Author Topic: Critique for iStock Submission Test (Read 6753 times)

tab62 · « **on:** April 18, 2011, 19:51 »

Hey Stock Folks,

Here are the three pics I am considering submitting to iStock for review- your comments would be highly appreciated. Thanks

http://www.tigerpix.net/eval/eval01.jpg

http://www.tigerpix.net/eval/eval02.jpg

http://www.tigerpix.net/eval/eval03.jpg

TB

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2011, 20:39 »

I wouldn't submit any of these - sorry.

1. Poor lighting, oversaturated and very limited (I think too much so) in focus area

2. Poor lighting, oversharpened. Not a stock oriented composition

3. Focus is on the soft side (f/18 not a good choice for sharpness with most lenses) and the background is neither white nor a color, and neither textured nor plain.

I think there's potential in the idea of the tennis balls shot - i.e. try again. It'd be good if you could include something other than 3 still lifes to show a bit more range.

SNP · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2011, 20:57 »

Hi there, my two cents.

1. I like your idea here, and I think it's nicely composed. The shallow depth of field doesn't work in my opinion. I would have all of the one ball entirely in focus. I would then pay attention to detail and remove all the tennis ball fuzz around the sides carefully. I'd use clone stamping with a soft brush to accomplish this neatly. I find the colours nicely saturated, but you have lots of chromatic abberation (blue and yellow fringing) around the shadows and in any areas of contrast.

2. I think you have too many things going on in this image. At first I thought it would be a rainforesty shot as it was loading from top of page downward. I like the water droplets on the leaf. Nice sharp focus. Your colours are nicely saturated. Your lighting however is technically quite flawed. I think you must have shot this using a speedlight or (gasp, lol) your on-camera flash? ? the little shards of light reflected on the orange look sloppy and messy. they make it look like a point and shoot snapshot. the shot should be either the leaf with droplets (which has been done ad nauseum but go for it if you really want to use it), or it should be the orange slices, which are nice and crisp. composed properly you could have had two shots out of the components of this one shot. I'd try to be more original too.

3. this shot is a concept and composition fail IMO. A: from a buyer's point of view, very few of us want to see the dead fish the salmon oil caplets came from. you need to think like a buyer as much as possible. B: the composition. it looks like you threw down a couple of fish, then threw on some capsules and grabbed a shot. sorry to be harder about this one, but I know in my own experience, the harshest criticism was generally the most helpful. on a more positive note, the lighting isn't bad on this one.

remember that you should be submitting three images that are all different from one another to demonstrate the range of your abilities. you should also submit images that show them who you are as a photographer. three of your best shots that are stock-worthy and commercially desirable.

good luck

tab62 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2011, 21:08 »

Very good and detailed comments. I will step back and re-visit my future submission pics. Just so glad I didn't fire these to iStock.

Thanks.

Tom

SNP · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2011, 21:28 »

good luck!

lagereek · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2011, 23:42 »

Over saturated and over colored, they got millions of this subject matter. Try and come up with something more better. If you gonna shoot vitamin-E capsules, backlight them from underneath, creates a much better effect.

tab62 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 19, 2011, 10:00 »

I will take my time before submitting the pics - I have a lot to learn for sure...

Thanks.

Tom

Slovenian · « **Reply #7 on:** April 19, 2011, 10:46 »

I've just herd from an iStocker with 70k+ DLs I know, I was lucky to get accepted back in 08 (although I really started to UL last year), because now it's close to impossible to get in. Is this true? Because I don't see the inspector being stricter (when it comes to regular submissions) then a year ago.

I'd advise OP to choose his images carefully. It has to be technically perfect, saleable, with copyspace etc.

nicolesy · « **Reply #8 on:** April 19, 2011, 12:05 »

Another thing to keep in mind is that they're not only looking for technical "perfection", but they want to see that you are a good photographer. Even if the photos you posted had perfect lighting, focus, editing, etc., my guess is that the content in those images is too basic. You want to show your very best work to show them what you are capable of.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #9 on:** July 15, 2011, 05:45 »

If I was a reviewer at Istock I would say no. I can clearly read and see the Nissan Icon which is not acceptable! Also is there really any money potential from your photo?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** July 15, 2011, 05:52 »

Quote from: Will Dutt on July 15, 2011, 05:45

If I was a reviewer at Istock I would say no. I can clearly read and see the Nissan Icon which is not acceptable! Also is there really any money potential from your photo?

If you were a reviewer at IS, you would know that trademarks and such are not important when applying to be a contributor. Also, I'd say as a beginner, you're likely not one to judge potential.

Will Dutt · « **Reply #11 on:** July 16, 2011, 20:52 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 15, 2011, 05:52

If you were a reviewer at IS, you would know that trademarks and such are not important when applying to be a contributor. Also, I'd say as a beginner, you're likely not one to judge potential.

Sorry, I haven't uploaded to Istock so I dont know how the process works, I just know from researching and reading that trademarks are not allowed when selling images.

Also the judging potential thing was more of a person question to him, I didn't say his photos aren't going to sell, or that his photos would have thousands of downloads.