Author Topic: Help with Trying to get Accepted at Istock (Read 7739 times)

marceloaft · « **on:** March 16, 2012, 17:02 »

Hi Guys Im trying to get accepted in Istock, so far I failed in 2 attempts and now Im trying to close in the chances of that happening thats why Im here.
Im very keen to hear all critiques, pls do!! I didn't change the files at all, they are all raw. I think thats one of the reasons that I failed.

This was my first attempt

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/67370988/Maranhao%20380.jpg [nofollow]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/67370988/Maranhao%20146.jpg
[nofollow]
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/67370988/Maranhao%20118.jpg
[nofollow]
That was back in 2009 with a canon sx120!!

As soon as I understand that I will post the second attempt so I dont mess around with too much information...

Thank you so much for helping out, it's wonderful to have this community!!

click_click · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2012, 18:20 »

There are a bunch of things that can be taken into consideration.

First off, you want to show iStock that you are somewhat versatile. Your examples show three people throwing their arms in the air. Of course they are doing different things but I would refrain from submitting all of those just because of that fact.

#1 Awkward angle. It's a nice location but the angle is off. The viewer cannot get the sense of height where the man is jumping from. Maybe a lower spot would have been better to emphasize that. Also shooting models from behind is not always the best way to go. In this case the facial expression might have helped too.

#2 Too much noise and artifacts, also the composition is not stunning. The person is too close to the center IMO.

#3 Awesome location but a lot of noise going on there. f5 is certainly not going to help here. f9 to 11 would have been more appropriate. You lost a lot of detail in the water - it looks all muddy, must be from the lens/aperture you've used.
No idea how you could produce so much noise and artifacts at ISO 80 either. You must have done something to it during post processing.
Composition is also off as well as the exposure.

I would not use any of these, sorry. I'm sure you will get more feedback...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2012, 20:12 »

Bottom line is that none of these will pass inspection and editing these images wouldn't have made any difference. Before you can even get to discussion of composition and varied subjects, you need the required technical quality - focus, lighting and lack of artifacts. In the first shot, for example, the detail in the foreground rocks is completely gone - it looks smooth and smeary (probably in-camera noise reduction); there is a huge amount of the frame in hard dark shadows, which would probably get you a lighting rejection. I'd stay away from silhouettes at sunset for an application image as it's hard to get right.

Why don't you post something current that you're considering submitting. I'll echo the advice about showing three different types of images for an application.

marceloaft · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2012, 01:10 »

Thank you guys!!

I thought about posting those images just so I could understand better the mistakes made by me. I have been reading a lot of critical requests from fellow photographers and that is helping me a ton, so I wanted to see something personal to understand my mistakes.

Click Click I don't know what happened with the 3rd photo but I think it got its artefacts from compressing somehow as I have never edited any of those photos.

It's funny but as soon as you guys mentioned I could see the mistakes right there but before I couldn't see it very well.. I guess I have to be training my eyes!!

I will post my second rejection, I promise its a bit better!!

Thank you SO MUCH for your honest critiques!!!

Difydave · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2012, 11:57 »

Looks to me from the exif as if you're shooting with a Canon PowerShot SX110 IS "Point and shoot" type camera. I don't know anything about the quality of the output from your particular camera, but in general I think it's fair to say that unless you know exactly what you are doing as far as image quality requirements are concerned you'll have a job getting the output from this type of camera accepted at iStock these days. Most people are shooting DSLRs.

Also the exif shows a jpeg quality of 93%. I understand the highest PS quality is 98% so you have some compression there somewhere.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2012, 01:20 »

Quote from: Difydave on March 17, 2012, 11:57

Looks to me from the exif as if you're shooting with a Canon PowerShot SX110 IS "Point and shoot" type camera. I don't know anything about the quality of the output from your particular camera, but in general I think it's fair to say that unless you know exactly what you are doing as far as image quality requirements are concerned you'll have a job getting the output from this type of camera accepted at iStock these days. Most people are shooting DSLRs.

Also the exif shows a jpeg quality of 93%. I understand the highest PS quality is 98% so you have some compression there somewhere.

Interesting I never looked at jpeg quality on my cameras, or any other, I wonder if that's a standard setting for the SX110?

I went and looked, Sensor = 1/2.3" Type CCD, 9.0 million effective pixels, 10X optical zoom. does have full manual control available.

Good lighting, full frame image without any crop or at most 10%, good edit and reduce to 4.5MP last thing before saving the submission version. Could work out? My opinion would be reduce everything to at the most 5MP even if it's the full 9MP to start with and save at 100%, no compression. Shoot at the lowest native ISO which is 100 for the small Canon's.

And then the other part that everyone agrees upon. Variety of scenes, situations, lighting, concepts, show you can do more than one type of shot. It helps.

I'm assuming that anyone starting out doesn't want to read that they should get another camera and wants to use what they have until they get more involved.

lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2012, 01:41 »

Noise, haze, artifacts, all over the place! seriously you want to think about upgrading your equipment. Nowdays with neck braking competition, there are no free rides and if you want to succeed, pics will have to be on a pro level.

Difydave · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2012, 06:16 »

I can see your point about someone not wanting to upgrade RacePhoto, but while you or I might be able to get the output from a camera like this accepted, we would be fighting the camera at every step. It would be an uphill struggle for anyone, particularly for someone new to the game.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's a heck of a lot easier with the right gear. If the OP is serious about this then they should consider upgrading.

Incidentally for anyone interested I had a look at the exif on Jeffrey's Exif Viewer here:

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2012, 21:57 »

Quote from: Difydave on March 18, 2012, 06:16

I can see your point about someone not wanting to upgrade RacePhoto, but while you or I might be able to get the output from a camera like this accepted, we would be fighting the camera at every step. It would be an uphill struggle for anyone, particularly for someone new to the game.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's a heck of a lot easier with the right gear. If the OP is serious about this then they should consider upgrading.

Incidentally for anyone interested I had a look at the exif on Jeffrey's Exif Viewer here:

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

Yes, hopefully it was not argumentative. I was just looking at things and saying to myself. Most of the time, what these people need to start with is a different camera. Then maybe read a starting book on the basics of photography, because the Green Box or the Letter A or P will not cut it.

Followed by a short course on lighting.

Then it's pretty easy.

What I see is people who worry about what sells, how many sales RPI, getting accepted, getting paid. When what needs to be first, is understand how to take a good photo, and then the rest of it comes easier.

It also reminds me of the garage bands. Kids get together and have instruments and start banging and playing and expect they will somehow be a natural. Most lose interest and the instruments go into the closet. Some stick with it and figure out, they need to know the scales and some music theory, it's not just turning up the amp and twanging a guitar. Drums, how hard can that be? I mean you just keep a beat...

OK back to photography. You need to know about exposure index (ISO), shutter speeds, aperture, and how each one interacts with the other two. Just having great guitar won't make you play better. Just having an expensive camera won't make you a better photographer. BUT...

Your point is perfect. It will sure make it much easier!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Help with Trying to get Accepted at Istock (Read 7739 times)

marceloaft

click_click

Jo Ann Snover

marceloaft

Difydave

RacePhoto

lagereek

Difydave

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors