Hi

I was wondering if anybody can tell me the difference between macro and micro stock sites?

Also if there are any other types of stock sites, (small, normal etc) to gauge a better understanding of the stock landscape

Ta

Fantastic feedback Jo Ann and Cobalt, thank you (I still remember the great help I received from you Jo Ann when I was starting out)

You both raise very important points!

Jo, all choices are open to me. I will be looking to enter into the "stock world" fresh and wide eyed!

Cobalt, I don't remember us crossing paths (we must have) but thank you for your insight, very inspiring and exactly what I was looking for.

Your post reminded me of what I enjoyed most about all this. the challenge, learning curve and demand for quality. You mention a trend to submit to higher priced agencies I would very much like to find out which sites are, shall we say, of a higher calibre. If you could point me to some that would be great!

I am not at all interested in shooting vast amounts of content in the hope of a sale, or in shooting video. I would much prefer to spend time developing a concept, executing and then processing carefully. I find one good image much more satisfying than 10 snapshots.

A few sites you mention, lean in collection and Offset, I will take a look at now

Thank you

good old Shady sue!

what other forums are there? not necessarily stock. just looking to generate income, share enthusiasm and meet the tog community online in 2016!

Potential for a fantastic image.

The first thing I noticed which nobody has mentioned is the girls are under exposed. My thoughts were confirmed when I looked at the camera data. As you may know, pattern metering evaluates the whole scene. as a result, the bright day has lowered the exposure of the girls (which are the focus) and foreground. Personally I would have evaluated on the girls with spot or centre weighted (or canons equivalent) then brought back the light bg a little. fill flash could have helped but thats not my style .

Also, on the image i downloaded, something nasty is happening with compression of the file, see the artifacting on the legs.

Other notable points:

CA
I would crop in a little
adjust the pose
depending on your situation, reshoot on a blue sky day

finally, WOW WHAT A BEAUTIFUL LOCATION, so much potential for inspiring imagery, if I had access to that location I would be shooting it for months!

Hi All, and Merry Christmas.

I am very keen in returning to contributing.

I was exclusive with iStock and now I'm looking to bring all the new skills and tools I've learnt in the past years back to them and build a bigger and better portfolio (I remember the "good old days" at IS! but my interest with them dwindled).

The last time I can say I was actively contributing was back in 2011 which may as well be 20 years ago! since then I have been a photographer in my day job and taken on private projects which has introduced me to working in studios with other pro togs and the use of professional models over the years.

As my portfolio on IS is amature (but amassed +9000 dls with -500 images) i think I can really introduce a new level to my port, generate a decent income and have fun and learn more.

I recognise a few names on here that I remember helped me out in the past and hope they and other members can educate me on the current climate, so to speak.

Background and intro over!

Main questions really are as follows:

What are the major changes in stock photography?
Where (apart from here) is the community talking.(I hear IS no longer has a forum) where do we critique images, find inspiration, help others etc?
What are the trends (ie analog look is in, cheesy high key is out)?
Why has the i$tock app stopped working?
do contributors meet up and collaborate?
Finally as I've been away so long I think its safe to assume I don't know the correct questions to ask, so if you have any helpful tips or advice its very much appreciated


I hope to be submitting again soon and talking with you in the future

I'm trying to utilize the skills stock has given me, I plan to take better images for estate agents selling houses for the brochures, look into the EPC and floor plan details aswell. Hell, I could even design the brochures if I had time or it went well, Thats Idea #1

Videos for you've been framed, #2

urm... working on #3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RE: OPs thread...

Could it be because all istock images are available cheeper on another (unofficial) site?

I am in the downward trend everyone is talking of, but since this new (unofficial) site, that has all of my images for sale, my IS sales have ground to a hault with such a jolt that I didnt make the withdrawal minimum this week (first time since... maybe ever!).

Thanks, I'm waiting for the imminent day that IS disappears for good, looks like I got another pay day!!!

Is it just me this time, last week payment was late for a lot of people, this time I can't find any threads

Thanks

Honestly I'm supprised IS has any customers. They lost me a long time ago and even back then I purchased in $ from the UK. I can only assume that current buyers don't know any better, they will wise up in time and the ones that do know better have left already.

I can only advise people not to leave much money in IS as one day we will login to find it closed

If I change my business name from "kamo" to something else, which I have been meaning to for a while, will thinkstock update the images business name or will I just be causing more problems than its worth?

Why do someone elses images appear in the "kamo" search

thank you 

I opted in to the PP programme about 1-2 months ago. I know its all very slow, but how will I be able to see if and what images are available on the PP sites and how well they are doing

Thank you

I'll explore that.

My wife will not allow our little girl or herself be recognisable in images, but the bump and scan will be OK (props that not many shooters have access to). I also have to take a shot (for our family album) of our little girl kissing the bump, I know there are loads of them but I could take it from behind the kiss to keep anonymity and acceptance

Thanks

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 15, 2012, 14:09
It would also make a good prop for a picture of the expectant mum.

Oh, nice one, you little dancer!!!

Fair point

How would be best to translate the print out into digital?

I can understand why you are gutted, but I to have had good sellers deleted as well as newly accepted content. My view to the deleted good sellers is "well that made $500 for 2 hours work, not bad" and to the newly accepted images deactivated "bugger, I should have known better"

Not much else one can do.

If I push the "capture image" button for the original scan, do I own the copyright?

Hi,

how do people get possession of a digital babyscan image to submit to IStock. I can only think of 3 ways and only have access to 1.

1st, are we able to request the digital file from the hospital (quality issues)
2nd, scan the image the give you (I don't have a scanner, but possibly a shop would do it)
3rd, take a photo of the image (this I could do)

Is the third option viable and if so, are there any tips to get the best quality out of a photo of a photo

Thank you

yes, that does carry some weight with regards to bright shiny red fruit. I'd like some more of that brain food please.

I found this that I thought interesting web.mit.edu/dick/www/pdf/286.pdf It is called Lighting: Its Effect on
People and Spaces and has the effects of light I'm interested in, but it is more about room lighting than object lighting.

I think our behaviour towards light is a very interesting topic. But do you see what I mean about the psychology behind light particularly how a persons path is controlled, that level of light knowledge applied to photography could prove very beneficial

This question is born from the notion "the idea is to mimic natural situations". So yes I agree and I've read those theory's, however I'm trying to move beyond the safe  "the idea is to mimic natural situations" and concentrate on why some unnatural lighting is successful. There must be theory's/ideas that go beyond mimicking and emphasising natural scenarios with light.

Quote from: rubyroo on August 03, 2012, 10:33
Surely our assumptions are based entirely on what is familiar to us.  Even if a psychologist answered the question, they could only join the dots according to which books/lectures they absorbed and what their subsequent experience might inspire in them.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question though. 

I'm looking for the assumptions that are hard wired into us. like colour. red is warm because for the last 7 million years it signifies the sun rising and blue as cold as the sun has gone down (BBCs horizon)

To go back to my post title "Why are we pleased by unnatural lighting" I'm trying to gain a better understanding why some unnatural lighting, light coming from below on a portrait, which is the opposite direction of sun light for example is not attractive/pleasing/flattering etc while light coming from two sides (just as unnatural) can be more pleasing.

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 02, 2012, 18:33
People looking at the cherries don't see soft box reflections, they see shiny cherries. Photographers see lights, reflections, focus, depth, colors, minute imperfections and shadows... and for some reason might not even notice the cherries? 

I'm very interested in what we assume we see, so not only can we work out how the eye travells through an image, but also how we see (perceive) the image. The image I'm refering to looked like it was shot outside on a grainy table, sunlight shining through light lime coloured leaves etc. 5 seconds later I'm like, hold on this is a studio shot, white background, no folage what so ever.

I understand why we assume (to much information to process and the danger would be upon us  if we did etc) But I'd like to learn more about what we assume.

Hi.

From what I have learned, shooting below/facing up an object/person makes it/them look like the hero/strong. shooting down gives the opposite. low key = moodie. I understand these concepts

But I was looking at FTs newsletter at some cherries. It was a great shot and then I saw the two softbox reflections either side of every cherry and now I'm finding myself asking Why this shot works with such unnatural lighting. I realise this is somewhat a subjective question but I imagine there is phsycology/schema involved, At least the answer I am looking for.

Any ideas, (I would like to post the image but there are so many similar i won't).