|
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 - epixx
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47]
1151
« on: January 17, 2007, 19:39 »
Miguel,
I have considered for a while to change my whole work-flow for microstock to sRGB. As you say, it's the packaging that counts. With the Fuji S3 that I mostly use for stock, that also gives me the possibility of using one of the "film modes", with "Velvia-colours" right out of the box. It actually saves some PP, since the photos come out with what to the human eye looks like a correct saturation and contrast.
I agree 100% on the noise thing. Somebody has apparently decided that the plastic look is better than a little grain or noise. It may in some cases bring photographies closer to a kind of perceived, but non-existent reality. I don't agree of course, but since discussing it is rather pointless, I won't. If plastic is what the world wants, plastic is what it gets. As long as us old, grumpy ones are allowed to retain small fractions of the real world in our little boxes and drawers, I suppose I can live with that.
1152
« on: January 17, 2007, 19:22 »
In your image, I believe the reviewer thought the manometers' scale is "too dark". I don't think it's an appropriate term, but in some of the rejections as "photo too dark" I had some specific area that was not so bright or clear, and adjusting just this part was enough to satisfy them.
Adeleide, I agree that may be the reason. The problem, as with many stock photos, is that this is their real colour. They're gray, not white. It is possible to change it, but at least in this particular case, it takes some work to get a good result with a white colour and more contrast in that area alone, and I know at least one other agency that will probably then say "overprocessed". Not easy to make everybody happy, is it? Jorgen
1153
« on: January 17, 2007, 13:12 »
As I could see the histogram is OK at least for me, despite you can lighten a bit the mid range.
What color space are you using? If it's Adobe RGB 1998, maybe that's the reason to make it look darker on some browsers.
Yes, it's Adobe RGB. I consider converting all photos to sRGB before submitting to microstock. The thumbnail conversion done by most of the agencies takes away too much colour and contrast. The original version of the photo in question is more saturated. I've been a graphic designer for more than 15 years and had my own design agency for the last 5, and all designers that I have worked will prefer to do the final adjustments themselves. There is no such thing as a ready-made image from an agency, since the need for saturation, contrast and brightness will vary depending on the final output form. But maybe people are getting more lazy. For a couple of dollars, many may actually expect to be able to insert the photo directly into the document, no PP needed. I wouldn't be surprised.
1154
« on: January 17, 2007, 12:30 »
My guess (on the "too dark" images) is that they are purely looking at a histogram and making a judgement based on that alone. But I could be wrong...
I've been thinking about that too, as I had a "cityscape at night" rejected recently for "bad lighting" at another site, but on the photo above, the histogram looks quite nice.
1155
« on: January 17, 2007, 12:06 »
Miguel, that's even a front-page candidate. Makes one wonder. Here's one of my rejects. "Photo too dark". What am I missing here? 
1156
« on: January 17, 2007, 11:49 »
Actually, I only upload 5 each time, but during one or two days, there can be up to eight batches. I have been following that routine since I started uploading, and my rejects at other agencies have mostly gone down. The change at Stockxpert is the most radical I've see, and have happened within a very short time.
I have nearly 350 images online there. There have been rejects before as well, but nothing near what I see now. Too me, what seemed to be a very professionally run agency, now suddenly looks very unprofessional.
Although it's not really fair to compare agencies, the 5-6 top ones have mostly had similar quality criteria, although SS has been rather hysterical about noise lately, but the development at StockXpert is something completely new, at least to me.
Although I can live without StockXpert, it has been looked upon as one of the most promising agencies. It puzzles me that they are now departing from what seemed to be an established standard.
1157
« on: January 17, 2007, 10:03 »
Just had another batch rejected. That's 20-something rejects the last 24 hours, and two approvals. The approved photos weren't even particularly good, but for some reason, they got past the technical inspection.
Interestingly, SS took all of those rejected by StockXpert, except one reject. Usually, it's the other way around, but I worked particularly hard with these batches, to avoid rejects, since they are industrial photos that I won't have the opportunity to re-shoot. Industrial photography is what I do for a living, and I know the demand is there, so these rejects from StockXpert surprises me a lot.
It's of course always possible to improve a photo, but there's a limit to everything. This is after all microstock, and if the requirements are to unreasonable, I know lots of other things that are more pleasurable.
Guess I have to start shooting pretty girls with headsets like everybody else.
1158
« on: January 17, 2007, 05:30 »
Until a couple of days ago, I used to like StockXpert a lot, but this is no fun. I've uploaded photos within all kinds of categories the last few days, and they all (with some very rare exceptions) get rejected, either with "underexposed" (do StockXpert customers have darker monitors than others?) or "we are not looking for this kind of photo".
If I had been a total newbie or had high rejection rates elsewhere, I wouldn't really care (and most of the times, I don't when I get the occasional rejection), but they reject correctly exposed photos with a proven potential.
To me, this looks more and more like Crestock. If that's the kind of success they want, be my guest, but then I'm out. I'm still on Crestock, but I don't want another agency like that.
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
