| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2005 04:46:20 PM · #51 |
| I agree with many of the comments here about what makes a really good stock photo. The point of high quality, no matter what the image is, is first. I think another area I see somewhat from the entries in this challenge, is that some people are trying to put the whole "scene" or "final product" together themselves. It may look great, but often someone buying a stock image is the one trying to find an "element" of the total final product they are after. So, one boring element may actually translate to a great stock photo. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:04:03 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by e301:
ust about the only 'type' of photography I can think of excluding from this challenge is Sunsets. Whilst I have no doubt there are plenty of sunset shots at the agencies, you'd really have to have a proven record, or the best sunset ever, or an additional element that really pays off to even think of submitting it to a grown-up agancy.
Imagine going to corbis with thirty pretty sunsets ... (shivers)
e |
You admit that there are sunset images for sale at corbis and the like, but say we should exclude them from this challenge. I don't get it. Let me pick 30 sunsets from dpc and I'll go to corbis. Why exclude one small category, or type, from a challenge that most posters seem to think is pretty wide open?
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 06:44:49 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by e301:
To put a further twist on it, a strong part of shooting for Stock is surely the ability to know (the taste of) your audience/clients, no?
ust about the only 'type' of photography I can think of excluding from this challenge is Sunsets. Whilst I have no doubt there are plenty of sunset shots at the agencies, you'd really have to have a proven record, or the best sunset ever, or an additional element that really pays off to even think of submitting it to a grown-up agancy.
Imagine going to corbis with thirty pretty sunsets ... (shivers)
e |
I went to Bruce Coleman and typed sunset into their search engine and came up with 1735 pretty sunset hits and a large percentage of their files are not even online.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 08:06:45 PM · #54 |
| I didn't submit because my $0.23 picture would never be able to beat the ones that makes $100+. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 08:53:43 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Gordon:
That and no visible logos. |
Where do you see a problem with logos? Since when is the lack of a logo any kind of qualifier for stock images? |
Because having a logo is a huge disincentive for a competitor to use the image. Also, because a logo requires licensing to be reused for stock.
Now - this is mostly for commercial stock, not editoral, but similar biases apply. Like all of the challenges, there is a difference between what can be leveraged or argued in and what epitomises the challenge theme. As to corbis - open their front page, all the images have people or parts of people in them - they don't do that because they don't sell...
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 21:05:39. |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:15:19 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Gordon:
That and no visible logos. |
Where do you see a problem with logos? Since when is the lack of a logo any kind of qualifier for stock images? |
Because having a logo is a huge disincentive for a competitor to use the image. Also, because a logo requires licensing to be reused for stock.
Now - this is mostly for commercial stock, not editoral, but similar biases apply. Like all of the challenges, there is a difference between what can be leveraged or argued in and what epitomises the challenge theme. As to corbis - open their front page, all the images have people or parts of people in them - they don't do that because they don't sell... |
If it shows up on a stock image site and is for sale it is a stock image. No leveraging or argueing needed. You name one thing, anything, from a turd to a Turk's turbin and you can probably find a picture of it at a stock photo agency.
Go to Bruce Coleman - open thier front page, all of their images have animals on them. Because that is what they sell. Corbis is well known for specializing in people and celebrities. That does not make them the epitome of stock agencies or what they sell the epitome of what a stock image is.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:17:03 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by e301:
To put a further twist on it, a strong part of shooting for Stock is surely the ability to know (the taste of) your audience/clients, no?
ust about the only 'type' of photography I can think of excluding from this challenge is Sunsets. Whilst I have no doubt there are plenty of sunset shots at the agencies, you'd really have to have a proven record, or the best sunset ever, or an additional element that really pays off to even think of submitting it to a grown-up agancy.
Imagine going to corbis with thirty pretty sunsets ... (shivers)
e |
I went to Bruce Coleman and typed sunset into their search engine and came up with 1735 pretty sunset hits and a large percentage of their files are not even online.
|
OK, I stand corrected. So it's a free study.
e |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:29:13 PM · #58 |
To prove my point, here's the turd from Alamy
and here is the Turk's turbin from Corbis.
Message edited by author 2005-03-21 21:35:10.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:31:17 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by okiesisi:
as it sits right now, I most likely will not vote on stock...as the comments and scores given to my pic prove I have no clue what it means.... I guess working on a few different newspapers for several years taught me nothing!
~~SiSi |
Sierra,
I would vote. I worked on a newspaper for a few years and I know where you are coming from.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:34:30 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by admart01:
Your thoughts on borders? I noticed that in the challenge some photographs are better photographs because of them but aren't they a no-no? Seems a few of my early shots to stock sites were rejected bacause of them. |
Generally speaking I ignore borders. They can improve some images (Not many), but mostly I only notice them when they hurt a picture.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:36:22 PM · #61 |
| I thought my pic was getting blasted because it didn't meet the challenge of a stock photo (at least that's what my 1 comment said.) After reading this thread I'm really confused what makes a good stock photo. Just about anything I suppose. I have now come to the conclusion that my pic does meet the challenge and is scoring poorly because it stinks. Thanks (I think). |
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:40:19 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Middle-of-the-pack and worse is where I live anyway, and this challenge is no exception. It seems I won't likely break 5.5... And I know damned well my entry is a good stock photo.
Robt. |
Robert... not to worry. My last image finished at 5.6 and it was a decent image. If an image is good it will be good long after a challenge is finished, but what voters like during the voting week rules.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2005 09:50:32 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Yes, this is important; rechnical quality. And "good" stock images don't necessarily have to have the WOW factor; a lot of time, WOW isn't what the designer or client needs. This is where I fear for the challenge; the usual WOW images will, of course, win, and some VERY good, sellable stock images will finish below the middle of the pack.
Robt. |
I disagree. I think a good stock photo does not necessarily need to have a "Wow" factor, but is better if it does. What clients want is a photograph the people remember or closely associate with their product. (That would be the ones that do not have a "Wow" factor).
Images with logos work only for that product only. However, that works for this challenge.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:16:39 AM · #64 |
OK, there is one type of image that is a definite no-no with most stock agencies. Set-up wildlife shots. That would include flora and fauna. If they were set-up in any way that might not happen in nature then a note has to be added to the image to explain. That is in order to keep some unsuspecting book editor from including the image where it should not be.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:23:03 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Yes, this is important; rechnical quality. And "good" stock images don't necessarily have to have the WOW factor; a lot of time, WOW isn't what the designer or client needs. This is where I fear for the challenge; the usual WOW images will, of course, win, and some VERY good, sellable stock images will finish below the middle of the pack.
Robt. |
I disagree. I think a good stock photo does not necessarily need to have a "Wow" factor, but is better if it does. What clients want is a photograph the people remember or closely associate with their product. (That would be the ones that do not have a "Wow" factor).
Images with logos work only for that product only. However, that works for this challenge. |
That applies some of the time but not all of the time. A lot of times the images are used to support something, and the designer does not WANT them to overpower it. It's important to realize this.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 01:25:35 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
OK, there is one type of image that is a definite no-no with most stock agencies. Set-up wildlife shots. |
Whew! No problem there ... : ) |
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:54:14 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
OK, there is one type of image that is a definite no-no with most stock agencies. Set-up wildlife shots. |
Whew! No problem there ... : ) |
Also keeps the PETA people happy! ;^) You know, the disclaimer - no animals were harmed during the taking of this photograph...he-he.
|
|
|
|
03/22/2005 11:56:20 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Yes, this is important; rechnical quality. And "good" stock images don't necessarily have to have the WOW factor; a lot of time, WOW isn't what the designer or client needs. This is where I fear for the challenge; the usual WOW images will, of course, win, and some VERY good, sellable stock images will finish below the middle of the pack.
Robt. |
I disagree. I think a good stock photo does not necessarily need to have a "Wow" factor, but is better if it does. What clients want is a photograph the people remember or closely associate with their product. (That would be the ones that do not have a "Wow" factor).
Images with logos work only for that product only. However, that works for this challenge. |
That applies some of the time but not all of the time. A lot of times the images are used to support something, and the designer does not WANT them to overpower it. It's important to realize this.
Robt. |
Thanks Robert, I agree. Maybe that will help my image, no overpowering here (at least as far as the voters are concerned). ;^)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 05:01:20 PM EDT.
