Demonike, why would you reject my image today when a potential customer says ....
Actually, for me the whitespace/negative space around that image is often very useful when using an image as a background. It allows us to put text over the top of the whitespace part of the image rather than having to either clone the background colour or fade the image out. Whilst this is easy in the image below, with less monotone background it can be very tricky.
These two examples should show what i mean. I tried to post the images directly but the forum is having none of it.
Quoted Message: Scarrot, if you see a picture you would like to have an uncropped version, write to DT support, they will contact the photographer and he can upload the uncropped verrsion (if there is one) for you.
Or you can leave a comment on the image itself and contact the photographer directly to make your request.
Please read this blog, if you already have not and lets save forum space. If you have any clarifications about whitespace, what is and what is not, please post to that article in the comments - Whitespace that should not be white »
Let us sum up the position of the review team:
* We prefer, sometimes insist on, uncropped subjects, ESPECIALLY when they are isolated or on an uniform background. In case of an object, it should be fully in the frame AND entirely in focus (artsy shallow DOF images sell rarely, besides this first fascination of DOF-play quickly wears off, once the photographer matures - this of course cannot be extended to every shallow DOF image, some are really nice and logical). In case of a model, it is acceptable if they are half portraits (waist up, or just neck up), but should be "accessible" on the other three sides.
* We routinely reject images for poor cropping, we have been listening to designers very seriously. If the image is technically superb however, we accept it, since it might still make a sale or two. We rarely reject good portraits just because they are NOT cropped or look "boring". There must be other issues that drive down the sales potential in that image, besides cropping. Maybe lighting, maybe skin tone, blemishes, poor retouching, poor isolation (esp. hair), etc. The composition sometimes refers to the model's pose as well, we do not have standard reason for that.
*I cannot stress it enough - in case of isolated subjects and objects (isolated here means the object is on an uniform background WHATEVER color - white, green, black...) the composition IS NOT IMPORTANT at all. Rule of thirds, golden ratio does not play a role in isolated shots. But the composition, or rather the shooting angle, must be meaningful and usable - composition does not merely mean the position of the object in the frame, but the whole placement/angle. If the subject or object is in an environment, then those rules and overall composition come into play.
* It is important however, that there is no excess space around the subject in isolated shots and that the object is not cropped. Saying that your camera takes 3:2 ratio images is not a cause, you should get rid of empty space if you cannot fill the frame otherwise. Designers can open up the image, pick the background color and always stretch into whichever direction they need, as far as they need. The key here is the uniform background. If the background is gradient, then sensible negative space is allowed.
We write blogs, discuss in forums, give custom explanations during rejections, and still there is much confusion regarding these old matters? If you are in doubt, then position yourself as a designer and be HONEST - do not try to make a bigger file just in hopes of getting a bigger price tag attached, this is also true for nonsense upscaling. The stock photo is a puzzle piece, a building block of design. Rarely a finished product. As a designer one would expect the building blocks to be useful and of high quality. Nobody wants to pay extra for the "bubble wrap" :)
A good example of perfect cropped images, with no excess space around the subject and subject "accessible" on three sides is... ME! I am so good and so modest! ;) Believe me or not, please look at my last isolated uploads and "congrats" me! Thank you! :)
Quoted Message: Agree, agree, agree! A good example of perfect cropped images, with no excess space around the subject and subject accessible on three sides is... ME! I am so good and so modest! ;) Believe me or not, please look at my last isolated uploads and congrats me! Thank you! :)My latest upload here
I put this one because I don't want to be considered a perfect cropper and see people come to worship my portfolio :)
But, no joke now, a bloger told me one day that he buy photos and upload right away on his website and there are problems with isolated ones which don't have a 2:3 ratio and won't stay in line with others photo. To open an editor and crop 2:3 means extra work.
I try to crop my images at 3:4 to cut unwanted white space but in some cases this don't work.
Maybe the idea should be to upload an uncropped picture, but have tools on the website that allows for a download that is cropped the way you want it. I HAVE seen some photo album hosting sites that offer that option. That way, everyone gets what they want..
The poster a slightly less stringent review process and the ability to reach a wider audience.
The reviewer the ability to waste less time denying something that can now actually be useful on the web site.
The shopper for getting more options and being able to "Have it his way".
Just saying. Why create unecessary separation anxiety between the posters and the shoppers? Just build a better bridge between them.
an eClipse flat panel flash, or a photogenic porta-master 400. I hav...
This image is overfiltered. Its use for the potential designers is limited because of this, therefore the image is disqualified as a RF stock-oriented image. Please upload the original instead.
Ieva, if you refer to "glamour crops" by "too processed", then this is what we are struggling with, day in and day out.
One cannot simplify and draw a conclusion that when their image is rejected for poor composition, it is merely because their image is uncropped. This is certainly not true. There have to be other issues with composition that contribute to the rejection. Either the shooting angle or the model pose is unsuccessful. Contributors tend to take one sentence from the reject email and complain about it :)
well, the point you are making is right, in the sense, that subjects that can use full coverage should be covered full in frame and artistic aftereffects should not be done, all this while keeping the photo at good composition levels.
the above also states perfection in stock photography shooting techniques.
Creative jukebox of camera, computers and a brain!
Ok, here I read a request for photographers but I'd like to write my point of view.
DT write in all email about refused image "Our agency applies a pre-established set of criteria".
I Don't think DT has "random" criteria: I think DT has chosen them looking at the needs of designers. It's not easy "live" with these criteria, because sometimes we create images (photo or illustration) nice but not corresponding to those.
I can suggest to You to talk with dreamstime (You = all designers) and find a solution who can be satisfying for You: if it were up to us photographers or illustrators, we'd load all the images we create ;)