MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: IS Critique wanted for application  (Read 6209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 23, 2012, 10:14 »
0
Hello I've had my application rejected twice and of course I can't post on their forums...

These photos were rejected for being too similar
Photo 1 [nofollow]
Photo 2 [nofollow]
Photo 3 [nofollow]
I believe the Photo 1 and 2 are miscropped. New photographer over-joyed with getting a good shot. Didn't think about t. lol

These photos were rejected for bad composition/subject matter.
Photo 4 [nofollow]
Photo 5 [nofollow]
Photo 6 [nofollow]
These I don't know. I thought Photo 6 was good though...

I was hoping to get some critiques on these and two more as I feel they might be good enough to be accepted.
Dragonfly 1 [nofollow]
Dragonfly 2 [nofollow]

Here is a link to my deviantart gallery, which s a better representation than my dropbox one.
Gallery [nofollow]

Any help/insight would be greatly appreciated!


« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2012, 10:24 »
0
never send a flower pic for application, anywhere  ;)

« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2012, 10:30 »
0
I assume there are way to many? lol

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2012, 10:46 »
0
They won't accept the dragonflies because of the burned-out highlights and they wouldn't be accepted into the collection because of the very obvious luminance noise.
They'd be unlikely to sell anyway because of the cluttered background. If you search dragonfly by downloads you'll see there's not much market for them on iStock ( :( I have some!) - the only flame has been up since 2003.

ShadySue

« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2012, 10:53 »
0
Your spider #4 has the focus on the abdomen and it should be on the head.

The candle shot is way too dark, and the highlights at top left are extremely distracting. It looks like the wicks are clean but the wax underneath is melted.

Have a good look at similar subjects on yours which sell well on iStock and you'll see what you have to do.

« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2012, 11:06 »
0
Your spider #4 has the focus on the abdomen and it should be on the head.

The candle shot is way too dark, and the highlights at top left are extremely distracting. It looks like the wicks are clean but the wax underneath is melted.

Have a good look at similar subjects on yours which sell well on iStock and you'll see what you have to do.

I knew this about the spider after it was too late. Never looked at the candle picture that way. Thanks

For the Dragonflies the highlights I cannot do anything about as they are a reflection from the sun.

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2012, 11:12 »
0
For the Dragonflies the highlights I cannot do anything about as they are a reflection from the sun.
Quite, tell me about it, but iStock don't care.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2012, 11:15 »
0
You got a pic of a Hummingbird Moth on a Butterfly bush!

But it needs to be bigger in the fame and off center.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2012, 11:22 »
0
Dragonflies are easy!


ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2012, 11:26 »
0
Looked at your Deviatart page. Without even zooming in, the only thumbnail that is even near to iStock quality is the twin flowers one. And as I didn't zoom in there might even be lots of technical issues with that.
The rest: forget about them for stock. Truly.

LOOK at your opposition for composition and lighting, and also remember that iStock are mega-picky about pixel-perfect technical issues.
Truly, you need to study what's available for sale already and wonder why someone would buy yours rather than theirs.
Also, you'll never get far with generic labelling like 'dragonfly', 'bird' or 'flower'.
Bird, photos only: 167,397
Flower, photos only: 552,474
Dragonfly, photos only: 6,599
NB: Twinflower is a specific type of wild flower. Be careful!
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 11:58 by ShadySue »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2012, 11:33 »
0
Yes you will need to know the scientific classification names of animals.

« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2012, 11:39 »
0
As Shady Sue says. There's nothing on Deviant Art that would get you accepted, or sell if you were accepted. I'm sorry to say that you are some way off with these.

Go over to iStock and read some of the advice given there to prospective contributors.  You need to show that you have an understanding of what stock is, and how to shoot it. You want to demonstrate that you understand the technicalities of how to use a camera, and how to post process to best effect. You need to show artistic appreciation of how to compose a shot.

Common advice given is to submit a portrait of a person, a landscape and a still life to show diversity. I don't know the 20D, but as it's an older body I suspect that anything over ISO 100 will give you noise problems. Turn off all in camera processing like sharpening, nail the exposure "in camera".

Good luck.

« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2012, 11:42 »
0

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2012, 11:55 »
0
Go over to iStock

dont go now ;D

Yeah, it's been down for about half an hour, with that childish note in English, but sensible notes in the other languages.
Guess the must be looking for my dls for the past three days, which have been noticeably MIA.

« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2012, 11:55 »
0
@ShadySue
Well now I know what kind of company I'm dealing with. lol. Oh ok. Most of those pictures were taken before getting into this microstock thing anyways. Hence the tags. I know I need much better tags. Since I'm just trying to get approved I'm not worrying about those.

@ruxpriencdiam
Yes! lol And I was so happy I jacked up the cropping. Haha I never said dragonflies were hard. They pose for you...

@Difydave
Oh I have a lot to learn. I know this very well. However I'm a nature photographer at heart so that puts me in a hole from the get go. From what I hear the 20D is good to 400 I don't shoot higher regardless.

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2012, 11:57 »
0
You're using ISO 400 (at least in the shots I examined) which requires noise suppression to be useful. The best approach, since many of your shots are still, is to use a tripod and slow down the shutter rather than bump up the ISO.

Also, you appear to be shooting with an extreme zoom lens. 28-300mm. Nice all purpose lens for other work but if it's for stock, be sure you know the sweet spot and stick to it because all extreme zoom lenses are prone to aberrations, you can't offer that kind of range in focal length without giving up something.

« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2012, 12:03 »
0

« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2012, 12:12 »
0
@ShadySue
Most of those pictures were taken before getting into this microstock thing anyways.

@Difydave
Oh I have a lot to learn. I know this very well. However I'm a nature photographer at heart so that puts me in a hole from the get go. From what I hear the 20D is good to 400 I don't shoot higher regardless.

Best plan is to shoot images just for application. Forget what you already have.
Same about nature photography. Unless you really are an exceptional and experienced nature photographer, you are unlikely to get in with just nature shots.
As far as the ISO goes, "good" is a relative term like "sharp".
I wouldn't shoot above ISO 100 for application shots if I was using a 20D.

« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2012, 12:47 »
0
Best plan is to shoot images just for application. Forget what you already have.
Same about nature photography. Unless you really are an exceptional and experienced nature photographer, you are unlikely to get in with just nature shots.
As far as the ISO goes, "good" is a relative term like "sharp".
I wouldn't shoot above ISO 100 for application shots if I was using a 20D.

Yeah. That's probably a good idea. I'll be an EnE nature photographer one day.
Well of course. Just like saying food is delicious. I thought I had sharp pictures until I bought a plastic fantastic...

You're using ISO 400 (at least in the shots I examined) which requires noise suppression to be useful. The best approach, since many of your shots are still, is to use a tripod and slow down the shutter rather than bump up the ISO.

Also, you appear to be shooting with an extreme zoom lens. 28-300mm. Nice all purpose lens for other work but if it's for stock, be sure you know the sweet spot and stick to it because all extreme zoom lenses are prone to aberrations, you can't offer that kind of range in focal length without giving up something.

Yeah there is no order to those pictures, but when I first got the camera I was 800 with that 28-300 as well as a 18-55. I've got my tripod now and a 50. I know the sweet spot of that one. Its all a learning process and luckily I'm a sponge...

« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2012, 10:25 »
0
IS are VERY picky.

may be worth trying elsewhere first.

« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2012, 09:33 »
0
Since this convo my photography has gotten much better. I wish I just began shooting in RAW and its like every week I learn something new. At the time I was also trying to get into shutterstock. And they want 10 pictures 7 of which must be accepted. Any insight on there application process as compared to IS? Are they just as picky?

« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2012, 11:39 »
0
Since this convo my photography has gotten much better. I wish I just began shooting in RAW and its like every week I learn something new. At the time I was also trying to get into shutterstock. And they want 10 pictures 7 of which must be accepted. Any insight on there application process as compared to IS? Are they just as picky?
Easiest way is to post your application images for SS here on the forums for critique. This will reduce your application time significantly.

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2012, 14:40 »
0
Since this convo my photography has gotten much better. I wish I just began shooting in RAW [snip]
I saw a young bloke, maybe about 16 or 18 in the Tuileries this afternoon (yeahm yeah placedropping!) wearing a T-shirt which said nothing but "SHOOT RAW". I was pretty impressed (can you shoot RAW on a Smartphone?). Unless one of the more up to date of you tells me it means something else completely  ::)

« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2012, 11:04 »
0
Since this convo my photography has gotten much better. I wish I just began shooting in RAW [snip]
I saw a young bloke, maybe about 16 or 18 in the Tuileries this afternoon (yeahm yeah placedropping!) wearing a T-shirt which said nothing but "SHOOT RAW". I was pretty impressed (can you shoot RAW on a Smartphone?). Unless one of the more up to date of you tells me it means something else completely  ::)

It's a drug reference.





Possibly.

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2012, 12:10 »
0
Since this convo my photography has gotten much better. I wish I just began shooting in RAW [snip]
I saw a young bloke, maybe about 16 or 18 in the Tuileries this afternoon (yeah, yeah: placedropping!) wearing a T-shirt which said nothing but "SHOOT RAW". I was pretty impressed (can you shoot RAW on a Smartphone?). Unless one of the more up to date of you tells me it means something else completely  ::)

It's a drug reference.
Possibly.
That possiblity did cross my mind. Perfectly ambiguous.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
5856 Views
Last post April 20, 2012, 11:29
by nbiebach
6 Replies
2258 Views
Last post September 01, 2013, 20:21
by FiledIMAGE
11 Replies
4709 Views
Last post September 12, 2017, 00:05
by rinderart
7 Replies
3906 Views
Last post September 12, 2017, 00:11
by rinderart
4 Replies
3783 Views
Last post January 15, 2018, 05:21
by Gamejirada

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results