|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - mtimber
26
« on: September 22, 2010, 12:37 »
27
« on: September 22, 2010, 12:36 »
A further question.
The consensus seems to be that the first shot suffered from "poor lighting".
Could someone please be a little more explicit as to what that actually means in relation to this image?
28
« on: September 19, 2010, 18:08 »
We built a worldwide antiques business from scratch, with no prior knowledge.
That sort of gives us a background in determination. :-)
The quickest way to learn is from our mistakes, so we are not frightened of getting it wrong...
When I started I didn't have any knowledge also so everything is possible, hard work get us there sooner or later (depending on what we give to the market..)
Thank you for the encouragement. :-) Mark
29
« on: September 19, 2010, 17:31 »
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.
I am working on the lighting at the moment.
I am thinking of backlighting off of a white background and then bouncing the front with a white reflector
I tried this but found the reflector at the front didn't fill the shadows enough (and it was really close). I now bounce a second light off a very large reflector at front to give more control in filling front shadows without creating additional shadows.
My problem is that I do not have a great deal of space to work in unfortunately. So to get a very large bounce panel in place is going to be difficult. Also getting around the problem of reflection of the camera and tripod itself on circular shiny objects is not simple it seems... I have watched some videos on the internet, but they tend to use objects with flat faces. Now I know it can be done as others are doing it. Will have to research some more I think.
30
« on: September 19, 2010, 17:19 »
I am nobody at microstock but I can tell you that you need to get what stock really is (do some research on agencies, photos, concepts, style).. then the hard work begins.. it won't be easy to start but you will get there if have some skills (with time they will certainly grow).. the next BIG "problem" is giving better stock photos than the "competitors".. (I think I am in the middle of these two..)
1 - what is stock? (research hard..)
2 - do it very clean and give the best (not easy)
3 - work........!
but I can tell you that reaching sharply ain't easy...  (I am not talking about the niche but the HIGH quality photos he can deliver..)
We built a worldwide antiques business from scratch, with no prior knowledge. That sort of gives us a background in determination. :-) The quickest way to learn is from our mistakes, so we are not frightened of getting it wrong...
31
« on: September 19, 2010, 17:16 »
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.
I am working on the lighting at the moment. I am thinking of backlighting off of a white background and then bouncing the front with a white reflector. I can see now that many of my images had lots of hot spots in them, which I need to figure out how to get around.
32
« on: September 19, 2010, 15:47 »
... Simple logic is that once I can get my images on istock they are acceptable everywhere.
Not necessarily - just because one agency accepts an image dosn't mean another one will.
And just because an image sells well at one agency doesn't mean it'll sell well at others, either.
I have picked that up from these forums, I have been reading here quite a while. :-) Which is why I would never go exclusive. It seems it is best to filter the images through the big agencies, someone somewhere will end up taking your image if it is decent I imagine.
33
« on: September 19, 2010, 15:44 »
If stock photography makes everyone this grumpy, I might have to review my decision...
Either that or your mindset: By posting questions here you are in effect asking your direct competitors to help you compete against them better. Some people will be better at this than others, but (just about) everyone who bothers to respond does so with a genuine helping hand.
I understand you point. I have been selling full time on Ebay for many years, succesfully I suppose... I know how online business forums work. But as this is the forum for "newbies", I would expect to get a little bit of leeway as a "newbie"... :-)
34
« on: September 19, 2010, 15:41 »
Good shots.
But what stops someone copying your niche?
Nothing ... I have plenty of competitors, and just because I'm successful now doesn't mean I always will be. I'm always keeping an eye on my competition and looking for ways to improve what it is I do - my livelihood depends on it!
The best niches are the ones everyone else misses... Or the niches they cannot get access to. That is the same in every business.
35
« on: September 19, 2010, 15:29 »
If stock photography makes everyone this grumpy, I might have to review my decision...
36
« on: September 19, 2010, 15:28 »
You're missing the point, and will likely be wasting your time.
Not just your time, but the reviewer's as well. If you try to use an agency's review process as a critique partner, you stand a good chance of pissing them off long before you achieve your goal. What if they decide you're costing them money with your not-ready-for-prime-time images and begin rejecting you out of hand? What if they go further and ban you for your abuse of the system? I hold no love for iStock, but I wouldn't blame them if they saw you as a drain on resources with no upside and told you to go away and never come back. I would.
I disagree. Istock have already accepted me, now there is a learning curve I have to go on, that they themselves make plain, that everyone who starts stock photography has to go on. That is the system istock and the other agencies use. It is there game, their rules and I am playing it their way. Simple logic is that once I can get my images on istock they are acceptable everywhere. And I have already invested 16,000 in equipment and software just to get into this game. So be assured I take this seriously...
37
« on: September 19, 2010, 15:23 »
Not very welcoming here is it?
Mark,
In case you haven't noticed istock recently made some major changes that have a good percentage of their contributors anywhere from unhappy to enraged. You're not likely to find too many people that are happy to help with anything related to istock.
Also, as Sharply said so very well, you're going about this the wrong way. People are trying to give you guidance and you're insisting on focusing on only one factor and asking for a lot of handholding on some 101 level stuff. This probably isn't really helping you win any points for the warm welcome committee.
You may want to try the istock critique forum which is intended to help people with rejections.
I am listening folks. :-) I have just been absorbed in trying to figure out exatly what istock wants technically. I am storing up the other points and appreciate them.
38
« on: September 19, 2010, 15:21 »
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?
Google my name.
Good shots. But what stops someone copying your niche?
39
« on: September 19, 2010, 14:58 »
Just know that commercial viability always trumps technical quality. If an image has technical flaws but is of superior commercial quality it just might be accepted, and if it's accepted it will sell. A technically superior image with minimal commercial value will likely be rejected - and even if it is accepted it probably won't sell. The whole point of submitting images to commercial agencies is to make money, and if you're not concerned with making money then you're missing the point, and will likely be wasting your time.
You are making a serious mistake by concentrating solely on the technical aspects of your image-making. If you choose to concentrate on only one aspect at a time, you'll be further ahead by adapting what and how you shoot to the commercial marketplace rather than jumping in to the technical "pixel-peeping" aspect of things.
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?
40
« on: September 19, 2010, 14:02 »
Okay, here's some useful and friendly advice:
It's great that you want to 'up your game' in terms of technical quality - that should be everyone's goal whether they want to make money from their images or not. A big problem for you, as I see it, is that you're doing so by making imagery that has minimal commercial value and then trying to add it to the catalog of an agency that specializes in commercial imagery. See the problem here? You're currently heading down a long road where, at the end, your image-making skills will be much better than they are now, but you'll be really frustrated by your high rejection rate and low earnings - you'll undoubtedly be one of those who says "Microstock isn't worth it - too much effort, too little pay. There's no way anyone can make money doing this.", and that's not a place where you want to be.
I hear what you are saying. :-) And it may well be that microstock is not the place for me. But Istocks high standards will get my photo's technically proficient very quickly and that is my focus at the moment. Once I have the technical side up, then I can start researching the science of stock photography in terms of marketable images. I started my last busines with no knowledge whatsoever, which is a very in depth business. And I learned to take everything one step at a time. Hence my focus at the moment on learning all I need to get an image technically correct. You have to show a child how to hold the pen before you teach them to write their name... :-) I do however appreciate your thoughts and I will store that up for the next hurdle... Mark :-)
41
« on: September 19, 2010, 11:55 »
Please remember folks.
There is a distinct difference between someone querying advice to understand it and someone not listening to advice...
42
« on: September 19, 2010, 11:51 »
So then offer some constructive advice...
Ok then. Go to Amazon and buy some books about microstock. You are currently so far behind the curve that you are basically wasting your time and ours.
That may well be so. But that does not excuse your rude attitude...
43
« on: September 19, 2010, 11:40 »
I do appreciate dreamfarers help and others that have offered constructive criticism however.
:-)
44
« on: September 19, 2010, 11:38 »
Not very welcoming here is it?
45
« on: September 19, 2010, 11:37 »
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?
Hmm __ it is a distinct possibility.
I'd have to agree.
So then offer some constructive advice...
46
« on: September 19, 2010, 11:34 »
I was going to answer with a detailed explanation but you don't seem to be hearing much of the advice being given here. And you're even disputing some of it.
How successful can someone be who only learns from what they want to hear...
I assure you I am here to learn. :-) My point is that I first have to gain the skills to get the technical standard correct. I submitted these pictures knowing they would probably be thrown out, so that I could learn from them. What I was querying, is a position that maintained that niche photography has no place on stock photography. The reason I query this, is because I have another business where niche is very important, even in a very large trading area. I am now interested in different responses so that I can learn from them. I have also learned that it is often difficult to get 3 experts to agree on anything... But listening to three experts will give you a balanced view. Mark :-)
47
« on: September 19, 2010, 09:16 »
My primary focus at this point is to get to the technical level where my photo's will be acceptable.
The psychology of stock may take me a little while longer to grasp...
But if I cannot even get a photo accepted (18 out of 18 just rejected), then it is all a moot point. :-)
Mark
48
« on: September 19, 2010, 09:14 »
But people do want specific images of antiques, to use in publications.
Therefore an interesting shot, a generic shot, may be of value to people.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?
In microstock world you should think about wide audiences. Images of specific antiquities would be much better sold as RM, for exemple at Alamy. One RM sale may earn you enough money, while 2 or 3 microstock sales propably won't. And I can't see these images to be downloaded much more times than that.
You have also problems with levels. And your cropping too; in the first image you have included lots of copy space on the right, yet you have cropped very tightly in the other directions, especially in the top.
Isn't it also the case though, that you should not go fishing with a dragnet?
49
« on: September 19, 2010, 07:44 »
This shot probably would be considered an isolation which the background is normally white. So, if a designer needs to add more white space they just expand the background and add more white. They could probably still expand the background with this image if there's a little space so there's no reason for all of the extra space.
Could you explain what a designer might use this image for? Trying to understand your point here. :-)
As it is on a graduated backdrop, it is not supposed to be a blown out background.
I pictured the space being used for text etc.
It is aimed at a certain segment of the market that needs and uses images of Antiques. :-)
My point is that you have created something that is so specific (rows of stacked antique cups leaning over) that a designer would need to be looking for that specific image in order for it to be useful. Are stacked antique cups in rows of three leaning over popular somewhere in the world? Like is this a traditional holiday scene somewhere? If not, then even if this does get accepted I'm guessing it will never sell or at best a couple times.
You may want to simplify the scene and do an isolation so it appeals to a wider range of buyers.
Yoy may very well have a fair point, which I will consider. But people do want specific images of antiques, to use in publications. Therefore an interesting shot, a generic shot, may be of value to people. Maybe I am misunderstanding the psychology of stock?
50
« on: September 19, 2010, 07:25 »
This shot probably would be considered an isolation which the background is normally white. So, if a designer needs to add more white space they just expand the background and add more white. They could probably still expand the background with this image if there's a little space so there's no reason for all of the extra space.
Could you explain what a designer might use this image for?
Trying to understand your point here. :-) As it is on a graduated backdrop, it is not supposed to be a blown out background. I pictured the space being used for text etc. It is aimed at a certain segment of the market that needs and uses images of Antiques. :-)
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
