Author Topic: Please criticize my work. Trying to start on stock photography coming from art (Read 4289 times)

domingos · « **on:** February 08, 2013, 08:00 »

Hey guys,

First of all, let me introduce myself and give you a very brief overview of my experience as a photographer. I'm pretty new to stock photography in general but I've been in photography as a hobby for many years now (since 1994). However, I'm very rusty and not very familiar with the digital photo world. I used to shoot almost always in B&W (art), develop and print my work at home, where I used to keep a darkroom. But I stayed away from shooting for years and got back 3 years ago, first very lightly and more seriously since the end of last year. My equipment is a Nikon D5000 with Nikkor lens 18-55 and 55-300. For post development I've been using Adobe Lightroom 4.

I've submitted 3 photos with my application to iStockPhoto and got a rejection. I can see flaws in all of them (almost no picture is perfect, right?), but as I'm not familiar with iStockphoto standards (I still have questions even after reading their material on it), it's not very clear to me why they got rejected. Maybe something on my poor Lightroom skills? The point is that I'm eager to learn and don't repeat my mistakes. Could you please give me your opinion? I'm very open to it and would really appreciate any comments. I've included four more photos here, if you don't mind. I'm sorry to bother you but I really would like to see your opinion on these ones too.

Rejected ones:

newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/oa0udpycew7jono/sauipe_cerca_pb_MD.jpg [nonactive]
newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/zkgkrv110c6oujw/cobra_Verde_1_MD.jpg [nonactive]
newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/5bore8eaps7p2tm/veropeso_perfumes_MD.jpg [nonactive]

Extras:

newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/1e4eysadf0srrfw/cascavel_MD.jpg [nonactive]
newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/nmdescum95sfnpl/cobra_Verde_2_MD.jpg [nonactive]
newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv15xtuntjcvn2i/borboleta_grande_MD.jpg [nonactive]
newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/ozh0r9wj6rbbe2l/esquilo_MD.jpg [nonactive]

Thank you so much for your help,

Domingos.

fritz · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2013, 08:16 »

There are several issues with your images:
Noise
Artifacts
Compression
Over filtered
Focus
LCV
Sorry, but if you want your files to be approved on IS they have to be technically perfect. Read more about iStockphoto standards and work more to improve your PS skills.
Best

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2013, 08:25 »

^^ what he said. You're way off iStock's technical requirements.
That said, so are many others who consider their photography 'Fine Art'.
Stock isn't art, in general.
That said, I'm pretty sure that this photo, which was the one I looked at, would have fairly serious banding and focus problems even when printed out:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oa0udpycew7jono/sauipe_cerca_pb_MD.jpg
Also a huge area of sky is totally blown out - another instant rejection reason.

(BTW, don't try to cover serious focus problems like this with any sort of sharpening. That's an almost guaranteed rejection too.)

Stock is a completely different mindset, where virtual pixel perfection is mandatory.

Looked also at this one:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv15xtuntjcvn2i/borboleta_grande_MD.jpg
The focus is sort of in the right place, but the focus fall off is odd and the cropping is just ugly.

Don't worry - everyone (I can remember) who comes in saying their work is Fine Art has exactly the same sort of issues.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2013, 08:30 »

On this one, the sky is blown out in the white areas, the clouds have some sort of banding in them rather than smooth transitions and there is a hint of a sharpening fringe down the pole.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oa0udpycew7jono/sauipe_cerca_pb_MD.jpg#

On this one, possible oversaturation, there is digital artifacting in the brighter parts of the dark areas and they may not like the depth of field, it's very shallow though the focus is in the right place
www.dropbox.com/s/zkgkrv110c6oujw/cobra_Verde_1_MD.jpg

This one has loss of focus round the edges and they may be concerned about whether the names on the bottles are someone's registered name for a perfume (even if these are copies).
www.dropbox.com/s/5bore8eaps7p2tm/veropeso_perfumes_MD.jpg

This one https://www.dropbox.com/s/1e4eysadf0srrfw/cascavel_MD.jpg is full of artifacting and chromatic noise. Look at the blotchiness immediately above the snake's head, which is a mixture of grain-like artifacting with an overlay of low-frequency colour noise forming little puddles of green.

They like the out of focus areas to be totally smooth not grainy.

Istock is not the flavour of the month round here so you may not get many replies, but the same criticisms would apply if you tried out for Shutterstock. It's really no use submitting shots if you know they're not perfect because the inspectors are going to be even more critical than you.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2013, 12:05 »

In addition to all the technical flaws noted above, none of these are really useful stock images even if they were technically flawless.

Zoo animals on dark cluttered backgrounds, bright objects with lots of detail/text/visual clutter and black and white landscapes just don't have much of a market as stock. Look at popular images on iStock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime and you won't see images like the ones you were considering.

iStock generally is less concerned about commercial value than Shutterstock, but it's still a factor.

Microbius · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2013, 12:38 »

None of them will make it as stock, but a couple may do well of FAA or similar, I like the beach for example. Have you got an account there?

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2013, 13:28 »

The problems pointed out above are real, but don't be discouraged. You just need to adjust your thinking and your perceptions - I did it and you can too.

Don't think in terms of what these agencies "want", but rather what they'll "accept". You're not submittinig photos to editors or gallery owners, but to paid reviewers working off of checklists, grinding through thousands of boring images. They accept simplistic images of places, objects, and people, that are rendered perfectly. They want no sensor noise, perfect focus, infinite DOF, and no blown highlights, at 100% corner-to-corner - criteria which are irrelevant for art photos. They'll tell you not to sharpen in post-processing, and that's a complete lie - sharpen while viewing at 100% and go as far as you can without creating halos. The image has to tell its story in about 500 milliseconds - nothing crowded or subtle. If you shoot some object on a white background, they'll assume it's an 'isolation' and every pixel in that background must be 255,255,255. Shoot at ISO 200 or better - 400 is ok in good light. They'll reject most photos with creative use of DOF - but accept some, and no one can figure out why. They really like light-toned pastel-y photos and will usually reject anything dark and shadowy.

In the case of 'art' photos - if an image is good, really 'does something' for the viewer, all sorts of technical flaws can be ignored. In stock it's just the opposite - any tiny flaw disqualifies the photo, regardless of its overall merit.

It's a shock at first and can be quite frustrating, so go slow.

tickstock · « **Reply #7 on:** February 08, 2013, 13:33 »

gillian vann · « **Reply #8 on:** February 08, 2013, 16:09 »

you may not get as many replies as you hope for due to the iStock/Getty/Google drama that's still going on.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2013, 16:30 »

OTOH, it's probably all been said already. Good advice.

fritz · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2013, 21:14 »

Art? C'mon MS is everything but art. The day I entered MS world left behind my most beautiful images (jazz portraits) keep them jealousy far from this beast and give them what they want. Look at the most popular images and you don't have to be super smart to see what kind of demand is on MS.
Be careful MS can easily destroy your art potential and turns you into Bollywood image production machine..... or maybe i'm wrong. Who knows?

qwerty · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2013, 22:01 »

I'd recommend starting at Dreamstime,etc (no test to pass) get some runs on the board, this will let you work out which of your photos are actually wanted by the stock machines.

Shutterstock you'll need 10 great ones.