pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Submitting to iStock - Nikon dSLR  (Read 14986 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 09, 2010, 07:36 »
0
I just bought a Nikon mid-range dSLR and I want to join this whole microstock thing.
Here are my three images, no noise, no artifacts, lots of going through and highest quality JPEG I could produce.
Please tell me if it's good enough because I don't want to be rejected again :P
Man with glasses on field:
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/4155370/img/4155370.jpg
Hellfire pass railroad:
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/4155413/img/4155413.jpg
Finger point on map :
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/4155389/img/4155389.jpg

These were all taken in Thailand, as I am Thai, constructive criticism is awesome, if they're good enough, I'll be confident to submit those three :)


« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2010, 07:49 »
0
They aren't good enough..!

Man with glasses:
- trademark
- what is the purpose of this picture? think who wants to buy your photos...

Second:
- out of focus
- noise
- composition
- again think if I buyer wants this picture

Third:
- way better than the others
- noise!
- maps are hard to get into stock again trademark issues!

« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2010, 07:58 »
0
I don't get it? I shot in ISO 100, and there is still noise?

« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2010, 08:02 »
0
I don't get it? I shot in ISO 100, and there is still noise?

Yes there is..! Let's wait to see if anyone else decide to talk in this topic once because of IS everybody is a little pissed.. :P (including me)

« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2010, 08:05 »
0
Thanks btw, I only noticed noise on the third one in the shadow of the hand, but as much as I tried, I could not get rid of it. Is selective blurring allowed?
I was at a great photogenic area in hellfire pass, and the all of my railroad pictures were oof, what a waste :(

« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2010, 08:07 »
0
Its dont agree with Luissantos about noise.  Its short depth of field and blur, but not much noise.  

 The other comments hes totally right about.

« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2010, 08:12 »
0
Thanks btw, I only noticed noise on the third one in the shadow of the hand, but as much as I tried, I could not get rid of it. Is selective blurring allowed?
I was at a great photogenic area in hellfire pass, and the all of my railroad pictures were oof, what a waste :(

below 1/40s I recommend a tripod, but actually sometimes I manage to get nice photos at 1/15s..

Microbius

« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2010, 08:41 »
0
.....and the second one has blown highlights, and the map hand has grubby nails, and the map won't fly on IStock because of copyright, and.....

« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2010, 08:54 »
0
.....and the second one has blown highlights, and the map hand has grubby nails, and the map won't fly on IStock because of copyright, and.....

yes, for this I advice the use of the BLINKS option on your nikon!

« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2010, 09:15 »
0
Zero commercial value (sorry).

« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2010, 10:12 »
0
2 new images, because I like the map one, oh the map has no copyright, as it is a map in my school made by the school itself so I have every right to use it, as I asked them already.
Board with scissors (no trademark)
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/4156091/img/4156091.jpg
Simple floorboard design curve:
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/4156144/img/4156144.jpg

« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2010, 10:24 »
0
I don't get it? I shot in ISO 100, and there is still noise?

Number 3 :

# Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/30 second ===> 0.03333 second
# Lens F-Number / F-Stop = 5/1 ===> /5
# Exposure Program = aperture priority (3)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 640
# Unknown tag, Tagnum 0x8830 = data ===> 0
# EXIF Version = 0221
# Original Date/Time = 2010:09:06 14:42:59
# Digitization Date/Time = 2010:09:06 14:42:59
# Shutter Speed Value (APEX) = 4906891/1000000
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) = 1/30 second
# Aperture Value (APEX) = 4643856/1000000
Aperture = /5
# Exposure Bias (EV) = 0/6 ===> 0
# Max Aperture Value (APEX) = 47/10 ===> 4.7
Max Aperture = /5.1
# Distance to Subject = 45/100 m
# Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
# Light Source / White Balance = unknown (0)
# Flash = Flash did not fire
# Focal Length = 360/10 mm ===> 36 mm
# Last Modified Subsecond Time = 50
# Original Subsecond Time = 50
# Digitized Subsecond Time = 50
# Colour Space = 65535
# Image Width = 4288 pixels
# Image Height = 2848 pixels
# Image Sensing Method = one-chip color area sensor (2)
# Image Source = digital still camera (DSC)
# Scene Type = directly photographed image
# Colour Filter Array (CFA) Geometric Pattern = 0x02,0x00,0x02,0x00,0x01,0x02,0x00,0x01
# Custom Rendered = normal process (0)
# Exposure Mode = auto exposure (0)
# White Balance = auto (0)
# Digital Zoom Ratio = 1/1 ===> 1
# Focal Length in 35mm Film = 54
# Scene Capture Type = standard (0)
# Gain Control = low gain up (1)
# Contrast = normal (0)
# Saturation = normal (0)
# Sharpness = normal (0)
# Subject Distance Range = unknown (0)
# Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa431 = data ===> 8148963
# Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa432 = data ===> 180/10,550/10,35/10,56/10
# Unknown tag, Tagnum 0xa434 = data ===> 18.0-55.0 mm f/3.5-5.6

As you can see : iso 640

Patrick.

« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2010, 10:32 »
0
Ah yes, number 3 was indeed shot at ISO 640, I remember now. Is there a lot of noise to be discernible or should I edit it out in lightroom?
What about the other 2?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2010, 10:33 »
0
I think you need to read the tread " iStock changing royalty structure " in this forum before you invest to much time on this.

« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2010, 10:43 »
0
scissor:
- a little noise
- too messy all picture no?? try it with less distractions like the papers etc.. maybe a little cropping
- trademark on the middle of the scissor (the symbol)

second:
- like it more
- a little overexposed on the grass (grass could be more beautiful.. :P)
- I would place a higher F to get a little focus on the grass
- crop it a little also, the top right and left corner (remove distractions)

again think if there is a buyer to these pictures, they are better than the first 3 but not enough..

ap

« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2010, 17:41 »
0
I think you need to read the tread " iStock changing royalty structure " in this forum before you invest to much time on this.

lol. i think this should be the stock reply to all newbies from now on. if they still want to go on, then....

« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2010, 08:43 »
0
scissor:
- a little noise
- too messy all picture no?? try it with less distractions like the papers etc.. maybe a little cropping
- trademark on the middle of the scissor (the symbol)

second:
- like it more
- a little overexposed on the grass (grass could be more beautiful.. :P)
- I would place a higher F to get a little focus on the grass
- crop it a little also, the top right and left corner (remove distractions)

again think if there is a buyer to these pictures, they are better than the first 3 but not enough..
Then what is enough?

« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2010, 09:01 »
0
Someone teach me about microstock photography and how I could improve my images and what will be accepted :( thanks in advance :)

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2010, 11:49 »
0
I might be wrong, but it looks as though you are also wrestling with "Overfiltered" images.   Tha is easy to fix, just stop Overfiltering. ;)

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2010, 12:04 »
0
Use the Capture NX2 software that came with the camera too, it works very well and I get far fewer images turned down ( in fact virtually none refused) compared with Photoshop.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2010, 12:31 »
0
Someone teach me about microstock photography and how I could improve my images and what will be accepted :( thanks in advance :)


You seem to be lacking the basics. In addition to the technical issues I don't think any of these have any commercial value that Istock is looking for. So maybe you should do some learning first rather than expecting someone here to "teach you".  Here's istock's learning section http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_1.0_account.php

There is a lot of information and books available on stock photography.

« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2010, 00:47 »
0
New five photos, I think I'm going to submit the finger pointing on map, the floorboard curve (re-edited) and one of these 5.
Floorboard curve -
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/4163395/img/4163395.jpg
Woman holding phone desperate call:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/4163401/img/4163401.jpg
Thai Sausages -
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/4163442/img/4163442.jpg
Student lighting lighter -
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/4163489/img/4163489.jpg
Cropped soldier cemetary -
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/4163496/img/4163496.jpg

« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2010, 04:23 »
0
Why would anyone want to submit material to Istock ????

Microbius

« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2010, 04:29 »
0
Honestly, you wont get in with those. You need to read the answers people are giving, go away and improve then try again. But then again, can't hurt to get the inspectors feedback too!
P.S. Do read the threads about how IStock treats its contributors before getting involved with them

« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2010, 08:06 »
0
The truth is, the only reason I'm submitting to iStock is because it allows minors to contribute, I'm only 15.

« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2010, 09:11 »
0
The truth is, the only reason I'm submitting to iStock is because it allows minors to contribute, I'm only 15.

You are one brave lad - I'll give you that.... But that said, I don't think Istock is a very nice place to be for a young fellow like you.

Don't get lured in to all their sweetalk, expect to be underpayed, talked down to, getting your files rejected for no apparent reason etc...

No - actually, I would recommend you not to join, and instead to to some photoshosting sites with a freindly environment, where you can get some good feedbask on your photography.

Best!

« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2010, 09:29 »
0
Flooboard
- now WB isn't correct, too many blues no?
- focus is acceptable!
- again crop the top left and right corner :)

Woman holding phone
- lighting is really poor
- do you think a buyer wants this picture? to what?.. see other photos at stock agencies regarding this subject..!
- too many distractions on the background!

Thai Sausages
- I like it but a lot of distractions like the blue basket at the right

Lighter
- trademark on the green shirt and lighter!
- the person on the left also a distraction!
- focus isn't well

Cemetary
- where . did you focus??? at the center??? bad focus
- could be a nice photo if it is well focus and no visible names.. or it could be Editorial!

My advice is to shoot less complex shoots... try some regular shoots like fruits, background.. always remember that a shot should have a clean space for copyspace!.. why dont you look into IS photos and other agencies..?

don't give up but I guess you have a lot of work, research and getting to know what stock really is..! (I am very new at stock, year and half but I can tell that you need clean good shoots to bring some bucks..)

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2010, 10:43 »
0
I really think you need to realize that iStock is the lowest paying stock site and the hardest to get into. It's you're decision but I really think you need to learn a little more.
The floorboard has no commercial value. What would it be used for? The harsh dark shadow along the edge won't fly with iStock.

The girl with phone is fair but there really isn't much expression of emotion in the shot. Plus the lighting is not the greatest. There are way to many shots on-line that are much better to even consider submitting it. You got to realize that if it's already a well covered subject and great pictures already covering it then it won't get the light of day.

The thai sausages won't work either. There are way to many distractions in that shot. Your eye goes to the blue basket and wanders around the shot looking at all the other things that are unrelated to the focus of the shot...the saugages.

I like this one the best, but as luissantos84 said there are copyrights involved and there are again to many distractions.

I doubt the cemetery would make it either. It really has very little commercial value and there is the possibility they would reject it on copyright also because of the design on the headstones.

You need to make your shots simpler. You want your eye to go to the subject of the photo and not wander all over the place. Before you ever hit the shutter release you need to look for those distractions and remove them. Just pay attention to where your eye goes first and if it isn't on the main subject, it would never sell for that very reason. You need to learn the rule of thirds. Rather than me trying to explain it to you, google it. I'm sure there is a site out there that would explain it.

« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2010, 11:20 »
0
Flooboard
- now WB isn't correct, too many blues no?
- focus is acceptable!
- again crop the top left and right corner :)

Woman holding phone
- lighting is really poor
- do you think a buyer wants this picture? to what?.. see other photos at stock agencies regarding this subject..!
- too many distractions on the background!

Thai Sausages
- I like it but a lot of distractions like the blue basket at the right

Lighter
- trademark on the green shirt and lighter!
- the person on the left also a distraction!
- focus isn't well

Cemetary
- where . did you focus??? at the center??? bad focus
- could be a nice photo if it is well focus and no visible names.. or it could be Editorial!

My advice is to shoot less complex shoots... try some regular shoots like fruits, background.. always remember that a shot should have a clean space for copyspace!.. why dont you look into IS photos and other agencies..?

don't give up but I guess you have a lot of work, research and getting to know what stock really is..! (I am very new at stock, year and half but I can tell that you need clean good shoots to bring some bucks..)
What if I cropped the blue basket out of the thai sausages picture, would it be good enough then?

« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2010, 17:38 »
0
the problem on that crop is that you will crop a lot of the photo.. have any new shoots?

« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2010, 18:12 »
0
Maybe iStock would be a good training ground for you (and yes, they are treating everybody very badly at the moment). It's great that you want to learn and are making the effort to ask rather than thinking you know it all (the way most people do). I'm sure you will go far in due course. At your age you should remember that stock is just one tiny corner of what photography has to offer and it's not where the real money is. So, yeah, why not use iStock as a free course in perfecting your technique and making a few pennies? Then, when you've got the technical skills, go and do your own thing. Best of luck to you.

« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2010, 03:33 »
0
I think you are Thai, right? I read some Thai on a note next to the sausages. Don't to forget to remove that kind of stuff or you won't get accepted for copyright.
The girl's face is too flat. You could change that with a friend holding up a reflector in the sun and certainly not shoot her against a sunny background which will be overexposed. Don't crop her face on the chin: the composition is lousy this way. Portrait would have been better than landscape. Clone out her skin defects. Let her smile or express some emotion.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2010, 10:37 by FD-regular »

« Reply #32 on: September 17, 2010, 07:09 »
0
I think you are Thai, right? I read some Thai on a note next to the sausages. Don't to forget to remove that kind of stuff or you won't get accepted for copyright.
The girl's face is too flat. You could change that with a friend holding up a reflector in the sun and certainly shoot her against a sunny background which will be overexposed. Don't crop her face on the chin: the composition is lousy this way. Portrait would have been better than landscape. Clone out her skin defects. Let her smile or express some emotion.

I guess that's a lot to start but 100% right :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
3480 Views
Last post November 07, 2006, 07:02
by GeoPappas
0 Replies
2485 Views
Last post July 19, 2009, 17:25
by Gregor909
7 Replies
5024 Views
Last post October 22, 2010, 18:00
by luissantos84
5 Replies
3079 Views
Last post July 27, 2017, 17:12
by DallasP
6 Replies
6217 Views
Last post June 17, 2020, 08:43
by Jens G

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors