I would think it's good to show them you understand macro and can use it.

I don't find the mountain shot too suitable - it was a nice view I'm sure, but doesn't work so well as an image I feel.  By all means use a landscape - I did - but try to find a landscape with more of a definite subject in it, be it a distinctive mountain, a tree or some hikers of something, and with good light.

An underwater shot might be a good idea, showing more variety, but again, that one isn't really very interesting (photographically that is) I think - and you'd probably do better to stay out of the water and stick with the more capable camera for now.

Not sure about the piledriver - certainly as it is in those examples, the lighting is too dull - I don't find it very interesting, though I prefer the daring angle one myself.

Do some searches on iStock for the subjects you're thinking of using, try to get an idea of the compositions and lighting that work well, and see if you have or can take something along those lines.

If you live in the tropics, you should have lots of good subjects and lighting - how about beaches and the like?  And as mentioned, you don't necessarily need releases for buildings, or indeed people, especially for the application - remember iStock accept editorial too.  I think you probably need to concentrate mostly on good composition and lighting.

« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2012, 10:20 »
0
1st one: underexposed, histogram not in the middle, dull colours, lens distortion (should be corrected) + horizon. And all numbers and brands must go away. Also there is noise, and you should resize the picture.

2nd one: Daring composition, wait with that till you have gotten in, It might however sell. Same problems with exposure  and noise as the above. Can be fixed. Gaussian blur 1 pix and resize, add contrast.
Youy do need to set white point and trim the histogram in levels.


I think I only understand half of your words  :P i do tinker with lightroom a little bit and has almost 0 Photoshop skill, thou i m willing to learn, i will re read your suggestion again, however i dont rely to much on histogram, because it take the whole frame exposure for instance if i have the histogram in the middle for the 1st picture ot ends up with darker foreground/subjects because its trying to make the sky darker

Here i will be posting two more shot, i m still lacking in number of lights and working with tight spaces so my background is not 100% evenly lit, i m dodging them in lightroom
Well, as I mentioned, my application was 6 years ago and they may have different standards now!

I like the macro shot in the first three, though as mentioned it's not likely to be much of a seller, but I would think it's good to show them you understand macro and can use it.

I don't find the mountain shot too suitable - it was a nice view I'm sure, but doesn't work so well as an image I feel.  By all means use a landscape - I did - but try to find a landscape with more of a definite subject in it, be it a distinctive mountain, a tree or some hikers of something, and with good light.

An underwater shot might be a good idea, showing more variety, but again, that one isn't really very interesting (photographically that is) I think - and you'd probably do better to stay out of the water and stick with the more capable camera for now.

Not sure about the piledriver - certainly as it is in those examples, the lighting is too dull - I don't find it very interesting, though I prefer the daring angle one myself.

Do some searches on iStock for the subjects you're thinking of using, try to get an idea of the compositions and lighting that work well, and see if you have or can take something along those lines.

If you live in the tropics, you should have lots of good subjects and lighting - how about beaches and the like?  And as mentioned, you don't necessarily need releases for buildings, or indeed people, especially for the application - remember iStock accept editorial too.  I think you probably need to concentrate mostly on good composition and lighting.

I actually research on istock especially for this newer shots i can't say i enjoy taking these kind of picture (except for the baby shot) but i want to get in soo bad >_< . I always thought i'm an "okay" photographer but it was shocked to see that all 3 my older picture get rejected(i was hoping 1 or 2 might get accepted), do feel free to comments on the next 2 photos, i m not much experienced in these kind of shots

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/110464818/Sample%20Album/PA060122.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/110464818/Sample%20Album/PA060186.jpg

I have decided that the more daring pile driver, and these 2 for my application any thoughts wheater I'm ready? should i wait? and take better picture because the next wait is a whole week

« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2012, 16:16 »
0
both better stock material.
Nice and shining baby, but light is not good on the person behind and there is noise in the out of dof areas, ( look at the sleeve). Maybe it can be cropped away.
And I think there is too much white space in the mosquitto spiral.

« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2012, 06:04 »
0
Nope... second attempt was not good enough... all 3 rejected, any ideas why??? only if they could be more specific on their rejection notes

« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2012, 07:34 »
0
What 3 pictures were that?

« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2012, 07:36 »
0
Don't loose your time with IS, sales are near 0, upload is a pain, model release is a pain, commission is  a joke.

« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2012, 07:59 »
0
What 3 pictures were that?
the low angle pile driver
baby
and mosquito coil

i did follow some of your suggestion on the technical aspect

i dont mind getting rejected if i know why so i can improve, they rejection notes are identical to the first one
please kindly shed some lights

thx
Don't loose your time with IS, sales are near 0, upload is a pain, model release is a pain, commission is  a joke.
any ideas of better micro site? i m thinking going to fotolia and dreamstime, and when my port are bigger will try SS

« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2012, 08:20 »
0
Generally your pictures have resolution problems. That would be reson enough to reject them at any site.
Resolution problems / noise, can be fixed by fx downsizing after a slight blur and contrast added.

Fx the baby was fine, but the person behind was not.

« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2012, 08:40 »
0
okay so its technical problem? i will try to fix them and i guess try the other photo site in the mean while, the camera i m using is a 4/3 crop factor so IQ is not its strength , no i didn't know when changing camera that  i will try  to do stock photo, and yes i think the camera is fine however i see noise here n there while it didn't bother me it might not be acceptable. Will post the newer picture when they got a touch up.
here are my routine in light room

fix level exposure, black ,white ,shadow, WB
sharpen a wee bit
remove noise i think the value is arnd 30-50on the slider depending on noise

for personal use i would increase contrast and bump the color a notch << i didnt do this for the stockphotos

correct me i m under the impression  that they will accept some of the approval file, so by reasoning all has resolution problem?

when u recomend blur is it gausian blur? umm is my lightroom workflow sufficient? or should i start learing PS

thx JPSDK
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 08:43 by aseph »

« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2012, 08:44 »
0
Photoshop is a must.
Elements will do fine, you dont need the real photoshop.

« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2012, 09:27 »
0
well, pile driver is probably an LCV. What would a designer use that photo for? The mosquito spiral also has a very limited use. Try to shoot something that is of greater commercial interest, at least for the application.

« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2012, 21:04 »
0
Thx for the replies

I m reviewing my PP skill and worklflow, i think it could be improved and i m looking to get better
and thank for the honest opinion i guess its back to the "drawing board" and reading book again for better stock picture and better IQ
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 21:40 by aseph »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4146 Views
Last post October 17, 2011, 10:03
by FD
7 Replies
3662 Views
Last post December 08, 2012, 09:05
by uvox4
4 Replies
2615 Views
Last post January 06, 2014, 16:57
by ShadySue
28 Replies
9838 Views
Last post December 06, 2015, 17:41
by Mantis
20 Replies
8263 Views
Last post January 22, 2019, 10:30
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors