You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.


Page:
1
 2 >
 of 2
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 26

Please dont crop the photos for download.

Author Message
Markdavies
12 posts
Message posted at 03/18/2013, 21:14:17 PM by Markdavies
I use the photos in a layout with out any frame around the photos. Therefore if the model is cropped at the forehead or elbow often I cant use it. I will often use the model on the right or the left of my layout. If you have cropped her body on both sides I might be short an arm or top of her head.
Even if you want to crop it for display please send me an image that I can crop if needed


Uploaded files:0 | Total Sales: 0
Red
1744 posts
Message edited at 03/19/2013, 06:58:24 AM by Red
Thanks for bringing this up, it's always great to hear from buyers. You mention a technique that many new photographers employ to make their images "look" better but may not help them "sell" better. I agree, often a perfect image is missing an important part just because the image was cropped or tilted to make the presentation more artful. The buyer will pass and ultimately choose a similar one that may not be as immediately striking but is also not cropped. If cropping is needed it is better to leave it up to the designer. It is sometimes hard to think like a buyer rather than an artist so thank you for the reminder.


Uploaded files:232 | Total Sales: 1610
Wisconsinart
1556 posts
80
Message posted at 03/19/2013, 07:56:05 AM by Wisconsinart
This is frustrating because if we don't crop Reviewers will reject for poor composition.
Nikon D800, D100, Canon G15

Uploaded files:1896 | Total Sales: 10780
Melonstone
836 posts
51
Message posted at 03/19/2013, 08:07:36 AM by Melonstone
Yeah, it's a bit of a catch 22 situation & coming from a newspaper/features background I tend to leave copyspace....but I seem to recall Admin commenting on a similar post not so long ago now....

And here it is, quite a long discussion on WHEN to crop....

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_30174

CANON EOS 50D

Uploaded files:967 | Total Sales: 2373
Godfer
1495 posts
76
Message posted at 03/20/2013, 09:18:42 AM by Godfer
You can always leave a message for the photographer on an image you like and ask them if they have an uncropped version that they haven' t uploaded. We aren't allowed to upload a lot of similar images so we upload the ones that we feel are best but often have a lot more from the same shoot.
Canon 5D MK II

Uploaded files:1778 | Total Sales: 32438
Red
1744 posts
Message posted at 03/20/2013, 09:55:50 AM by Red
I wonder how many buyers even know that they can contact the photographer directly. You have to go to a different tab - Tools - and then there is a comment box. I'm betting that many buyers, especially those with subscriptions who purchase a large quantity of images aren't aware of that feature. We all know that we are seeing more and more subscriptions. If they are buying more than a few images at a time I bet they just pass on one that might be good but is cropped and find another, unless the cropped image is the only one that fits their needs. There are a lot of alternatives. In my experience, institutional buyers are all about the image, not the person who produced it. They are not going to a particular person's site to purchase image, they are coming to this vast source where all images are lumped together and, in essence created equal, and only differentiated by what can be found when they search. *Hint - great keywording is what will get an image downloaded.


Uploaded files:232 | Total Sales: 1610
Dudau
616 posts
76
Message posted at 03/23/2013, 05:44:27 AM by Dudau - member is an admin

Originally posted by Wisconsinart:
Quoted Message: This is frustrating because if we don`t crop Reviewers will reject for poor composition.


Sorry to interrupt, but this is just not true, and it has been discussed many times here on this forum.
Canon 1D Mk III, Canon 7D, Canon 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 50m...

Uploaded files:3802 | Total Sales: 12146
Markdavies
12 posts
Message posted at 04/06/2013, 13:29:07 PM by Markdavies
There are hundreds of photos that I wanted to buy but could not because the top of the models head was missing or the right had.

Even if the cropped image is displayed can I not just get the un cropped version

I did not know that you could contact the photog direct


Uploaded files:0 | Total Sales: 0
Wisconsinart
1556 posts
80
Message edited at 04/06/2013, 15:34:13 PM by Wisconsinart

Originally posted by Dudau:
Quoted Message: Sorry to interrupt, but this is just not true, and it has been discussed many times here on this forum.


Dudau, maybe not you but it's a fact some Reviewers, in my opinion, are book trained and are good TECHNICAL photographers and as a result knee-jerk common perceptions such as "Rule Of Thirds." "Book Trained" means a lack of experience in the subjective.

The image below was rejected for "Rule of Thirds." I cropped it slightly and it was then accepted. If you saw the original version I think you could plainly see how it would have made sense for the Buyer to crop as needed. And that's if it really needed any cropping at all.

 Big Rural Country Farmhouse Wisconsin Dairy Farm 

I wouldn't have been surprised if it was rejected for "Not What We're Looking For" but "Rule of Thirds?" This isn't the only time either.

Throw away your old photography textbooks and let the BUYERS crop!
Nikon D800, D100, Canon G15

Uploaded files:1896 | Total Sales: 10780
Markdavies
12 posts
Message posted at 04/06/2013, 21:52:31 PM by Markdavies
You must also remember that these photos are not purchased as art but are usually purchase as part of an ad layout or used to illustrate something


Uploaded files:0 | Total Sales: 0
Parkinsonsniper
1093 posts
72
Message posted at 04/09/2013, 03:51:07 AM by Parkinsonsniper
That crop thingy WAS a very big problem of mine, too. After trying to design a brochure using my own photos, I realize what a pain are those cropped photos. Now, I swear I will never crop any isolated model photos again.
- 2x Nikon D300 - Olympus e-PM1 - Nikkor 20mm f2.8 ...

Uploaded files:637 | Total Sales: 2576
Dudau
616 posts
76
Message posted at 04/09/2013, 06:24:34 AM by Dudau - member is an admin

Originally posted by Wisconsinart:
Quoted Message: The image below was rejected for "Rule of Thirds." I cropped it slightly and it was then accepted.
Throw away your old photography textbooks and let the BUYERS crop!


I'm sorry, but there are almost zero photos refused for the Rule of Thirds here on Dreamstime. Actually, the rule of thirds is there moslty for absolute beginners, and I think we agree that's not the case here.

We do support photographers' vision and we encourage them to go beyond rules when possible, in order to create unique and more appealing content.

Many refusal are created as standard texts (obviously for efficiency reasons) and each of them integrate a mini-guide to being successful in stock photography.

However, many contributors don't read the entire text from a refusal, or they even read it backwards. Often, photographers tend to retain just one word or one phrase out of a long refusal reason.

So, even if the "rule of thirds" is somewhere at the end of the refusal reason, you tend to believe that the golden rule was the reason for your image being rejected.

"The composition of a successful commercial image needs to be clear and supportive of the image's main concept and primary subject. A good composition is one that does not limit designers' potential usage of the image (for instance, a tight crop). Engaging the classical rules of composition, such as the rule of thirds, the golden ratio or a supportive use of negative space may help you to produce good commercial images."

No, I don't think it was the rule of thirds. Actually, looking at your image and considering what you said about cropping it:

   Big Rural Country Farmhouse Wisconsin Dairy Farm   

anything smaller than this reproduction of the house would have made the thumbnail look bad. Maybe not the photo at full size, but our buyers are searching by thumbnails, hundreds or thousands of them. If your photo doesn't stand out, it won't sell, and that would be an useless photo for us and for you as well.

Rarely a photo gets to be seen by buyers at this large thumbnail size. It has to look appealing in small thumbnail size before it can get to be seen how it's displayed here in this thread.

Think about that when you're in your Unfinished files area: does this photo look good in this small size? If it doesn't, remove it and work on it before sending it to a reviewer.

Sorry for the long reply, it's pretty obvious that Markdavies was talking about models and objects, not about landscapes. I just had to reply because many beginners are reading the forums and may go away with the wrong impression if we don't discuss unclear issues.

Whenever you want to discuss an unclear refusal reason, please contact support and clarify it with one of our editors.
Canon 1D Mk III, Canon 7D, Canon 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8, 50m...

Uploaded files:3802 | Total Sales: 12146
Lehmanphotos
139 posts
<10
Message posted at 04/16/2013, 14:42:28 PM by Lehmanphotos
It is a fine line for sellers at times. The cropped image may have a better "look". It can be difficult to ascertain in advance what exactly the buyers will prefer. This is a concern working with most stock image companies occasionally.
Canon 50D and assorted lenses.

Uploaded files:308 | Total Sales: 420
Imagerybycharly
114 posts
Message edited at 05/29/2013, 12:24:21 PM by Imagerybycharly
I'm with the buyer on this one for all images. Depending on what the image is used for the more space often is better for copy. For instance something more centered with space at top frame and bottom to allow copy for say a book cover. Yet I'm having too many rejected for the "rule of thirds". Nope majority are not cropped too tight, but have ample space for copy. If I crop them to follow this insistent "rule of thirds" policy then precious copy space will be gone. I find myself in a quandary; to crop so the image will be approved or to not crop and have it rejected. :(

Now before I get waylaid here, many of the Level 5 images do not follow the rule of thirds (take a look at Yuri's images and other top sellers again). Even the great Ansel Adams didn't always follow it, as too don't other great photogs, all the time. Meaning there's possibly some great selling images out there being rejected (not referring to mine), cause the policy is to follow the rule of thirds to the letter. Yes I'm very aware that some images just look downright awful on how they're composed, but that is in keeping with the "Art World", not regarding how one wishes to use an image for an ad layout. So I think rejecting an image solely on the "rule of thirds" is a disservice to the creative minds out there wanting to buy and to us the sellers.

As one who is taking graphic design classes, I often look for an image, find exactly what I'm looking for and too often cannot use it cuz it just doesn't have the room I'd like for that project. :( And the last thing I want to do is waste time on trying to expand the image. Food for thought....


Uploaded files:0 | Total Sales: 6
Geekonthewing
37 posts
Message edited at 07/16/2013, 23:15:21 PM by Geekonthewing

Originally posted by Imagerybycharly:
Quoted Message: I`m with the buyer on this one for all images. Depending on what the image is used for the more space often is better for copy. For instance something more centered with space at top frame and bottom to allow copy for say a book cover. Yet I`m having too many rejected for the "rule of thirds". Nope majority are not cropped too tight, but have ample space for copy. If I crop them to follow this insistent "rule of thirds" policy then precious copy space will be gone. I find myself in a quandary; to crop so the image will be approved or to not crop and have it rejected. :(Now before I get waylaid here, many of the Level 5 images do not follow the rule of thirds (take a look at Yuri`s images and other top sellers again). Even the great Ansel Adams didn`t always follow it, as too don`t other great photogs, all the time. Meaning there`s possibly some great selling images out there being rejected (not referring to mine), cause the policy is to follow the rule of thirds to the letter. Yes I`m very aware that some images just look downright awful on how they`re composed, but that is in keeping with the "Art World", not regarding how one wishes to use an image for an ad layout. So I think rejecting an image solely on the "rule of thirds" is a disservice to the creative minds out there wanting to buy and to us the sellers.As one who is taking graphic design classes, I often look for an image, find exactly what I`m looking for and too often cannot use it cuz it just doesn`t have the room I`d like for that project. :( And the last thing I want to do is waste time on trying to expand the image. Food for thought....


Most of my rejections mention the "rule of turds," which I've ranted on about ad nauseum in other posts. This isn't just a DT thing, though. It's true at every stock company I deal with.

I think I have an unusual perspective, being both a designer and a photographer. I get weary of having to search for hours for pictures I need as a designer, and I get rejections for images that I know, as a designer, would fill a need. In fact, some of the worst shots I've taken in terms of usefulness from a designer's point of view have been accepted (here and elsewhere), but most of the best have been rejected.

The essential problem is that as a designer, all of that "rule of turds" stuff is nonsense. If I want a picture of an electrical outlet, a half-used bar of soap, a dead cockroach, a festering pustule, a bed bug bite, a pile of dog poop, a dead possum on a highway, or whatever, then that's what I want. The object itself. Centered. With some space around it. Not off to one side, in the bottom left corner, cut in half, or with the shadow running out of the frame. (You have no idea how many pictures I have been unable to use simply because the shadow is cut off.)

I also don't want the image tightly cropped. I want space all around the object so I can crop it myself. In fact, I would like enough space around it so I can crop it in either landscape or portrait orientation, as best suits my needs for a design. I have PS, FW, GIMP, and half a dozen other image editing programs, and I'm perfectly capable of cropping an image myself -- unless, of course, the photog has already cropped it too closely, thus making it useless to me as a designer. I can always crop an image, but I can't un-crop one.

A while ago, as an experiment, I created my own free stock photo site. Its content is composed of small versions (usually 1024 on the wide side or less) of the rejects from stock companies, along with some pictures that have been approved by multiple companies. Without exception, downloads of the "rejects" have far exceeded downloads of the shots that were accepted by stock companies.

In fact, the most popular images have been the ones that were not only rejected, but whose rejections came with strong warnings to never submit pictures like that again! That makes me chuckle. It also makes me wonder whether I should start charging for the rejected images rather than giving them away for free and collecting pennies for the ad clicks.

My point is that there are pictures that are technically perfect and visually superb, exquisitely composed, rule of turds observed, etc., which despite their beauty, are either useless to me as a designer because they're too tightly cropped, or else exist in a crowd of millions of other similar pictures.

For example, I can find a bazillion pictures of smiling business people standing around drinking coffee. Maybe two bazillion, in fact. But try to find one decent picture of dog puke on a rug (which I needed for a carpet cleaning company site), or a dead animal's rotting corpse on a highway (for a rural, roadside diner site, believe it or not).

I wound up taking the road kill picture myself because not a single stock company had a sufficiently disgusting road kill picture. So I drove along on a rural highway until I saw one, put on my fluorescent vest, and photographed it. A state trooper slowed down and looked, shook his head, and went on his way. But I got my shot.

Then I submitted it to every stock company I deal with, and it was turned down, lol, usually with rather stern warnings about not submitting images like that in the future. But it's my second most popular free download on my own site. Why? Because there are designers who need pictures of rancid road kill!

The truth of the matter is that somewhere out there is someone who needs a picture of pretty much any off-the-wall thing you can think of. In fact, if I ever get the ambition I had when I first got into this gig, I'm seriously thinking about building a stock photo site devoted to off-the-wall images. Stuff that no other stock company would ever think of approving. I bet it would be successful.

For now, though, I just chuckle about it. I submit images that I believe other designers will need, shrug when none of them are approved, and go on with my work. I appreciate when some of my pictures are accepted, but I also know that almost none of them will be purchased because they're just more of the same old stuff that there's already a bazillion of. Still, I'm glad the reviewers think they're nice enough to accept, regardless of whether they'll actually make any money.

-Richard
Nikon D5100, Nikon L810

Uploaded files:10 | Total Sales: 0
Geekonthewing
37 posts
Message edited at 07/16/2013, 22:49:44 PM by Geekonthewing

Originally posted by Dudau:
Quoted Message:

Actually, looking at your image and considering what you said about cropping it   . . . .  anything smaller than this reproduction of the house would have made the thumbnail look bad. Maybe not the photo at full size, but our buyers are searching by thumbnails, hundreds or thousands of them. If your photo doesn`t stand out, it won`t sell, and that would be an useless photo for us and for you as well.



I must respectfully disagree. As a designer, I look for the thing I need an image of, even if it's a tiny part of a much bigger picture. Sometimes I don't even search for what I'm looking for: I search for something that I think will *contain* the thing I'm looking for, with the intent of cropping it and discarding the rest of the picture.

For example, I once needed a nighttime picture of VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator) lights, which are one of the light systems used at airports to help guide visual descent for landing. Renting a plane just to photograph the lights would have been a bother, so I decided to just buy a stock photo.

Now, as you might well imagine, there aren't a whole lot of stock photos of VASI lights. But there are a heck of a lot of them for airport runways, airplanes landing, etc. So I searched the various stock companies for "airport runway at night," "airplane landing at night," etc. until I found a good picture of a runway, with VASI lights visible. I bought the large-sized image, cropped out everything except the VASI lights I needed, and discarded the rest.

That's a pretty specific example, but it's only one of dozens of times I've done things like that, and I'm sure other designers do the same thing. We have to because there are so many things we need pictures of that stock companies don't think are important enough to approve that we have to search for pictures that include those things by accident, as it were.

I doubt that the photog who took the picture I used for the VASI lights even knew what a VASI light was; and had he or she submitted it for approval as a VASI light, no doubt it would have been rejected. No one needs a picture of VASI lights, the reviewer would think. But the reviewer would be wrong.

-Richard
Nikon D5100, Nikon L810

Uploaded files:10 | Total Sales: 0
Alvera
2680 posts
77
Message posted at 07/17/2013, 12:54:15 PM by Alvera
This is why 4:3 is better in stock than 3:2 :) more space for hands :)
Nikon. 4x4 car for wildlife adventures. Inkscape for vectors...

Uploaded files:3965 | Total Sales: 4690
Lenutaidi
3338 posts
71
Message posted at 07/25/2013, 10:06:23 AM by Lenutaidi

Originally posted by Alvera:
Quoted Message: This is why 4:3 is better in stock than 3:2 :) more space for hands :)

Time will come when 16:9 is more better in stock than 4:3(then there will be space for hands):))lol


Uploaded files:2284 | Total Sales: 479
Silvastrings
46 posts
64
Message posted at 08/02/2013, 05:22:53 AM by Silvastrings
Thank you for the heads up, always interesting to hear from the perspective of the buyer!! Regarding the cropping, I wonder if a note to the editor once uploading, explaining that the composition isn't the best and could be improved by designer cropping would help stopping rejections....?
Nikon D200, D90, D800, Nikon D5100, Canon 10D, Fuji F31fd

Uploaded files:420 | Total Sales: 157
Lenutaidi
3338 posts
71
Message edited at 08/04/2013, 02:38:04 AM by Lenutaidi
I don't have a rich experience here,but I believe that very few customers have time to leave comments here.Is very good to see and understand exactly what a buyer wants.It should set up a special section for what they desire, what they search, what they want buyers.Don't you think?Or is this an exception because in general it is just a store here...for them?Exist a forum section dedicated to customers?


Uploaded files:2284 | Total Sales: 479
Page:
1
 2 >
 of 2
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 26
Current Server Time: 10/21/2014, 19:55:30 PM