OK, I have been dead in the water on sales for the following series of images:



The one I provided is the only one of the series that has a sale.  I have already been told that the images are "cute" but are "inanimate".  I should have photographed them with a briefcase or sitting at a desk.  I am going to redo the series, but before I do, I want to hear what you really HATE about the images.  I just installed a new background support, wooden floor, and seamless paper backgrounds in my studio, so the wrinkled black material on the floor will also be gone.  I am looking for some things that just aren't hitting me in the face.  I think this is worth reshooting, I just want to make sure that I maximize my efforts.  Thanks for your help!  Please be BRUTAL!  I can take it.   

There's nothing that I hate, but ...

A white background would make the image more versatile for a designer. Adding a prop or two (briefcase, newspaper, lollipop, lunchbox, ...) would certainly enhance what you are trying to say - I'm guessing that you're going for some sort of "businesswoman feeling out of place" theme. It might be better if she wasn't smiling - perhaps an expression of exasperation or frustration might work.

White, white, white background for sure. And different expressions: curiosity, fear, hate, shock, surprise, etc. Maybe some glasses, computer, or other props as suggested above. Great looking model.

I'll just say guess it's the background.  You have to work too hard to figure out what it is.

I say, put them in your white leisure suit and spats on black.

As well, I don't think it illustrates any of the three themes you mentioned.

StockXpert just rejected 2 of those three images, BTW, for poor lighting.  I guess there needs to be a "notes to the reviewer section" like there is in SS so I can explain that the lighting was created on purpose to add to the somber mood and not an accidental flop.  I created the one with more light on his face because I figured that some stock sites wouldn't get the whole "mood lighting"

People say this at times, but I don't get why you'd have to explain.  Either the image works for the reviewer or not.  Intentional or accidental, if it doesn't work, it doesn't.

Quote from: photojay on January 26, 2008, 18:18

StockXpert just rejected 2 of those three images, BTW, for poor lighting.  I guess there needs to be a "notes to the reviewer section" like there is in SS so I can explain that the lighting was created on purpose to add to the somber mood and not an accidental flop.  I created the one with more light on his face because I figured that some stock sites wouldn't get the whole "mood lighting"

People say this at times, but I don't get why you'd have to explain.  Either the image works for the reviewer or not.  Intentional or accidental, if it doesn't work, it doesn't.

Here is one of the images that we are speaking of:



The reason I photographed him under this light is because it makes his ear look red, darkens the front of his face, while bringing the tears dripping from both eyes right off his cheeks with the side lighting.  It's harsh light rather than the normal soft lighting you see with the  portraits.  If they said: too noisy or bad composition, I could take that rejection, but StockXpert said: bad lighting.  I disagree, and (without a reason supplied to the reviewer) I think the Istock reviewer did, too. 

But, I do agree that there shouldn't HAVE to be an explaination for why you used a certain lighting.  Unfortunately, some reviewers should have more experience as photographers before they are allowed to be reviewers.  I only have 3 years as a photographer and (me being the way I am) I would stress out too much about reviewing someone elses work, regardless of the stringent guidelines that may be set forth by the admins.  I just don't think I have the experience...yet.

First photo is cute but it doesn't say anything to me. It seems mismatched. Her expression feels like "I'm embarrased to be doing this". She's also directly looking at the camera which just isn't working for this image. As others have said it would be more time consuming to extract her from the background, unless the designer was already using a dark background. Go with white.

Image of the boy is closer to having a stronger presence to it.

THANKS!  your opininion is well noted.  I can definitely see what you are seeing.

You asked for it, so here goes.  The StockXpert reviewer was right on, the picture of the boy crying is one of the worst lit images I have ever seen offered for sale.  If you are going to shoot low key then shoot low key don't mix low key and high key lighting.  The right side of his face is totally burned out as is his right shoulder.  The left side of his face is way too dark.  Evening up the lighting ratios a little would allow the right side to still be brighter than the left and would also open up the shadow on the left side of his face so we can see that he has 2 eyes.  Did you shoot a close up of just the eye and the tear?

As for the girl in the oversize clothes, photograph her doing everything you can think of with any kind of prop you can think of (playing a musical instrument, reflected in a mirror, on a bicycle, putting on makeup . . .).  Also photograph her from as many different positions (high, low, front, back, left, right, inside, outside . . . ) as you can think of.  Get her input, I bet she will think of things that you won't.

Great shot but please isolate on white if you have dark clothes! How can a designer isolate your shots with black on black??? Think! ;-) Isolation works on contrast.
As a side note: I would never use black since all texture and folds drown in there, and if you want to pop it up... there comes the noise devil

Use gray! (it goes with any color scheme on a web page or folder, and the skin as only colored area gets the focus - think designer!).

Your kids are cute! Keep trying. I like the girl in the oversized suit but definitely white background. Post your new ones for us to see!
 

Darn. I have to make me some kids. Saves the hazzle with adult models

^^ Seriously!!  I just wasted time reading this and thinking about this guy's ancient issue, before seeing the date. 

If you are going to dredge up a 4 or 5 year old thread, please post an old thread alert in the FIRST post responding to it. 

Or better yet, let sleeping dogs lie.  I am certain the OP would have figured out this problem by now.