Forum

Hi and welcome to crestock,
the image you mentioned has several problems. While the composition is quite good, there is a lot of noise and some compression artifacts - also your camera (actually the lens) seems to show quite some lens flare (or perhaps there was some dirt on it).

Especially with point and shoot cameras, the only chance you have is to use the highest available quality setting and the lowest iso.

Hope that helped!

Hi,

The Technical Quality is the least specific rejection reason we have.

Its usually given due to camera quality, unfortunately. All 1st or 2nd generation digital cameras, some newer cheaper DSLR cameras, and most 'point and shoot' cameras aren't capable of producing the quality that a client needs for all possible uses.

Its not that the image is especially out of focus, or producing a lot of artifacts, its more an overall lack of sharpness and quality, that unfortunately, only a standard of camera and lenses can achieve.

There's also the question of how to use the camera and using it to produce quality images, but thats another discussion.

Josh
The Crestock Team

AHA...thank you for the explaination... :)

now my problems are mainly focused at the camera..DSLR are much too expensive for a novice like me...:pinch:

I'm stumble upon the Canon EOS Rebel XT...is it good enough for the stock photos or i need a better DSLR camera?

Lens: Carlz Zeiss or Leica? Currently I'm using Leica lens,because i'm told by some "expert" (read as camera shop owner..:unsure:) that Leica lens are better in term of sharpness and quality than Carl Zeiss.

Subject as Stock Photos: The best selling images...human(model) or products? Is it true that landscapes and animals are lease acceptable and prone to rejection? Due to nature of stock photos, are they mainly shoot in the studio?

Point and Shoot Camera: Is it another term for pocket camera or digital camera? While mainly the best selling camera, are the D.Camera can't produce good quality pictures although the megapixels is really high?(8 megapixel ++)

Sharpness,Blurs,Noises and Artifacts: Are blurs acceptable? What if the blurs are in purpose (add the uniqueness of the picture?). Are the noises can be remove by photo-manipulation software? In your latest post, you tell me that higher ISO produce more noises,so lower or lowest ISO is recommended.What is the usage of higher ISO?And what is artifact? Is it some sort of noises?

Sorry for the avalance of questions :D...I really want to learn more about stock photos because I'm taking a degree in Graphics and Multimedia.

Thank you for your time reviewing my 1st picture and answering my questions. May all of you bless with prosperous and happiness in year 2008.

Hello Ayenxz,

I think that the Canon EOS EOS Rebel is a relatively good entry level DSLR camera.

If you are a beginner it would be better (may be) to invest money in a good entry level DSLR camera and switch later to a more professional one.

May be this website can help you choosing the right camera for you:

http://www.dpreview.com/

All the best
Michael

Hi again,

The Canon EOS Rebel XT should be capable of producing some results good enough for stock. Unfortunately, the kit lens that comes with it is probably not good enough to produce sharp images, though. Its recommended to spend the most money on lenses, the camera body can always be upgraded later.

Carlz Zeiss or Leica Lenses: I have no experience with these lenses, try checking out www.dpreview.com for the best reviews and test results on cameras and lenses.


http://www.crestock.com/blog/photography/does-equipment-give-you-an-edge-in-stock-photography-86.aspx This is also a helpful blog article aimed at beginner stock photographers.

With what to shoot? Do some research of good selling portfolios and see what is selling. Stock photography is commercial, you're aiming to satisfy the needs of a client, so research the market and see what there is a demand for. Also, read this helpful blog from the world's top selling photographer, Yuri Arcurs.

http://www.crestock.com/blog/photography/eight-secrets-from-the-worlds-top-selling-photographer-92.aspx

Motion blur is a photographic technique, but for it to be effective in stock photography, it needs to be displaying motion. Sometimes blurs will need a focal point.

Noise reduction software is available, but in most cases, the result is just as poor quality as an image with noise. For the best results, shoot in RAW, shoot in well-lit conditions at about ISO 100. If this underexposes your images, use a tripod and adjust the shutter speed to allow more light in. High ISO settings can be used in low-light conditions, it produces noise but in some cases a well-lit image is more important. This isn't so for stock photography, where clients require technical quality in images.

Artifacts are the results of JPG compression, either in your camera or from saving edited files as JPGs. Shoot in RAW and edit in TIFF format to avoid any loss of quality or 'jeggies'. When you're ready to upload an image, save it as JPG with the highest quality setting.

Hope thats some help,

Josh
The Crestock Team

Hi Josh and all Crestock members..
Thanks for the answers....

Stock photography is indeed required a lot of everything... from money to skills...and required a lot of dedication...

Ok...
1. lower ISO = less noise but produce underexposure..solution: slow shutter and tripod
2. Sharper images = Expensive lens (burn holes in pocket ..... :( )
3. Artifacts = Jpeg Compression + bad lens..Solution: RAW format or tiff..

while viewing other contributor portfolio, many of them use white background..are they created in studio or photoshop cropping technique?

Best selling stock images often use models as focal point, is there other best selling images that doesn't required models? and what is microstock?

Can I adjust the level and the curves,saturate/desaturate,add effects or any photoshops techniques to the pictures? Can this actions lead to more problems ?

Are stock pictures always required a sharp pictures? That's means no soften or adjustments are allowed to the pictures?How about monocromatic images?

Yikes, sorry for another waves of questions..I just want to avoid getting the "Worst image" title..I already have thousands of images and vectors but only some of them are stock photos,mainly in foods and macro images..in my opinion will surely fail in reviews..Silly me, i'm using ISO 1200!! just ripes with noises..:sick: ..Well, I " think" I'm good at composition,but the camera just drag me down..

Hello,

any pro who could reply to Ayenxz questions? The answers could be helpful for all the newbies :).

Thanks.

Best wishes,
Michael

Hello Ayenxz and Goldenhawk,

Here are a few answers to your questions.....

1. Lowest ISO - yes, less noise, but not in every case. Longer exposures can produce noise even at 100 ISO, and so can substandard equipment. So when someone says "just shoot the lowest ISO, and everything will be great!" - that's not really 100% true. It's best to experiment and learn how your equipment captures images. If you are worried about underexposure at lower ISO's, open the aperture a couple stops, slow the shutter speed slightly, or if you are shooting in the studio, increase your flash strobes - there is many different ways to compensate for lack of enough light.

I have two images on Crestock that were shot with 3200 ISO 35mm film with long exposures - they were drum-scanned to a large file (92mb), and then manipulated with slight blurring, colour saturation, and finally reducing the file to a small size that would eliminate a majority of the pixel information resulting in the noise, and other reject-able issues being eliminated. So there is ways around the noise problem, you just have to find them.
There is also Noise Reduction Software, but it can lead to even more troubles then it rectifies. Many rejections I've given are because of overuse of this software, which can destroy detail and ruin normal texture. I would try and resolve noise issues without the use of noise reduction software - basically, eliminate the chance of noise before you take the picture.

2. Sharper images - of course sharper images are better, and yes, more expensive lens will produce sharper images and better quality images - but as I'm inspecting I notice most of the time it's not the lenses that are producing the unsharp images - it's the photographer that isn't focusing the lens properly. In most cases of model photography, the focus should be primarily on the eyes (unless the intention of the image is meant for attention somewhere else), but, for example, if the photographer is using autofocus portrait lens, the focus can be somewhere on the nose instead of the eyes..., that's just one example of many focusing problems that we encounter all the time while inspecting. So, I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it's not required to spend thousands of dollars on a lens to produce sharp images, just know your lens and the relationship between focus, aperture, shutter speed, tripod, mirror lock - because they all can effect image sharpness.

3. Artifacts - Stay away from jpeg format until the very last step of saving your file to be uploaded - and then never open that file again! If your camera will shoot in RAW format - use it - and pre-process the colour temperature, RGB levels, and even (other photographers might disagree) sharpen your images in RAW software, before you do any editing / cloning / image manipulation in Photoshop. Then export the RAW file into a TIF file for editing in Photoshop. Adjusting the colour temperature and RGB levels in RAW is less likely to affect or cause artifacts, compression flaws, and posterization than adjusting the same in Photoshop - well, that's my experience anyway - I do 80% of my colour correction before I take press the shutter release, but if there is adjustments to be made after that, I strictly do it in RAW software.

let's see... what else...

a) Isolated objects are best done in a studio setting with decent strobes and if possible a seamless table. You can makeshift these things, but this might require more editing and photoshop prowess to get the desired images. Trying to isolate things that haven't been shot in a studio setting is possible, but time consuming and unless the photographer has a good grasp of clipping path / pen tools / feathering / etc., it can look unnatural.

b) Yes, some of the top selling images include models, but thousands of images of clean isolated 'things' sell big too.

c) Most images do require to be sharp, but softening a part of or a section of an image can work, but it's difficult to point out in what circumstances it could be utilized without an example.

Thanks,

I hope this helps somewhat.

Ron

Dear Ron,

thank you very much for your help and precious advices.

In my case I would think that my gear + lenses are actually OK. Therefore the problems I have (e.g., focus, exposure) are due to wrong settings or human errors.

I never use post-processing (e.g., photoshop, noise reduction software). Anyway, I have set on my camera (Nikon D300) the "noise reduction at high ISO" to low (before normal) and the "Active D-Lighting" to normal. The high ISO is 800 or above.

I shoot my pictures both in raw and jpeg, but until now I have not used raw (but I should).

Regarding the auto-focus, a problem I have is how to make the camera focus on what I want. My AF is composed of 51 points, but which points are used are chosen by the camera. In fact moving it a bit make the points used to focus to change (i.e., others are selected). Therefore it is not always easy to shoot a "focused" picture (or focused as you want).

Determining the right exposure, well, this is another fight. Until now I have not find a satisfactory solution.

Regarding the subject/object on a white background, I have not understood if you can make them easily with photoshop or only by physically providing a white background.

Thanks again.

All the best
Michael

Dear Ron,

sorry, I have just forgotten one more question.

As I am getting rejections because of "Not Stock Image", I would like to ask if there is a way to find out which pictures are suitable for Crestock.

Usually, I look at the pictures on Crestock and other sites, but still get "Not Stock Image"...:unsure:

Thank you.

Best wishes,
Michael

Hello again,

Here's a few suggestions...

1. Always use your camera with noise reduction turned off - I don't know why they even put this function in pro cameras - you always want to start with the most raw unfiltered image you can get from your camera - because you can't go back - once that noise filter is applied in the camera, you can't press 'undo' (well, at least I don't think you can - i've never used it so really I'm assuming). If you do have noise in your image there is ways to eliminate it - again, knowing your software at this point is the important thing - you need to know how the noise reduction software is removing the noise, and how to control the amount of filtering. Also, instead of filtering the entire image, it is possible to spot noise reduce only in the shadow areas where it is more likely to appear, thus saving the detail and texture of the mid-tone and highlight regions.

2. Turn the auto-focus off and manually focus. I only use auto-focus when I need the speed and assurance of getting the shot with situations that aren't controlled. For studio product shots, I use a very heavy and expensive tripod - which is actually made for semi-pro video cameras - and a equally heavy and rigid head to mount the camera. I only use fixed (or prime) lenses to shoot isolated products, and never use auto-focus. I don't actually touch the camera, because I operate it from a desktop computer that controls the cameras functions preventing my hands from accidently moving the camera even the slightest - the smallest nudge will show up as a unsharp image especially when shooting macro shots.

3. Physically providing a white background is the best solution. Saves much work and aggravation.

4. As for "Not Stock Material", the only person that can guide you is you. Searching through the Crestock portfolios is a great way to see great stock material. Also, anywhere you go these days, everything is filled with stock photography - walk into a bank, the images on their posters and literature material is all stock - study billboards, and transit signage and advertising - the majority is great stock material. Think about how you would see an image used in a design - where would the text flow, what would the image be used for? What kind of advertising campaign would want your images? You have to think like a designer. Normally before I shoot anything for stock I think of what applications and subjects would my future photos be used for. And then while I'm shooting, I position the camera and/or the subject in the viewfinder thinking of how and where header text and body copy would appear on my image. So I'm trying to think as a designer would. Obviously this doesn't apply to everything that would be photographed, but that's what I do.

Anyway, I hope this was a help!!

Ron

Hello Ron,

thank you very much for your explanation and useful advices :).

I will turn off noise reduction on the camera. Anyway, if I remember correctly the D300 perform some very low noise reduction at very high ISO automatically....

I usually prefer "natural" pictures and not too much reworked, even if sometime a soft retouch could be helpful instead of throwing away the picture.

I do not use a tripod (I do not even have one). I prefer to do without and usually I do not have the time to install it and use it. Anyway, I have to admit that it will be very useful for some kind of pictures. May be later I will buy one, when I will have enough money.

Same for the AF. I understand that sometime it is not the best solution, but for most of my pictures I need to fast take it. But I will try to use manual focus where I can.

Regarding Stock Material, yes, I understand. I will try to follow a bit more your advices :).
Anyway, Crestock is interested in editorial pictures?

Thank you very much.

Best wishes,
Michael

Crestock isn't accepting editorial pictures, until further notice. We're mostly a resource for designers and people inside of advertising and marketing, so keep in mind who you are shooting pictures for.

Goldenhawk (1/24/2008)

---

I do not use a tripod (I do not even have one). I prefer to do without and usually I do not have the time to install it and use it. Anyway, I have to admit that it will be very useful for some kind of pictures. May be later I will buy one, when I will have enough money.l

Hi Michael,
sorry to unterrupt the conversation ;-). Please keep in mind that when uploading to a professional stockagency you also have to put your photography to the next level.
And when working professionally one has to take expenses sometimes, especially when it comes to photography. You don´t need to buy the sturdiest tripod, but as it is not only useful for some kind of pictures, but rather for many pictures, you should really think about getting one - it gives you better abilities to play with your aperture and shutter speeds. Most lenses deliver a much better quality when stopped down a bit - and this sometimes requires slower shutterspeeds and with it a tripod.

Don´t forget - what you want are downloads - and with it money - so you are becoming some kind of professional photographer and you have to compete with other professionals.

That´s business - invest money to earn even more money and beside the money you have a new tripod too :cool:

Dear Josh,

thank you very much for your reply on editorial pictures.

Dear Wolfgang,

thank you very much for your advices.

I am aware that uploading to a professional agency requires pictures of high quality. And to take pictures of high quality you need to invest money on a good camera, but especially on good lenses. Without taking into account other useful equipment like an external flash and a tripod.

Anyway, even if you have a very good starting equipment, it does not mean that you will be able to take very good pictures. You will also have to learn how to take them, how to compose them and how to use your camera, lenses, flash, etc. I am just having all this problems myself (just look at my pictures... :)).

Actually, I am making practice with my camera and also subscribed to photography courses to gain more insight and knowledge.

Consequently, before investing money on equipment, I would prefer to improve my knowledge on how correctly use a camera and related equipment.

Despite my love for photography, I have a family (and my wife is not so patient with me :)) and a full-time work. Adding all together, plus the courses they will soon start, it is rather difficult to organize my time.

Therefore I prefer to make a step after the other.

Thank you.

Best wishes,
Michael

PS.: I will think about buying a tripod :).

;) enjoy your courses - you will love what you learn!

Thanks :).

I hope then to avoid get rejected pictures because of exposure....:(

Best wishes,
Michael

Try with use only one point for focusing,in AF-s mode.You can move this active point with joystick.I am working with Nikon d80, and it is similar.Check manual for details.

Best regards, Sima

Dear Sima,

I will give it a try :).

Thank you very much for your advice.

Best wishes,
Michael