MicrostockGroup

Show Posts

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 - adamknox

Pages: [1]

iStockPhoto.com / Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA

« on: November 22, 2010, 15:18 »

Tried following the iStock examples and it looks like they may have pulled one of each of pairs. I guess that is an improvement.

The idea of Vetta is just a group of images that someone liked. You pay extra for having them sort through the mass, not because the images are 5x better...

Photo Critique / Re: Critique: iStockPhoto Rejection

« on: September 01, 2010, 17:02 »

Thank you for your comments.

As noted by Sean I couldn't post in the IS forums because I haven't been passed the application process, and haven't bought content.

I thought I'd stick closer to their "wanted images" list for the next submission:

Grizzly Bears (resized for sharpness from 3463x2312 to 2500x1660 honestly that made me a little sad)
A person playing a tennis or some other sport. Any tips on removing logos from the shoot are welcome.
I'd like to try a concept shoot, but I'm not sure what yet. Maybe something indoors to show I can work in a variety of conditions.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thank you again for your thoughts and words,
Knox

Photo Critique / Re: Critique: iStockPhoto Rejection

« on: August 30, 2010, 23:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 30, 2010, 22:02

Image 1 has a lot of noise in the OOF areas. The monkey is almost sharp enough. You might be able to downsize it to help with both, or do some selective blurring.
Image 2 is not sharp at the top of the plant where one would expect, and the OOF areas look like you maybe laid a blurred layer over them.
Image 3 would be great if it was sharper. Maybe a downsize.
As is, I don't think any would help your case. You need to try nailing a wildlife/nature, object and person.

Sean, thanks for your advice.

Is downsizing something that is typically done for stock images? I'm new to the game.

Image 1: Mmm, good point about the noise. I guess I thought I could get away with it. My ISO was only at 500, so I thought this would be tolerable. Seattle Zoos on a cloudy day can be treacherous.

Image 2: Only had color post-processing applied (and lightly at that). I think the lens is just soft at the edges, and it was a close up shot. Maybe I'll ditch this one and retake it with the 35mm prime I've had my eye on.

Image 3: I did have trouble keeping this one as sharp as I would have liked. I didn't want to use any noise reduction or sharpening masks on it and lose any details inherit in the picture though. I guess I thought it could stand on it's own given the subject matter.

I'll try the content you suggested and reapply!
Thank you again for your comments, and please keep them coming.

I forgot to write the exif data for the pictures. Apologies.

Image 1: Monkey
Nikon D90: 1/500s, f/5.6, ISO 500, 300mm
Image 2: Small Plant
Nikon D90: 1/40s, f/8.0, ISO 320, 62mm
Image 3: Grizzly Bears
Nikon D90: 1/250s, f/9.5, ISO 200, 300mm

Photo Critique / Re: Critique: iStockPhoto Rejection

« on: August 30, 2010, 21:54 »

Quote from: Blufish on August 30, 2010, 21:35

Can't look at the pics. Says they are locked.

Sorry about that, I'm new to DropBox. Fixed!

Photo Critique / Critique: iStockPhoto Rejection

« on: August 30, 2010, 21:11 »

Hi,
These three photos were rejected from the iStockPhoto application process, and I was hoping for some critique. The iStock forums are locked until you are a member apparently. This is my second attempt and I am fairly certain the "reason for rejection" was stock (ha!).

Quote

At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be diverse in subject matter, technical ability and should be your best work. Think conceptual, creative and most important think Stock photography. Try to avoid the average eye level push the button perspective of a common subject. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.

We welcome you to return after the number of days specified and upload 3 fresh samples of your work and we will re-process your application. Please note that you will not be able to upload new samples until this waiting period has passed.

For more information on Composition and Impact, please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=13

For more information on Suitable Stock Photography, please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=146

For more information on files that we do and don't need please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_5.0_neededfiles.php

After searching around online all I can think is that I need to vary the content of my submissions more. I know that these are not the typical stock photos the reviewers are looking for (isolated objects, telemarketers, or business people shaking hands), but I thought they would make it in to the pool. I suppose I didn't hit their "wanted photos" list, but I did manage to stay away from the "unwanted photos" list.

Any feedback is appreciated.
Thank you,
Knox

Nikon / Re: Nikon D90 or D5000?

« on: August 30, 2010, 20:44 »

Everyone seemed to miss your question.

I purchased the d90 after doing a bunch of research and I've loved it for the last 6 months. That said, the 5000 has the same sensor in a smaller body. So it is really easy to take the money you save buying the 5000 and purchase the 35mm 1.8 DX lens ($200). The two together are going to be a great combo and, honestly, really improve you as a photographer, and thus your photographs. A really great fixed prime will get you to move your feet, simplify how you line up a shot, and get you thinking about framing.

The main benefit you are getting out of the d90 is an autofocus motor built into the body, a boost in frames per second (which isn't necessary for most work), and (for me) a more comfortable fit in my hand. I think the low light shooting might be a little improved on the 90, but buying a flash (400 or 600) would be more within reach after not spending the extra cash on the 90 (plus the 1.8 lens means you wouldn't need the flash all the time).

Plus you get the articulated lens. I really don't get why all cameras don't have this... Maybe it looks too much like a gimmick.

Ken rockwell does a really good comparison check it out: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
He is slanted toward the 5000 + 35mm f/18 combo with a 400 flash, but with good reason.

If you decide to purchase this combo click on one of the links to it through Ken's sight. It puts some change in his pockets, and trust me he deserves it with all of the great articles on his site.

Cheers,
Knox

Pages: [1]