Todays photos (stock shots) C&C anyone?
Discussion
Id love some feedback, if anyone has comments, good or bad.
Im keen to give the "selling stock photos" thing a go. I enjoy set building, and could spend hours taking these kinds of pics. They're a bit naff though as I dont have any lighting.
They're a little repetative too
but the idea is to fill up your library with quantity, rather than whittle it down to a chosen few good ones. Someone might buy one, one day. And when they do I'll be 25 cents richer 
Im keen to give the "selling stock photos" thing a go. I enjoy set building, and could spend hours taking these kinds of pics. They're a bit naff though as I dont have any lighting.
They're a little repetative too
but the idea is to fill up your library with quantity, rather than whittle it down to a chosen few good ones. Someone might buy one, one day. And when they do I'll be 25 cents richer poah said:Ive just realised... the casio logo isnt quite obscured
actually very good bob. watch out for trademarks, trade names etc etc
_dobbo_ said:The first two are dreadful, but I included them to give you an idea of the kinds of stock images (ive seen scarier images) they are accepting.
Not sure about the first two but the rest are very nice, you've been reading "istockphoto" where they say they want corporate stuff!
re: the business theme, there was a thread on shutterstock, with people comparing the number of sales they made with the number of images they had online.
Most people were getting 5ish sales a day, with 350ish photos. One chap sold 123 photos in a single day. A quick check of his gallery revealed most of his shots were business oriented. Besides, its images like those which we use most often when building websites.
Ive just started reading the critique forum on shutterstock
! It seems any noise, artifacts, or anything at all - will prevent a photo from being accepted. No problem, BUT... to get accepted, you need 7/10 of your first submissions to be accepted, or you fail to qualify as a photographer from whom they will assess your work, and you cant try again for another 3 months. UKBob said:
It seems any noise, artifacts, or anything at all
You'll be fine as long as you shoot at IS0200 or lower, and don't compress the images at all.
If in doubt about a particular image, don't submit it. If you are "shooting to order" which you seem to be, rather than taking images out of your library, then it's easy to discard anything that's going to be borderline.
Thought I'd add, since these stock places are pretty anal (understandably so) then they probably get sniffy about white balance and exposure. This being the case... The white balance is out on all 5 of your writing ones here, and some of them are a stop or two under exposed as well. Worth running through them all and correcting this, because they make a nicer set if they match perfectly.
As individual shots it wouldn't really show, but when you submit them as a set the differences do stand out a bit.
As individual shots it wouldn't really show, but when you submit them as a set the differences do stand out a bit.
crmcatee said:
Nice idea Rob.
One that will surely go down well with employees...
Profit Up
Salary Down.
_dobbo_ said:So long as I pass the first 10 submissions and dont have to wait 3 months before trying again, I dont mind how many get accepted. Looking at the image and lack of lighting, low light creates grain it seems, even in the shadow of the calculator (very little, but grain none the less)
You'll be fine as long as you shoot at IS0200 or lower, and don't compress the images at all.
If in doubt about a particular image, don't submit it. If you are "shooting to order" which you seem to be, rather than taking images out of your library, then it's easy to discard anything that's going to be borderline.
_dobbo_ said:I quite agree. Im sure I'll get better, enough to create decent matching sets. I'll just submit them one by one for now.
Thought I'd add, since these stock places are pretty anal (understandably so) then they probably get sniffy about white balance and exposure. This being the case... The white balance is out on all 5 of your writing ones here, and some of them are a stop or two under exposed as well. Worth running through them all and correcting this, because they make a nicer set if they match perfectly.
As individual shots it wouldn't really show, but when you submit them as a set the differences do stand out a bit.
might turning the spot metering off, changing it to a setting with a bigger cover area help? I think the key is not to submit in sets, until Ive learned a bit more.
poah said:I think you're just seeing pairs again
I quite like the first one lol
up-the-dubs said:After failing to achieve a smooth retouch with the heal tool, someone very kindly sorted all the logos out for me this morning
actually very good bob. watch out for trademarks, trade names etc etc
And FYI, the parker pen nib.
>> Edited by UKBob on Monday 8th May 10:42
UKBob said:
I quite agree. Im sure I'll get better, enough to create decent matching sets. I'll just submit them one by one for now.
might turning the spot metering off, changing it to a setting with a bigger cover area help? I think the key is not to submit in sets, until Ive learned a bit more.
Turning off "auto white-balance" will fix the white balance issues, whilst checking the internal light meter should help with getting the exposure the same, that said there's no reason to re-shoot them if you shot in raw, you should be able to set the white balance for all of them using either Adobe Camera Raw, or Rawshooter, or whatever you use.
Pick one where the white of the paper looks properly white, then take a note of the white balance settings - eg the colour temp and tint.
Now adjust the others to have the same colour temp and tint, and if necessary boost the exposure (but not too much as that will highlight any noise very noticably). You should find it pretty easy to get the set looking all the same.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff