MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Submission to Istock critique  (Read 14243 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 01, 2012, 13:16 »
0
Hey, i'm new to stock photography and new here. I was wandering if these photos are what istock is looking for and if they will get accepted.

1.    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Coffee-fixed2%20.jpg
-I think if you zoom 100% there is too much noise and i probably should of put all the coffee granules in focus

2.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Kings%20college%20Cambridge%202fixed%20-%20critique.jpg
- I probably zoomed into it too much and shown more of the building, after editing a bit too intense

3.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Small%20wooden%20toy%20boat%20copy.jpg
- Again some bits out of focus and probably needs some 'after editing'

4.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Sea%20lions%20-%20critique.jpg
- I heard there are already wildlife shots in the stock market and the lighting isn't great

5.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Clay%20pig%20behind%20fence%20-%20critique.jpg
- I thought it was interesting but i didn't execute it well, ie it looks a bit dull and boring. Not really stock market material

6.    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/pacific%20gull-critique.jpg
- again, lots of wildlife shots and i think the background is too 'busy'

Thanks so much for your time, and please tell me if i'm wrong about my judgements on the photos. Do you think i will get accepted into istock and if so which photos will get me there and which need improvement.

P.S Sorry for huge watermarking, didnt really have time/knowledge to make it look discreet


« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2012, 13:33 »
0
I can guarantee #1 and #3 won't be accepted, because the white balance is way off.  The backgrounds should be white, not pink, and the pink cast ruins the rest of the color.

#4 is over-exposed.

#5...you already figured out it wouldn't work as stock.  Not only is the pig probably copyrighted, but the overall composition is terrible.

#6 is also over-exposed.  There's a loss of detail on the bird's head from the white being over-exposed.  Otherwise, I like the photo and don't necessarily think the background too busy.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 13:37 by Karimala »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2012, 13:34 »
0
No 6 (Gull) what you said, but it would be an immediate rejection because of the bleached out highlights on the head and nape areas. But absolutely it would need to have either a more defocussed and subtle background or it would need to be a photo of a gull making a living from human activity.

No 4: actually I like the face, but the burnt out highlight on the rump would be a no-brainer rejection.

No3: has red/green Chromatic aberration, e.g. top of the bottom black line has red, bottom of the boat has green. This can be fixed in your RAW editor, but would be an instant rejection. It seems to have been shot in tungsten lighting or something (?) and to be underexposed.

No 1: yes, as you said, far too noisy, and again looks too 'warm'.

No 5: yeah, not good for stock. Who might use this photo / what for?

No 2: best of the bunch, but the cropping is again neither fish nor fowl, as you suggested.

You seem to have a good grasp about what's wrong with your images. Keep practising and good luck!
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 20:12 by ShadySue »

« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2012, 13:57 »
0
Sorry to say this, but these images are way too weak. Subject-wise, artistically and technically. You need to improve on every level.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 14:03 by Perry »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2012, 18:30 »
0
I just looked at #1 and it is OOF with noise uneven lighting and the WB is wrong, BG should be white.

Not even gonna look at the others and forget watermarks they can be removed and if you would resize them to 500x500 it would be so much easier.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2012, 18:42 »
0
I just looked at #1 and it is OOF with noise uneven lighting and the WB is wrong, BG should be white.

Not even gonna look at the others and forget watermarks they can be removed and if you would resize them to 500x500 it would be so much easier.
Huh? Of course watermarks should be applied and how could people assess noise, focus, CR etc if the image were downsized to 500x500?

« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2012, 19:03 »
0
You seem to have a good grasp about what's wrong with your images. Keep practising and good luck!

+1

« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2012, 19:10 »
0
Restart from square one.

Forget about all the images you posted here for an iStock application.

You were not completely off with your own observations and people already addressed that so there is room for improvement!

Think outside the box. Shoot a popular subject from a new angle, don't just whip out your camera and shoot what's around you.

You have to put some thought into your image that you want to create.

Successful stock images and especially microstock images are most often thoroughly planned photos. Everything has to be right:
- Subject has to be (almost) flawless - reduce imperfections (like your macro shot of the boat - it's just dusty - not nice)
- Ger your composition right, don't cut off parts of the subject (like the seal) - work with something like the rule of thirds
- Make sure you edit your image without further loss of quality - start with RAW images, save them as TIFF or PSD in between if not finished, get your white balance right (!)
- Work with appropriate depth of field, rarely, very shallow depth of field works well.
- Always ask yourself for which services or products could your image be used for? If executed well, the more generic your image can be used, the more downloads you will get (possibly).
- (Try to) Improve existing shots at the agencies. You can do them again but you need to do them better if you want to see sales.
- Be creative: iStock wants to see that you have a creative mind. Shoot your subjects in an appealing way, make your images different from the crowd but maintain the quality requirements.

Hope this gives you something to work with.

Best of luck!
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 22:57 by click_click »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2012, 21:31 »
0
I just looked at #1 and it is OOF with noise uneven lighting and the WB is wrong, BG should be white.

Not even gonna look at the others and forget watermarks they can be removed and if you would resize them to 500x500 it would be so much easier.
Huh? Of course watermarks should be applied and how could people assess noise, focus, CR etc if the image were downsized to 500x500?
Do a 100% zoom and crop out the area to be in focus!

Quite easy.

Watermarks can be removed easily and if you dont want it stolen dont post it because once it is on the internet it is free for the taking.

At least if you post it as a 500x500 less people will want to steal it because you cant enlarge it unless you buy the program that lets you do it and most people wont pay for the program.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2012, 22:02 »
0
I just looked at #1 and it is OOF with noise uneven lighting and the WB is wrong, BG should be white.

Not even gonna look at the others and forget watermarks they can be removed and if you would resize them to 500x500 it would be so much easier.

Huh? Of course watermarks should be applied and how could people assess noise, focus, CR etc if the image were downsized to 500x500?
Here is why watermarks mean nothing and how to determine noise and or focus this is what we do on SS everyday on the critique forum perhaps you should pay a visit once in a while.

Now if you cant see the Noise and OOF in that image perhaps some glasses are in need.




« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2012, 22:36 »
0
Welcome.

Prepare for an iStock inspector beat down for a few months until you get it figured out. We've all been through it. I hope you have thick skin and determination.

Consider getting an account at http://kelbytraining.com and study the tutorial videos.  It is a good fast track to learning from the pros.

Good luck and stay strong

 8)

« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2012, 23:44 »
0
1.    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Coffee-fixed2%20.jpg
-I think if you zoom 100% there is too much noise and i probably should of put all the coffee granules in focus
Lack of details and contrast, underexposed, bad lighting, noise.

2.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Kings%20college%20Cambridge%202fixed%20-%20critique.jpg
- I probably zoomed into it too much and shown more of the building, after editing a bit too intense
Crop too narrow, lack of details + noise

3.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Small%20wooden%20toy%20boat%20copy.jpg
- Again some bits out of focus and probably needs some 'after editing'
wb off, ship dusty

4.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Sea%20lions%20-%20critique.jpg
- I heard there are already wildlife shots in the stock market and the lighting isn't great
bad lighting and perspective

5.   https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/Clay%20pig%20behind%20fence%20-%20critique.jpg
- I thought it was interesting but i didn't execute it well, ie it looks a bit dull and boring. Not really stock market material
meaningless photo, no keyword applicable

6.    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/73163709/pacific%20gull-critique.jpg
- again, lots of wildlife shots and i think the background is too 'busy'
burned out, bad composition, subject too small in frame

Generally all your photos have problems with exposure/ lighting and resolution/ noise.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 23:45 by JPSDK »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2012, 05:54 »
0
I just looked at #1 and it is OOF with noise uneven lighting and the WB is wrong, BG should be white.

Not even gonna look at the others and forget watermarks they can be removed and if you would resize them to 500x500 it would be so much easier.
Huh? Of course watermarks should be applied and how could people assess noise, focus, CR etc if the image were downsized to 500x500?
Do a 100% zoom and crop out the area to be in focus!

Quite easy.

Watermarks can be removed easily and if you dont want it stolen dont post it because once it is on the internet it is free for the taking.

At least if you post it as a 500x500 less people will want to steal it because you cant enlarge it unless you buy the program that lets you do it and most people wont pay for the program.

If there was a tiny crop, it might highlight one issue, but totally miss other issues, e.g. if the OP had done a crop of the sea lion's head, we wouldn't have seen the blown highlights on its rump. If the OP had done a tiny crop on one area of the centre of the boat, probably the CA wouldn't have been so obvious. A lot of would-be thieves don't know how to remove watermarks, else how would we find in-misuses with watermarks on them?
There's a reason full-size images are recommended for critique, and it's not always so that people can steal them.
If someone is asking for help with a particular issue, e.g. whether incidental people in a photo are small/defocussed enough not to need MRs, then a crop would be OK.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2012, 09:21 »
0
I just looked at #1 and it is OOF with noise uneven lighting and the WB is wrong, BG should be white.

Not even gonna look at the others and forget watermarks they can be removed and if you would resize them to 500x500 it would be so much easier.
Huh? Of course watermarks should be applied and how could people assess noise, focus, CR etc if the image were downsized to 500x500?
Do a 100% zoom and crop out the area to be in focus!

Quite easy.

Watermarks can be removed easily and if you dont want it stolen dont post it because once it is on the internet it is free for the taking.

At least if you post it as a 500x500 less people will want to steal it because you cant enlarge it unless you buy the program that lets you do it and most people wont pay for the program.

If there was a tiny crop, it might highlight one issue, but totally miss other issues, e.g. if the OP had done a crop of the sea lion's head, we wouldn't have seen the blown highlights on its rump. If the OP had done a tiny crop on one area of the centre of the boat, probably the CA wouldn't have been so obvious. A lot of would-be thieves don't know how to remove watermarks, else how would we find in-misuses with watermarks on them?
There's a reason full-size images are recommended for critique, and it's not always so that people can steal them.
If someone is asking for help with a particular issue, e.g. whether incidental people in a photo are small/defocussed enough not to need MRs, then a crop would be OK.
A 500x500 full size image will show the lighting issue and the 100% 500x500 crops are how you will see the CA aka fringing.

We do this on a regular basis over at SS as i have already stated so we can help people get accepted and we are all usually right on track with everything and if we question something we will ask for another 100% crop from another area to check for something.

We dont need a full size 18MP file to see what can be seen in a smaller version of the same shot.

« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2012, 12:37 »
0
Thanks for your quick comments guys, they've shown me the errors i did not quite see i.e adjusting white balance on camera. I am working to address these issues and will be sure to watch tutorials and learn more about stock photography. Would it be of any help if i get a better lens? Such as a Canon 17-40mm L lens or maybe to start off with, a 50mm 1.8 as at the moment i have a kit lens with a canon T2i.

« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2012, 13:04 »
0
Thanks for your quick comments guys, they've shown me the errors i did not quite see i.e adjusting white balance on camera. I am working to address these issues and will be sure to watch tutorials and learn more about stock photography. Would it be of any help if i get a better lens? Such as a Canon 17-40mm L lens or maybe to start off with, a 50mm 1.8 as at the moment i have a kit lens with a canon T2i.

I'd start with the the 50mm 1.8 and wait until you can get images accepted with that before bothering to invest in anything else.
If you shoot in RAW you can deal with the white balance in post and have a lot more control for editing.

« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2012, 00:52 »
0
Dont invest in gear, invest in reading your camera manual, and in understanding light. and IF...
If you dont have a tripod, Id rater invest in such one than the lenses.
You pictures would not improve with a new lens, but much more from lighting.
Kitlenses can easily deliver high quality pictures.

I suggest you find out what causes the grain and the lack of details.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 00:54 by JPSDK »

Lagereek

« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2012, 01:32 »
0
Last time I gave advice regarding IS, acceptance, the person in question reacted like a total ignoramus.

My advice is: start fresh, forget these kind of subjects and think commercial, what will sell, etc. Its all about saleabillity, nothing else, no art, nothing. and please, do not waste money on equipment, as already said, read the camera manual. Thats what the person above should have done as well.

good luck.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 01:34 by Lagereek »

Poncke

« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2012, 01:46 »
0
Last time I gave advice regarding IS, acceptance, the person in question reacted like a total ignoramus.

My advice is: start fresh, forget these kind of subjects and think commercial, what will sell, etc. Its all about saleabillity, nothing else, no art, nothing. and please, do not waste money on equipment, as already said, read the camera manual. Thats what the person above should have done as well.

good luck.

Eeerm, no dude. I did not and you know it. Your advice was completely based on assumptions. I am not submitting to IS based on advice I got there from others. Not ignoring anything, just not taking advice from you. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Lagereek

« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2012, 02:02 »
0
Last time I gave advice regarding IS, acceptance, the person in question reacted like a total ignoramus.

My advice is: start fresh, forget these kind of subjects and think commercial, what will sell, etc. Its all about saleabillity, nothing else, no art, nothing. and please, do not waste money on equipment, as already said, read the camera manual. Thats what the person above should have done as well.

good luck.

Eeerm, no dude. I did not and you know it. Your advice was completely based on assumptions. I am not submitting to IS based on advice I got there from others. Not ignoring anything, just not taking advice from you. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Hi there!  Oh, I wasnt refering to you,  youre problems were with SS, DT and FT,  wasnt it?  sorry cant remember really, couldnt have been that important then.

all the best.

Poncke

« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2012, 02:09 »
0
Last time I gave advice regarding IS, acceptance, the person in question reacted like a total ignoramus.

My advice is: start fresh, forget these kind of subjects and think commercial, what will sell, etc. Its all about saleabillity, nothing else, no art, nothing. and please, do not waste money on equipment, as already said, read the camera manual. Thats what the person above should have done as well.

good luck.

Eeerm, no dude. I did not and you know it. Your advice was completely based on assumptions. I am not submitting to IS based on advice I got there from others. Not ignoring anything, just not taking advice from you. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Hi there!  Oh, I wasnt refering to you,  youre problems were with SS, DT and FT,  wasnt it?  sorry cant remember really, couldnt have been that important then.

all the best.

LOL, nope, but it seems more people are ignoring your advice then... maybe you should stop giving advice

Lagereek

« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2012, 02:34 »
0
Last time I gave advice regarding IS, acceptance, the person in question reacted like a total ignoramus.

My advice is: start fresh, forget these kind of subjects and think commercial, what will sell, etc. Its all about saleabillity, nothing else, no art, nothing. and please, do not waste money on equipment, as already said, read the camera manual. Thats what the person above should have done as well.

good luck.

Eeerm, no dude. I did not and you know it. Your advice was completely based on assumptions. I am not submitting to IS based on advice I got there from others. Not ignoring anything, just not taking advice from you. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Hi there!  Oh, I wasnt refering to you,  youre problems were with SS, DT and FT,  wasnt it?  sorry cant remember really, couldnt have been that important then.

all the best.

LOL, nope, but it seems more people are ignoring your advice then... maybe you should stop giving advice

Yes, now I remember, you did have some trouble with SS, wasnt it?  or was it your Flickr portfolio or something. People flat on their bellies or something like that, and you were given the advice, not to use a point/shoot but to get a proper DSLR instead.
Well you have to excuse but there are so many neewbies coming on here, its hard to remember. :D

all the best and happy shooting

Poncke

« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2012, 02:53 »
0
Last time I gave advice regarding IS, acceptance, the person in question reacted like a total ignoramus.

My advice is: start fresh, forget these kind of subjects and think commercial, what will sell, etc. Its all about saleabillity, nothing else, no art, nothing. and please, do not waste money on equipment, as already said, read the camera manual. Thats what the person above should have done as well.

good luck.

Eeerm, no dude. I did not and you know it. Your advice was completely based on assumptions. I am not submitting to IS based on advice I got there from others. Not ignoring anything, just not taking advice from you. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Hi there!  Oh, I wasnt refering to you,  youre problems were with SS, DT and FT,  wasnt it?  sorry cant remember really, couldnt have been that important then.

all the best.

LOL, nope, but it seems more people are ignoring your advice then... maybe you should stop giving advice

Yes, now I remember, you did have some trouble with SS, wasnt it?  or was it your Flickr portfolio or something. People flat on their bellies or something like that, and you were given the advice, not to use a point/shoot but to get a proper DSLR instead.
Well you have to excuse but there are so many neewbies coming on here, its hard to remember. :D

all the best and happy shooting

HUh? You are mixing up people here I think  ;)  June BME on SS, FT, 123, DP and CanStockPhoto. BS, DT & PM no sales. Newbie indeed, but off to a good start.  ;D

Apologies to the OP for taking this thread OT.   8)

Carry on.  :o
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 02:56 by Poncke »

Lagereek

« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2012, 02:59 »
0
Oh well, enough small talk now, got to get down in the studio,

byeieeeeeeee ::)

« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2012, 15:57 »
0
What are you two on about? :P But anyway thanks for the advice guys. I know what was causing the noise and the lighting. The noise was probably due to a high ISO and the lighting would be because i was trying to use paper to isolate the image. Also i don't really have any lamps and was relying on my house lights. The out of focus was probably due to the aperture. I also didn't expect such a high standard in the stock photos. The other pictures (2,4,5,6,7,8) were photos i had taken, but originally not intended for stock photos - holiday snaps. Having little knowledge on stock i thought they might pass but this is obviously not the case. I have read the camera manual, i know terms such as aperture, shutter speed, exposure etc and i have been doing photography as a hobby for a year now. Now i know you said i shouldn't blow my money on gear just yet and should probably improve, but would it be wise to invest in studio lighting/tent/glass so it can help improve my photos. The lens wouldn't just be used for stock photos, but if your saying that i wont see a difference in IQ then maybe it wont be worth $$$. I think i have the right idea about stock images, isolating the subject and thinking about what my photos would be used for but i don't know much else, so yeah, advice and ideas are always welcome :) .
- Oh and i do have a tripod albeit a plastic 15 ($25) one!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
34 Replies
13096 Views
Last post January 24, 2009, 21:57
by goldenangel
11 Replies
5645 Views
Last post July 16, 2011, 20:52
by Will Dutt
4 Replies
2751 Views
Last post October 16, 2011, 17:35
by Xalanx
10 Replies
3557 Views
Last post April 21, 2012, 00:29
by lagereek
101 Replies
23599 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 13:17
by AYA

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle