iStockphoto

Russinating · 24 Feb 2011 at 23:39

I applied to be a contributor to iStockphoto last week, passed the test etc and uploaded three photos. I've just got this response:

The iStock administrators have asked that you upload new samples based on the feedback provided below. You're welcome to return in 3 days, upload some new samples and we'll re-process your application.

Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:

At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be diverse in subject matter, technical ability and should be your best work. Think conceptual, creative and most important think Stock photography. Try to avoid the average eye level push the button perspective of a common subject. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.

We welcome you to return after the number of days specified and upload 3 fresh samples of your work and we will re-process your application. Please note that you will not be able to upload new samples until this waiting period has passed.

The three images I uploaded are below. I took a bit of a risk because I uploaded three all from the same "shoot", though I thought they were a fair-ish range and were ok-ish as stock photos.

My question is is anyone here a contributor to iStock? If so, can you remember what images you uploaded for your application?

I'm also fully aware that they're probably rip off merchants, but at the end of the day pittance is better than zilch and I'd love to see my photos "in use", even if for free.

PermaBanned · 25 Feb 2011 at 01:06

The key part i would have picked out of that would have been 'your best work'. Can you look at those three and take pride in the fact that you have taken them, and above all of your other work they perfectly achieve what you set out to do by taking them?

If the answer's yes (or... no? shut up, i'm tired

), then might i suggest taking a 'brief' adventure into the world of film? Doesn't have to break the bank, even just a dirt cheap SLR that's compatible with whatever lenses you already have (something like a Nikon F75 or Canon EOS 300 can be had for under a tenner on the bay) can teach you an invaluable lesson about taking the time to look for a good shot, compose it properly and then shooting, rather than taking a picture at every opportunity you get in the hope that 'some of them will turn out okay', which seems to be similar to your attitude. Having the experience of a limited number of exposures and the knowledge that if you mess up then you might end up going through the whole developing process and have nothing to show for it is the only real way to get over it.

As for the photos themselves, the first two are pretty decent, the second one might have worked well as a longer exposure... can't say i have any love for the third, sorry.

D.P. · 25 Feb 2011 at 08:04

I used to do a lot of microstock ut now I am too busy to upload and have been concentrating on macrostock at Alamy when ever I get a second.

I will be very straight to the point. My comments might seem harsh but I want to be objective.

I can say straight away that it is clear those shot would be rejected, for various reasons. One thing you need to note is the standards of microstock agencies like IStock are very high.
And the application photos need to be incredibly good now to enter.

The 2nd and 3rd photo will be ruled out instantly due to subject/composition. The 3rd photo may get accepted after you are a member, and it might sell once or twice in the next years, if you are lucky. Quite probably IStock will reject that photo for eternity. I have dozens of such photos since they are quick to make- hint thousands of members have dozens of photos of windows and doors, they have made no more than 30-40 USD in total at the most over 3 years and multiple agencies.

The first photos has a subject and a composition of sorts, this is more promising stock photo. However, it is a very classic stock photo, there are going to be lots of competiros with such photos, e.g.:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-12589387-feed-of-the-family-at-sandy-beach.php
Compare this photo to yours, think of the differences. Your photo is less "clean" and also has harsh lighting with clipped highlights and deeper shadows.

Remember, your application photos have to be the very best 3 photos you have that are suitable for micro-stock. And here is the catch, suitable for MS. Not everything sells and not everything is wanted. I shoot mainly wildlife and landscape - there is no real market for nature photography in MS.

For your application photos, try to imagine if the photo can be printed on a big billboard, a side of a bus, in a good magazine- maybe not as it is, but after a graphic designer has incorporated it into a advert.

MS is a difficult game that gives a slow reward. What I like best about it is the learning process, learning to make technical good photos, commercial photos, commercial practices for editing/key-wording/organising, it makes you think about distracting lighting or object in your compositions. It makes an excellent starting point before going somewhere like Alamy. And plenty of pros uplload to MS agencies to support their income, other casual shooters like me will make enough money to buy a new lens etc.

D.P. · 25 Feb 2011 at 08:09

Have a look here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/vetta/#fbae44f
This is a collection of IStockPhotos hand-picked best photos, sorted by the best selling. Therefore. These are the idealistic MS photos that make the big money. Tens of thousands of dollars made from these photos.

That is a big hint to the technical quality, subject matter and compositions that will really get your application accepted.

Russinating · 26 Feb 2011 at 09:56

Superewza said:
might i suggest taking a 'brief' adventure into the world of film?

I spent my first 2 years in photography using a Vivitar SLR at college

.

Thanks for the advice and link DP, very interesting. Although I always knew there was some very high quality photos on iStock, I always assumed there was an equal share of lower quality that were just charged at a lower rate.

My main problem really is that I rarely shoot people, and it seems the large majority of content there is exactly that.

I guess what I sort of hoped for was just seeing pictures I'd already taken in use - the money was insignificant really. Perhaps that's not the case, but I may as well give it another shot anyway

.

cochoc · 26 Feb 2011 at 10:07

Russinating said:
My main problem really is that I rarely shoot people, and it seems the large majority of content there is exactly that.

This is my concern about istock. It's not that I don't like photographing people, or having shots with people in them. It's the onerous nature of submitting such shots with the obligatory model release. I can never see myself getting my head around that at all.

PermaBanned · 26 Feb 2011 at 13:10

Russinating said:
I spent my first 2 years in photography using a Vivitar SLR at college .

Fair enough, just make sure you don't forget the lessons learned. Digital is for taking photos. Film is for making photographs.

Good luck at any rate

Amp34 · 26 Feb 2011 at 13:23

Superewza said:
Fair enough, just make sure you don't forget the lessons learned. Digital is for taking photos. Film is for making photographs.

Good luck at any rate

Sorry but stuck up much?

Did you go to art college? Sort of thing they still seem to teach you there as they seem to insist on being 50 years behind the trend... (This is from someone that uses a TTL film camera as well as digital)

PermaBanned · 26 Feb 2011 at 14:10

I'm not having a go at digital photography at all, i just think it serves a different purpose. I've never been able to get a digital print to anywhere near the same quality that i got from even an old disposable. Also, for me at least, the process involved just makes you think more, about composition, not wasting shots, getting the developing just right and getting that rush when you've got something to show for it.

I did have a teacher that preferred film, but i don't think it counts since at the time i completely disagreed with her

MacX · 26 Feb 2011 at 18:11

Superewza said:
I'm not having a go at digital photography at all, i just think it serves a different purpose. I've never been able to get a digital print to anywhere near the same quality that i got from even an old disposable. Also, for me at least, the process involved just makes you think more, about composition, not wasting shots, getting the developing just right and getting that rush when you've got something to show for it.

Ooh.

Several of your comments so far have been quite bait worthy when looked at in a particular light, and I'm feeling in the need of a teeny bit of a nibble.

That and I'm a wee bit confused and would like enlightening. :confused:

Simply, I would love to know exactly what you think the purpose of digital photography is and why a proclaimed inability to match film quality with digital should define that purpose?

PermaBanned · 26 Feb 2011 at 18:53

MacX said:
Ooh. Several of your comments so far have been quite bait worthy when looked at in a particular light, and I'm feeling in the need of a teeny bit of a nibble. That and I'm a wee bit confused and would like enlightening.

Simply, I would love to know exactly what you think the purpose of digital photography is and why a proclaimed inability to match film quality with digital should define that purpose?

As i said, i use digital when i want to take a photo, i use film when i want to make a picture. There's something in using a tried and tested technology and equipment that can have lasted well over 50 years, and will continue to last at least 50 more if it's looked after properly, and still produces great results. I can't imagine a 20 year old DSLR working, never mind being of much use to anyone.

Even if you exclusively use digital then just shooting a single roll of film can improve your digital photography no end, hence my original suggestion. It forces you to think about the shot, and if it's worth being one of your 36 (or 24) rather than snapping hundreds and going through them later in the hope that 'some of them will turn out okay'.

Maybe it's related to my attitude in other things - i'm good at something only if i understand it, and how it works. A manual film camera is usually easy to understand every aspect of it, but a DSLR is essentially a mini computer, like putting a barrier between the photographer and the camera. That's to say nothing about it's ability to take good photographs, but it is by no means the be all and end all of photography.

cochoc · 26 Feb 2011 at 22:15

Superewza said:
Maybe it's related to my attitude in other things - i'm good at something only if i understand it, and how it works.

I think this is probably the key to your pov.

I do take your point that digital has brought about a culture of snap like mad and hope one turns out right, but disagree that with considered thought a digital photograph taken with a current dslr is somehow inherently inferior to one taken by a film slr. That just makes no sense.

And the physical longevity of a dslr against a 20 year old film camera is irrelevant to the art of photography imo.

PermaBanned · 26 Feb 2011 at 22:42

cochoc said:
I think this is probably the key to your pov.

I do take your point that digital has brought about a culture of snap like mad and hope one turns out right, but disagree that with considered thought a digital photograph taken with a current dslr is somehow inherently inferior to one taken by a film slr. That just makes no sense.

And the physical longevity of a dslr against a 20 year old film camera is irrelevant to the art of photography imo.

I never actually said that, i said i haven't been able to get prints nearly as good from a digital photo than i have from film. With film you're capturing everything about the scene, without being limited to 'pixels'. Have you ever seen a digital photo (not an HDR

) with nearly as much detail in both the foreground/subject and the rest of the picture as a film one?

The art of photography maybe, but as a hobby. I like being able to respect my possessions, not because it's a marvel of human progress that they can be mass produced cheaply using child labour in some far away country but because some thought has gone into it, and if you get the right one because somebody has taken pride in making it.

Unfortunately it's the same with pretty much everything nowadays...

Amp34 · 26 Feb 2011 at 23:50

Superewza said:
I'm not having a go at digital photography at all, i just think it serves a different purpose. I've never been able to get a digital print to anywhere near the same quality that i got from even an old disposable. Also, for me at least, the process involved just makes you think more, about composition, not wasting shots, getting the developing just right and getting that rush when you've got something to show for it.

I did have a teacher that preferred film, but i don't think it counts since at the time i completely disagreed with her

Then that may be your inability that is clouding your judgement. I find that most film images have a certain look to them (especially 35mm), a look that I'm not a fan of at all. My MF film appears to not usually have that look to it in B&W, with much less grain and noise/nasty stuff. Perhaps you prefer the look of film, which may be another reason you can't get a digital image looking like you want it.

Either way you still have that "getting the developing just right" phase in digital, instead of a dark room IRL you have one on your computer, photoshop and the myriad of programs that go alongside it. I go out, shoot a photo in a few minutes then spend an hour or two processing/developing it, much like film.

I do agree though that film makes you stop and think more, even if you conciously think about shooting limited numbers of digital (I can quite easily go out and shoot only 15 shots in an evening on my DSLR if I'm out just to shoot but usually you end up with a lot more). When you only have 12 frames you can shoot before it costing you another few quid it does focus your mind a little more...

TBH though you always come across as 16-17 going on 60-70 so I'm not suprised at your opinion on this matter

cochoc · 27 Feb 2011 at 00:14

Superewza said:
I never actually said that, i said i haven't been able to get prints nearly as good from a digital photo than i have from film.

You just need to practice and adapt in the same way as you did with your film technique. You will find new ways to make photographs, some of which may impress you.

Superewza said:
With film you're capturing everything about the scene, without being limited to 'pixels'. Have you ever seen a digital photo (not an HDR ) with nearly as much detail in both the foreground/subject and the rest of the picture as a film one?

You may not be limited by 'pixels', but you are limited by film 'grain.' You could argue that pixels have a higher resolution than film grain, so detail can be higher in a digital photograph than using film. I agree that the dynamic range from a dslr is not quite as wide as film, but it's pretty close. Furthermore a digital negative can be pushed and pulled with far more flexibility than a film negative.

Superewza said:
The art of photography maybe, but as a hobby. I like being able to respect my possessions, not because it's a marvel of human progress that they can be mass produced cheaply using child labour in some far away country but because some thought has gone into it, and if you get the right one because somebody has taken pride in making it.

Unfortunately it's the same with pretty much everything nowadays...

I don't look at my dslr and see it as a 'marvel of human progress' when I press the shutter...I'm normally looking through the lens at my subject with consideration given to composition, aperture and shutter speed in addition to iso (just like I did with my film camera).

Why can't you respect a Canon 550d any less than, say an Olymous om10? The technology in an om10 was once cutting edge in the same way as it now is in a dslr.

Please name a film camera where the manufacturer took pride in its manufacture? You don't really believe that the om10 was lovingly fashioned from a block of wood by an English craftsman do you?

PermaBanned · 27 Feb 2011 at 01:14

Hmm, i keep saying things that i don't exactly mean here... i'm not trying to claim that film is superior to digital, just that for me at least it has by no means been superseded by it and explain why i prefer the medium for my own personal use. It can provide invaluable lessons for improving your photographic technique overall.

I certainly hope you don't take offense at that. A 550D can take great pictures in the right hands, but so can an OM10. So can a pinhole for that matter. I think the fact that, in terms of image quality, the output of both can be considered more than acceptable, proves that film is not dead.

Also, Amp, you say post processing is the same as developing? Maybe it serves a similar purpose, but what makes it better? I'd much rather physically mess about with chemicals than spend yet more time sitting in front of a keyboard. If digital photography is so superior then why is it just another means to a similar end, one which i for one don't enjoy as much as the alternative?

cochoc · 27 Feb 2011 at 12:11

I don't take offence at anything you say.

I just think that the things you are coming out with are generally driven by a strange and uninformed (from a digital pov) nostalgia which is either technically incorrect or at least a little misleading. Just because you prefer spending time in a darkroom to sitting in front of a pc doesn't mean that it is a morally/technically/spiritually superior form of photography. I'm not sure it's even worth 'cutting your teeth' with film any more as it is becoming more and more of a legacy form of photography in the same way as photographing with plates might have been in a bygone era. I'd stick my scrawny neck out (for what it's worth) and say that film photography is almost resigned to a curiosity art form these days.

I would never suggest that your love of traditional film is invalid, just that your view of digital as subordinate in some way is misinformed. And for you to say that now you don't think that film is superior to digital is backtracking somehat imo

I can see what's happened here. You started by saying that the 'snap-happy' nature of much digital photography is brought about by the ease and 'no-extra-cost' nature of a film-less system. You should have left it at that I think, because your obvious passion for film has clouded your logic

PermaBanned · 27 Feb 2011 at 13:34

I never said that digital was a 'subordinate', i just said it serves a different purpose, for me at least.

Talking about 'clouded logic' is a bit hypocritical when you're trying to claim that any one system is superior to another, when they both can yield great results. If it's two means to an end then why should anybody be ridiculed for choosing the mean they enjoy most?

Russinating · 27 Feb 2011 at 13:36

Sorry to bring this thread kicking and screaming back the OP, but does anyone know if the samples you upload require a model release? I have a few involving people that may be suitable but as they were shot ages ago and never intended for this use I obviously don't have releases. I obviously would never use them on iStock properly without one but in terms of showing my work/what I can do, do I need one or not?

PermaBanned · 27 Feb 2011 at 13:48

Would the samples end up being used on the site? If so i'd say yes. Can't do any harm to include them, if you can still get in touch with the people in them then they can sign afterwards i believe.