pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: critiques requested  (Read 3492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 03, 2012, 15:17 »
0
I've been rejected at istockphoto a couple times, and each time I realized it was because my stuff was crap. This last time around, I'm not quite seeing it, I feel like I'm starting to grasp the idea a bit. So, here's a couple photos, I'd appreciate hearing what YOU all see as the problems. Thanks in advance!

newbielink:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/53115561/Black%20Swan-WM.jpg [nonactive]
newbielink:http://dl.dropbox.com/u/53115561/Contract%20Sandwich%20WM.jpg [nonactive]


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2012, 16:28 »
+1
Swan: don't try anything too fancy for your application. It's too dark and would be difficult for a buyer to use, particularly if they wanted to incorporate it into a design.

Contract sandwich: I had to look it up, and could only discover something called a sandwich contract in Canada, which seems to be a variation on a sandwich course here. OK my not knowing the expression doesn't mean much, but it's far too literal an interpretation of a concept, and pretty unappetising. As the pic was downloading, I wondered what the white smudge at the top of the sandwich was, but now I see it was the bottom side of the contract paper, but I just don't like it. Sorry.

Don't try to be artsy-fartsy. Make sure your technique is sound.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 19:32 by ShadySue »

« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2012, 19:24 »
0
The swan isn't well focused - bits are sharp and others aren't. If you're going to have an image with selective focus, have some clear reason for why the bits in focus are. The paper is really ugly and the lighting doesn't work (some parts looked bleached).

Forgetting the conceptual relevance of the sandwich, your whites are gray, the highlights are blown and the crop is awkward.

Liz' advice is good - stick with application shots that are technically flawless and have three different types of subjects. You can try for clever stuff after you can get shots past inspection on a regular basis.

« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 20:40 »
0
You were shooting this with a very large aperture and therefore very, very shallow depth of field.

This gives you a very small focused area especially in the sandwich shot. It's just too shallow for this kind of concept to begin with.

Shallow depth of field is something very powerful but only if used appropriately.

The swan image doesn't show IS your photographic capabilities nor your creative ones. They want to see both!

You need to WOW them with something that either hasn't been done before or you re-do an existing concept but better than most of the photos IS already has. You need to prove that you are an asset to their library.

Think about what can be advertised when using the photo of the (paper?) swan? Unless it's used for some origami web site I can't see much more use for that image.

Supplying niches is not a bad thing but also very tough. The swan images is overall too dark, focus problems all over as Jsnover already mentioned.

The sandwich shot could be the beginning of something big. White balance looks pretty ok, lighting is nothing extraordinaire but also not bad but the sandwich itself is nothing special. At least stack up some stuff. Get more layers of salad leafs, maybe a slice of tomato, pickles, olives, a few more slices of different cheeses - knock yourself out!!!

It just looks too wimpy, kind of getting lost in the picture.

Keep at it but I would hold off with your IS application for now until you get the quality they are looking for.

Keep posting here to get more critique and encouragement!

Best of luck!

« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2012, 20:51 »
0
far from black too

« Last Edit: June 03, 2012, 20:55 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2012, 08:04 »
0
Thanks, everyone. The technical feedback is all very useful, and I see much more clearly now.

The other thing I've learned here is that all the "really obvious" references I was making aren't actually all that obvious, and I was probably going too niche anyways.

The Black Swan is deliberately ugly and intended to look a little malevolent, since it's the statistically unlikely event that financial people are so interested in these last few years (google "black swan theory"). This apparently is NOT comprehensible in the general audience, which is a great piece of information.

The sandwich was a simple play on "eating your words" really. The concept was that it would suit to illustrate anything about bad contracts, really. Apparently that didn't really fly all that well either, at least some people found it confusing.

I was trying to follow their advice to "think conceptual" but I think I pushed it too far and wound up thinking "think niche, think obscure" which isn't really the right thing at all!

Thanks again, everyone.

« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2012, 09:16 »
0
In stock photography the viewer has top be able to grasp the concept of a photo, instantly,  at first sight. If not, this photo won't sell, even in the case it was approved.

« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2012, 10:36 »
0
I seem to get any photo with a shallow depth of field rejected, so now I only submit pin sharp images, can be very frustrating but just keep at it :)

« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2012, 03:34 »
0
The first one seems too dark and it's not clear where the focus is.

The second is oddly cropped in my opinion. I think the focus is fine as I can read the contract text and see the front part of the bread and cheese fine. I think the problem may be the portrait crop.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
7514 Views
Last post November 16, 2007, 12:27
by ale1969
30 Replies
8525 Views
Last post June 04, 2011, 17:03
by luissantos84
2 Replies
3402 Views
Last post December 15, 2016, 06:37
by Vectorielle
13 Replies
6114 Views
Last post August 21, 2017, 17:35
by Sean Locke Photography
11 Replies
5710 Views
Last post February 26, 2019, 12:26
by gnirtS

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors