# Stock Photography-How'd I Do?



## PhilGarber (Jul 12, 2008)

Hey all, 

 How'd I do on this stock photography?


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 12, 2008)

Heres pic of my setup: My Rebel XT would rest on that orange DVD there (That whole stack is to make it level) The Glasses/Rocks are sitting on a white napkin on top of a book. The Clamp Light is pointed to the side because if I point it at the glasses, it makes a reflection. It's not pretty but it works. (My tripod lost a piece to it).


----------



## reg (Jul 12, 2008)

I would just use a white background, seriously. The color gradient is too distracting, especially through clear glasses.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jul 12, 2008)

I'm not too keen on the rock, they don't add anything to the picture


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 13, 2008)

Why? Everyone I've talk to has loved the rocks


----------



## Icon72 (Jul 13, 2008)

Ok leave the rocks.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 13, 2008)

?


----------



## reg (Jul 13, 2008)

Well if you want to keep them you can...


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 14, 2008)

hmm.. Either I'm not very good or you guys are like elite photographers here...


----------



## craig (Jul 14, 2008)

I like the light. The glasses seem to be in a weird position in that they are not that attractive. Stock photography is usually about sending a message or evoking a feeling. What message or feeling are you going for?

Love & Bass


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 14, 2008)

THANK YOU FOR SAYING WHAT YOU LIKE ABOUT THEM!!:hail:


Anyway..(I've gotten a lot of negative feedback).  I was thinking the phrase 'Look at you glasses in a whole new light'.


----------



## craig (Jul 14, 2008)

Your phrase is a good start. Try some shots with the glasses in different positions and different camera angles.

)'(


----------



## reg (Jul 14, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> hmm.. Either I'm not very good or you guys are like elite photographers here...




No, you're just reading into things the wrong way....

SOME ROCKS DON'T REALLY ADD ANYTHING TO A PHOTO OF A PAIR OF GLASSES BUT IF YOU LIKE IT, IT'S NOT SO OFFENSIVE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.



PhilGarber said:


> Anyway..(I've gotten a lot of negative feedback).



Please. "Keep it if you like the rocks" is NOT negative feedback; it's not feedback at all. It's common sense.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Jul 14, 2008)

I GUESS REG DOSEN'T LIKE THE ROCKS.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 14, 2008)

reg said:


> No, you're just reading into things the wrong way....
> 
> SOME ROCKS DON'T REALLY ADD ANYTHING TO A PHOTO OF A PAIR OF GLASSES BUT IF YOU LIKE IT, IT'S NOT SO OFFENSIVE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
> 
> ...



Just tell me _why_ I should lose the rocks. No need to start screaming..:-|


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 14, 2008)

craig said:


> Your phrase is a good start. Try some shots with the glasses in different positions and different camera angles.
> 
> )'(



I'll Try that!!


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 17, 2008)

bump


----------



## K_Pugh (Jul 18, 2008)

some of the simple setups are the best, i think they look ok for the tools you have.

about the rocks, i guess they just don't add anything or say anything that relates to the glasses.. before i'd say you should remove them i'd like to know why you put them there? (glasses/sunglasses on rocks at the beach could work as they've now got a context to be in)

you've got to ask yourself who's going to need a photo of glasses and rocks? not saying it's not possible but there's more chance of people wanting glasses on their own.

Make a light box or something and experiment with that as well, i got one from Maplin for under £10 and quickly tried a shot with one flash..







bit of a reflection from the on-camera flash to control the other flash but if i played with it more i could have gotten rid of that.

with stock photography i think (but i'm no expert) the trick is to keep things concise, straight forward and often quite simple..


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 18, 2008)

I don't really have any input on the photos at this time (sorry about that), but...

How did you make them a thumbnail that (almost) blacks out everything but the photo when I click on them?  I know that you have to be a subscriber for the file attachments, but did you do anything special to get the "black out" effect, or is that just standard with the attachments?


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 18, 2008)

Thanks for explaining why you think what you do, and not just saying my work is crap.:thumbup:

Anyway, the rocks go with my phrase '_See your glasses in a whole new light'._ So yeah, I put in the gradient and the rocks to coincide with my phrase!

Thanks for being polite, (Not that _most_ of you were impolite).

Phil

PS-Please don't mind the ignorant American..how much is 10 EURs in USD?



K_Pugh said:


> some of the simple setups are the best, i think they look ok for the tools you have.
> 
> about the rocks, i guess they just don't add anything or say anything that relates to the glasses.. before i'd say you should remove them i'd like to know why you put them there? (glasses/sunglasses on rocks at the beach could work as they've now got a context to be in)
> 
> ...


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 18, 2008)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't really have any input on the photos at this time (sorry about that), but...
> 
> How did you make them a thumbnail that (almost) blacks out everything but the photo when I click on them?  I know that you have to be a subscriber for the file attachments, but did you do anything special to get the "black out" effect, or is that just standard with the attachments?



Honestly, I was wondering the same thing! I have no idea how, but I like it!:thumbup:


----------



## K_Pugh (Jul 18, 2008)

10UKP = about 6USD? very cheap to buy or you can make your own, an old cardboard box, cut out the two sides and the top and secure tracing paper over the cutouts... should give it a try to see what lighting works, although i think your lighting is good anyway but it's always good to try other things.


----------



## NateS (Jul 18, 2008)

PhilGarber said:


> Thanks for explaining why you think what you do, and not just saying my work is crap.:thumbup:
> 
> Anyway, the rocks go with my phrase '_See your glasses in a whole new light'._ So yeah, I put in the gradient and the rocks to coincide with my phrase!
> 
> ...



So....how do rocks have anything to do with the phrase you said.  Not bashing you at all, I just can't seem to place how "See your glasses in a whole new light" has anything to do with rocks.  Are the rocks suppossed to illuminate a light or something?  

While, I know nothing about stock photography, I like the gradient and everything else looks really good.  I just don't understand the rocks and using your phrase to explain the rocks makes even less sense now.

Edit:  I don't believe anybody called your photos "crap".  It seems like you have a hard time taking any criticism so make you'd be best next time not asking everybody "how you did".


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 18, 2008)

Thanks for your advice,

'see you glasses in a whole new light' to me really means, see your glasses in a whole new way. Hence the rocks.


----------



## cdanddvdpublisher (Jul 18, 2008)

ultimately, i think that you're heading in the right direction. my best advice (not that you really asked for it) is this: remember that the basic gist of stock photography is to give designers something to work with; if you think too much about a theme or you work to hard to create it, you start to limit the ways in which your work can be used


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 18, 2008)

cdanddvdpublisher said:


> ultimately, i think that you're heading in the right direction. my best advice (not that you really asked for it) is this: remember that the basic gist of stock photography is to give designers something to work with; if you think too much about a theme or you work to hard to create it, you start to limit the ways in which your work can be used




Thanks cd!

...So whats you verdict on _my_ work? Have I given the designers enough to work with?


----------



## AdrianBetti (Jul 19, 2008)

Hows stock photography working out for you? What kind of money are you making if you don't mind me asking.


----------



## sparrow (Jul 19, 2008)

as somebody permanently adhered to eyeglasses, I find the rocks make me cringe in the same way that putting a good lens on rocks would make us all cringe... all I can think of is that my lenses (glasses) will be damaged. This is why I think the product doesn't marry well with the idea of rocks in the photo. in other words, they are oil and water, in my opinion, as a product shot prop.

Hope my opinion helps.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 19, 2008)

AdrianBetti said:


> Hows stock photography working out for you? What kind of money are you making if you don't mind me asking.



Haven't started yet.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 19, 2008)

sparrow said:


> as somebody permanently adhered to eyeglasses, I find the rocks make me cringe in the same way that putting a good lens on rocks would make us all cringe... all I can think of is that my lenses (glasses) will be damaged. This is why I think the product doesn't marry well with the idea of rocks in the photo. in other words, they are oil and water, in my opinion, as a product shot prop.
> 
> Hope my opinion helps.
> 
> Cheers, Chris.



Thanks man, I'll consider that.


----------



## cdanddvdpublisher (Jul 19, 2008)

personally, i think that you may have given them too much - the rocks with the glasses are going to limit their application some. but that doesn't mean that i don't like the shot; i just think designers would find it tough to  use


----------



## John_Olexa (Jul 20, 2008)

sparrow said:


> as somebody permanently adhered to eyeglasses, I find the rocks make me cringe in the same way that putting a good lens on rocks would make us all cringe... all I can think of is that my lenses (glasses) will be damaged. This is why I think the product doesn't marry well with the idea of rocks in the photo. in other words, they are oil and water, in my opinion, as a product shot prop.
> 
> Hope my opinion helps.
> 
> Cheers, Chris.


 


Well, unless the ad was about damage proof glasses


----------



## sparrow (Jul 20, 2008)

^_^  Mr. olexa

and I'm of the female persuasion, Mr. Garber ^_^

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## PhilGarber (Jul 21, 2008)

Oh! Sorry!


----------



## Rachelsne (Jul 21, 2008)

Now I havent posted in ages-new job, deterioration of the site and such took me away form the site, but here is my input.

For me stock photography such as this would be better with new glasses, no scratch marks or bent frames. (fine for practice though)

The gradient is too distracting, the rocks could be ok if the background or colours were beach orientated, (laying the glasses on sand) but for the way you did it, not necessary.

I made a light box out of an old cardboard box and some white paper, using my office lamp to light it, I got some satisfactory images with it.

try using the arms of the glasses to stand the frames up so the angle is better too.

Nice try


----------



## jayreilly (Jul 23, 2008)

i guess, i would ask, what is the point of the subject matter.  if this is stock, why would someone want these shots?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 23, 2008)

The technical aspects? They suck. If you're trying to get these dropped into a stock agency's pool, good luck. They can be super picky and sometimes even really amazing pictures don't make the cut.

What's wrong with the first photo.
1. Underexposed foreground.
2. Wrinkled napkin.
3. Obvious photoshop.
4. Ackward shadows.
5. Crooked horizon.
6. Crooked eyeglass orientation.

Second one.
1. Underexposed photo.
2. Shadows/Napkin wrinkle again.
3. Eyeglasses are laying down and at an ackward angle.
4. Same PS problem.
5. Glasses look bent.

Here's a good thread on setups for product photography.


----------

