pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How are these landscapes?  (Read 6641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 02, 2009, 04:36 »
0
How are these landscape images? Do you guys think they are better than snapshots? The top one is Mt. Rainier at sunset, the middle ones are Death Valley, a saltflat and some sand dunes, the last one is an oak I shot into the setting sun at Mt. Diablo state park in California.











And here is my website for a wider range of images I have taken-

http://rasmussenimages.smugmug.com/

I am not pimping my images or anything, but all of these were just rejected by a certain microstock site for being low quality and like too many others in their collection, and yes, they did hurt my feelings. I know it is late but I can't help it, I am so upset I probably will not even be able to sleep tonight. I keep thinking I am getting better at this but I keep getting shot down/ignored. I am fairly successful with vectors and a few other things on the micros but it is frustrating that my passion is with landscape photography and I don't seem to be any good at it. Sorry to complain but my frustration has been building up for quite some time now. I put more work into this than the average snapshooter, generally use a tripod, filters where appropriate, like a graduated ND filter, and put considerable effort into shooting these. The Mt. Rainier shot I had to hike back at night because I cannot camp there.
 
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 04:44 by marcopolo »


« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2009, 04:47 »
0
The top one is great, the rest is quite above average.  We need 100% crop to see the quality.

« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2009, 05:05 »
0
The top one is great, reserve on the noise. I will not send the one of the tree and would try to improve contrast on the other. Either do a tone mapping or use Topaz plugin for CS3.
Generally speaking most sites like landscape photos with pop up colors except Istock
Good luck

« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2009, 05:22 »
0
Don't get upset by rejections.  Some sites don't like landscapes but others do.  I have had problems with some sites lately but istock and SS take them, so I am not bothered.  Some of the reviewers on the sites have rejected photos that have made me lots of money, so they don't always know what they are doing.  I get the feeling that sometimes their finger gets stuck on the reject button.  Not much point losing sleep over that.

Perhaps the best place for landscapes is alamy, I haven't had any rejections there and some of them have sold at much higher prices than I could get on the micros.

« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2009, 12:06 »
0
I shoot mostly landscapes too and get alot of landscape rejections.  I would think however that your Mt. Ranier shot would sell to some degree, but again, microstock in general doesn't place a high priority on such images unless it conveys some kind of concept.  Now if you had a tent in there or a young hiking couple holding hands and enjoying the scenery it would be more marketable as a stock image.
In my nature and landscape stock photography I try to get some sort of a human element into the image.
Sometimes I'll even do a dayhike and carry along a tent and a few camping props to quickly set up, take a few shots, and then pack up again. 
Don't take rejections personally as they're reviewing purely on the basis of a "will it sell here?" mentality.

KB

« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2009, 12:16 »
0
I have to agree; these are all very good to excellent images (compositionally), and you have nothing to feel bad about.  The Ranier one is slightly oversaturated for my taste, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't sell well (quite the contrary).

Are we talking about Fotolia? If so, you should ignore any such rejections. There seems to be very few reviewers on Fotolia who accept landscape images anymore, no matter how good they are. Dreamstime can also be iffy, though they seem to be slightly more accommodating than FT.

« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2009, 15:25 »
0
Thanks for the feedback, when I wrote that late last night I was just upset about the rejections and was tired, etc. It wasn't Fotolia even though they will probably be rejected there too based on what you are saying about them.

 I used to upload lots of generic landscape images to the site in question and they were mostly accepted back then(1-3 years ago). Then I started selling my better landscape images as RM on Alamy but I am not sure I am making more there than I would if they were on the micros. I have seen other photographers who specialize in traditional landscape do quite well on the micros, in particular Eric Foltz and AVTG on IStock seem to do quite well for some reason. I have seen other particular images of landscapes do well also, perhaps not quite as successful as vectors or the kind of images Yuri Arcurs produces, but I have seen some do quite well. I like to have variety in my portfolio and I wanted to upload some of what I think I am best at (landscapes) to draw more attention to the rest of my portfolio and give it some uniqueness.

I don't have CS3(only CS2), but maybe if I adjust the curves slightly they might be better? As far as the oak tree shot, I dunno, I saw that and thought it looked interesting and unusual because of the lighting, I was experimenting. What is wrong with it, is there anything I could have done to better take advantage of that lighting situation?

batman

« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2009, 15:49 »
0
marco, no offense meant, but let me guess the reason for rejection:
 over-processed (if you're talking about IS)
lack of composition (if it's DT).
poor lighting (for a couple of them).

If you had included some activity in those images you would have made it more different than the landscapes that they already have too many of.
Also, you could try lower the contrast and playing with Highlight Shadow to get more depth in detail which could increase the chances of accept, IF they didn't reject you based on poor composition.

Just my guess. Nice pictures, though ! But don't get too upset, it's the name of the game !
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 15:52 by batman »

« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2009, 16:53 »
0
Great images marco, if they are good technical quality at 100% I bet they will also sell. Landscapes do sell, maybe not as much as pictures with people, but they do. I really like the first one, although it might be a bit over saturated for iStockphoto.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 16:56 by goldenangel »

« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2009, 16:59 »
0
I like your landscapes. There are some minor things that can be improved, but your landscapes are far from being bad. I like first one the most, and last one I would exclude from this collection.
I have to be honest and tell you that some agencies don't like landscapes, and they will probably reject them, but that doesn't mean your landscapes suck. They are beautiful if you ask me.

« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2009, 17:13 »
0
Isn't the top one over-over-saturated?


« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2009, 17:49 »
0
Isn't the top one over-over-saturated?



for some agencies yes...but for some other it isn't.

tan510jomast

« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2009, 18:42 »
0
Isn't the top one over-over-saturated?

yes whitechild, for SS no, for IS yes. and also over processed by IS standard too.
i agree with you on the last image. i would work on getting more out of the shadow details with the rest.
all nice images by the way marcopolo, if you feel it's worth it, i would use the curve or Hi/Shadow feature to get it to reduce the contrast range. even play with gradient layer too.
but for SS, i wouldn't do anything but submit it as is. if they reject you it will be composition.

that's my tupenny's worth of comment.

« Reply #13 on: May 03, 2009, 18:53 »
0
Isn't the top one over-over-saturated?



I kind of agree, a little too orange.  I really like the third one the best, very simple but well executed.  To be honest, I really don't think you should "bastardize" these photos by selling them on micro.  You should send these to magazines and place them on Alamy instead.

« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2009, 01:20 »
0
I have seen other photographers who specialize in traditional landscape do quite well on the micros, in particular Eric Foltz and AVTG on IStock seem to do quite well for some reason.

Hmmm.... Not sure if you're paying me a compliment or expressing surprise that I have managed to have some success selling landscapes at IS.

Anyway, here's some advice.

1. Diversity. By diversity I mean shoot at as many locations as you can. Start with the National Parks, then State Parks, then landmarks and just keep expanding your portfolio.

2. Diversity. Don't just shoot the "trophy" shots. Look for unique views of well known landmarks.

3. Don't expect to visit a location once while on vacation and get a bestseller. Over the last 15 years, I've been to almost all the national parks multiple times, visited hundreds of state parks, and have crisscrossed the entire U.S. 12 times to get the shots I have in my portfolio.

4. Be honest. Compare your images to your competition. Just because you have a shot of Mesquite Dunes in Death Valley does not guarantee that it will sell when matched up against the 100s of other similar shots from the same location. Is your shot the best shot you've seen from that location? If not, keep going back until you get the shot that you know you'll never be able to beat.

Instead of posting here asking if your shot of Rainier is any good, try posting your shot and what you consider to be the best shot of Rainier on IS and ask people which they would buy.

5. Accurate keywording and good captions.

Good luck.

« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2009, 01:29 »
0
 Thanks for everyone who responded to my post. I was not having a good day when I made my initial post, so my apologies if I came across the wrong way.

« Last Edit: May 14, 2009, 00:32 by marcopolo »

« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2009, 13:51 »
0
Wow, every single image you posted is simply gorgeous! Well, at least to my mind :) Great lightning and colors! Are these HDRs? Cannot imagine why these were rejected. Accept perhaps if you uploaded them together as an application for some agency. They like diversity, so 3 or 10 landscape images(no matter how great) will perhaps not be sufficient? Well this is just a guess. I wouldn't reject them except they were full of artifacts etc :)

« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2009, 23:56 »
0
I don't believe your first picture is over saturated even for SS and IS.  You photographed the alpenglow on Mt. Rainier, the mountain should be that orange-pink color.  Here are a few tips, wait for clouds, even if you need to go back day after day.  Don't cut off the shoreline like you did on the left.  A horizontal composition might have been better always shoot vertical and horizontal compositions.

The Salt pan shot with the clouds:  The human eye sees the brightest part of a picture first.  The use of the split neutral density filter makes the salt pan the brightest part of the picture, it overpowers the colorful sunset.

The sand dune picture is nice but you need more depth of field.  When you have a spot of light make sure there is something in it.  Again clouds would help this picture.

Oak tree:  If you are going to silhouette the tree try to have the sun showing through the branches.  Most times it will star out.  Or wait till the sun has set, but before the sky is black, to shoot.  That will make the tree and foreground black.

« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2009, 00:03 »
0
I really like the first three, the rest leave me indifferent. For the first one I would suggest better postprocessing to bring out the punch, it is beautiful, but not striking enough in terms of contrast or colors, also try playing with dodge and burn.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
2348 Views
Last post May 30, 2008, 12:50
by melastmohican
2 Replies
3108 Views
Last post August 28, 2008, 16:45
by a.k.a.-tom
14 Replies
5917 Views
Last post May 19, 2009, 18:55
by KB
5 Replies
4692 Views
Last post March 27, 2011, 05:25
by BaldricksTrousers
7 Replies
5504 Views
Last post June 30, 2015, 05:22
by PZF

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors