Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any suggestions for non-microstock sites? I applied to Arcangel but was rejected.  I got some very useful information back so will share it here for anyone who wants to try.  It's a great opportunity to get creative.  Thanks to @Alexandre Rotenbergs very informative website https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/  for the information on Arcangel. 

"Some of the factors that we are interested in, are as follows…

 

Vertical rather horizontal images

Strong single focal points

Images with atmosphere

Copy space, helps designers visualize their covers

A graphic approach to cropping, so clean interesting lines

Images with that have a narrative quality and could help tell a story


You will find examples of what we are looking for 

http://blog.arcangel.com/2018/09/04/what-do-we-look-for-in-book-cover-photography/

https://blog.arcangel.com/category/a-trends/

https://blog.arcangel.com/2020/01/23/book-cover-design-trends-in-2020/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3HKJte_WQk English subtitles available. 

https://es.pinterest.com/arcangelimages/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the exact same reply I got... twice :(

But yeah, like @Alexandre Rotenberg said in the other thread, gotta have a radically different approach with this. Will keep trying.

At least they aren't snooty and invite you to keep applying with different images. Sounds like the place is run by some good people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Studio 2 said:

Does anyone have any suggestions for non-microstock sites? I applied to Arcangel but was rejected.  I got some very useful information back so will share it here for anyone who wants to try.  It's a great opportunity to get creative.  Thanks to @Alexandre Rotenbergs very informative website https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/  for the information on Arcangel. 

"Some of the factors that we are interested in, are as follows…

 

Vertical rather horizontal images

Strong single focal points

Images with atmosphere

Copy space, helps designers visualize their covers

A graphic approach to cropping, so clean interesting lines

Images with that have a narrative quality and could help tell a story


You will find examples of what we are looking for 

http://blog.arcangel.com/2018/09/04/what-do-we-look-for-in-book-cover-photography/

https://blog.arcangel.com/category/a-trends/

https://blog.arcangel.com/2020/01/23/book-cover-design-trends-in-2020/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3HKJte_WQk English subtitles available. 

https://es.pinterest.com/arcangelimages/

Great list!

One important aspect you missed is the resolution. They request minimum of 4500px on the longest side (with some exceptions).

So if you're shooting with cell phone, basic mirrorless or cropped sensor you may have some issues reaching that threshold.

Even when shooting with full-frame sensor, too much cropping may be an problematic and it's not permitted to "up-size" to create pixels from thin air.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Great list!

One important aspect you missed is the resolution. They request minimum of 4500px on the longest side (with some exceptions).

So if you're shooting with cell phone, basic mirrorless or cropped sensor you may have some issues reaching that threshold.

Even when shooting with full-frame sensor, too much cropping may be an problematic and it's not permitted to "up-size" to create pixels from thin air.  

 

That was gonna be my question actually. You spared me the "trouble" asking. Cuz I saw on the sample images that they are 5800 - 6000 and up to 8000 pixels along the long side and I wondered if it's the "norm" or just some eager beavers set their cameras to "gimme the biggest you can do"! Oh well. So I will wait an other couple of pay-outs at SS and won't bother till then with my present 4320 limitation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they bothered sending you a mail that you were rejected, I didn't even get that. They must have seen me as a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as non-MS sites go, there are plenty of Print-on-demand sites. The most popular is, of course, FAA which you might be familiar with. There's also Society6, Zazzle and Etsy but I found all of these quite frustrating having not sold a single picture on any of them. They seem to require different strategies to sell than the simple "submit and wait" process we have in MS. But some people appear to have a lot of success with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Great list!

One important aspect you missed is the resolution. They request minimum of 4500px on the longest side (with some exceptions).

So if you're shooting with cell phone, basic mirrorless or cropped sensor you may have some issues reaching that threshold.

Even when shooting with full-frame sensor, too much cropping may be an problematic and it's not permitted to "up-size" to create pixels from thin air.  

 

Thanks for that.  All my current cameras meet that requirement but some of the photos I linked Arc to are from old cameras so don't.  The cropping factor is important too. 

I wasn't sure if, for the original set that you show to Arc, these have to meet the pixel requirements or whether it's just to give them an idea of what you are capable of.

What would be great would be to create new photos once accepted.  I do love the ones you have done Alex.  Very creative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, balajisrinivasan said:

As far as non-MS sites go, there are plenty of Print-on-demand sites. The most popular is, of course, FAA which you might be familiar with. There's also Society6, Zazzle and Etsy but I found all of these quite frustrating having not sold a single picture on any of them. They seem to require different strategies to sell than the simple "submit and wait" process we have in MS. But some people appear to have a lot of success with them.

Thanks.  Society6 looks interesting (similar to FAA) ... I have a small port with FAA (with no sales) but I have read on the forum that a site like this works best if you are more 'involved' in promoting your work in order to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

One important aspect you missed is the resolution. They request minimum of 4500px on the longest side (with some exceptions).

That's a pretty important detail that I wasn't able to find on their site anywhere. I probably didn't look at the right places, but it would be supremely helpful if they could post the criteria somewhere easy to find.

My old camera only did 4800 on the longest side, so any image cropped for better composition would render the image unusable already. That's a pretty big deal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sari ONeal said:

That's a pretty important detail that I wasn't able to find on their site anywhere. I probably didn't look at the right places, but it would be supremely helpful if they could post the criteria somewhere easy to find.

My old camera only did 4800 on the longest side, so any image cropped for better composition would render the image unusable already. That's a pretty big deal.

 

 

Strange, When I applied around a year ago, it was something I saw in the conditions for submission. Rendered a load of my old photo's ineligible as they were made on 10 and 12 Mp cameras. Got rejected anyway. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a minimum amount of images that you have to apply with? I only have a couple that might potentially work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Milo J said:

Is there a minimum amount of images that you have to apply with? I only have a couple that might potentially work.

You can send them 20+ photos or links to photos online (no numbers given). Their submission information isn't as helpful as it might be. Maybe give it a try. Good luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Even when shooting with full-frame sensor, too much cropping may be an problematic and it's not permitted to "up-size" to create pixels from thin air.  

 

Question about ‘up-sizing’..  

Before saving an image in PS, I usually go to ‘image size’, then click on ‘auto resolution’ which increases the file size and then save as ‘best’. Have I been creating pixels out of thin air by doing so ? And does this decrease the quality of the image ?

Without cropping, the images are large enough already - standard 5616 x 3744; 21 MP, so is it better to keep the size as is ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tawrat Ferdousi Branding said:

What does non-microstock sites means?

Micro ie small refers to payment to the contributor. So the model is meant to be that the contributor makes their money by selling a lot of photos. @balajisrinivasan mentions in a post above other opportunities where you are better paid for sales. However, with these models you are likely to receive fewer sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Repelsteeltje said:

Question about ‘up-sizing’..  

Before saving an image in PS, I usually go to ‘image size’, then click on ‘auto resolution’ which increases the file size and then save as ‘best’. Have I been creating pixels out of thin air by doing so ? And does this decrease the quality of the image ?

Without cropping, the images are large enough already - standard 5616 x 3744; 21 MP, so is it better to keep the size as is ?

 

 

I've never tried 'auto resolution' in PS but if I do, I see that a 4000x6000 pixel image is slightly reduced in file size (3547X5320 pixels/266ppi) with auto resolution. I just use 'original size'. The funny thing is that if I take a HD image (1920X1559 pixels) and apply auto resolution, it is also reduced in size to 1702X1382 pixels which is the exact opposite of fantasizing imaginary pixels...it takes 'em away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Think of the McDonald's business model and apply it to photography licensing :D 

Sad but true... expect for those who run the company, not the staff/suppliers etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stevemart said:

I've never tried 'auto resolution' in PS but if I do, I see that a 4000x6000 pixel image is slightly reduced in file size (3547X5320 pixels/266ppi) with auto resolution. I just use 'original size'. The funny thing is that if I take a HD image (1920X1559 pixels) and apply auto resolution, it is also reduced in size to 1702X1382 pixels which is the exact opposite of fantasizing imaginary pixels...it takes 'em away.

😄 Well..I could take a wild guess to figure out the logic in all of this - why mine are enlarged and yours downsized; 🤔....nope..😂

I did find an article in the SS blog and it mentions using ‘preserve details 2.0 and a few other steps. Will look into that and use ‘original size’ for the time being. Guess it’s better to know what your doing, before actual doing it 😉

 

A6B86CFA-96BC-4BA7-AFDB-C1C650D499A4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Repelsteeltje said:

😄 Well..I could take a wild guess to figure out the logic in all of this - why mine are enlarged and yours downsized; 🤔....nope..😂

I did find an article in the SS blog and it mentions using ‘preserve details 2.0 and a few other steps. Will look into that and use ‘original size’ for the time being. Guess it’s better to know what your doing, before actual doing it 😉

 

 

If it's any consolation I save at 'highest quality' in Pshop even though I have no idea what it actually does to the photo 😳 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Repelsteeltje said:

😄 Well..I could take a wild guess to figure out the logic in all of this - why mine are enlarged and yours downsized; 🤔....nope..😂

I did find an article in the SS blog and it mentions using ‘preserve details 2.0 and a few other steps. Will look into that and use ‘original size’ for the time being. Guess it’s better to know what your doing, before actual doing it 😉

 

A6B86CFA-96BC-4BA7-AFDB-C1C650D499A4.png

It must be because I never enlarge images because I'd never noticed 'Preserve Details 2.0' or the noise reduction slider that goes with it! For de-noising (only really use this for old slide film copying) I bought Topaz DeNoise AI which does a better job on old slides than anything I've tried in PS CC.

The problem with using Photoshop is that when you've used it since CS2/Elements 6 you tend to keep on using it in exactly the same way as in the last century so you tend not to notice these 'refinements' in the newest versions. For batch processing (usually reducing a load of big files to smaller ones) I still use Photoshop Elements 6 (pre-2000) because it's just so simple and efficient!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staying on the topic of book covers, I'm seriously considering making an application to become a contributor at Trevillion

I'm happy at Arcangel and although they're competitors, they have a different style/market/niche which I may be able to tap into. Not sure yet what the difference is between them...from what I've researched, Trevillion is more "artsy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alexandre Rotenberg said:

Staying on the topic of book covers, I'm seriously considering making an application to become a contributor at Trevillion

 

Interesting. This is a pain (quote below) as it looks as though it won't be OK to just remove the images from other agencies if accepted onto T.  Looks like they want brand new ones but that's a lot of trouble to go to.

Good luck if you do apply although your skill will probably suffice.

'Available images not already represented by another agency.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Repelsteeltje said:

Question about ‘up-sizing’..  

Before saving an image in PS, I usually go to ‘image size’, then click on ‘auto resolution’ which increases the file size and then save as ‘best’. Have I been creating pixels out of thin air by doing so ? And does this decrease the quality of the image ?

Without cropping, the images are large enough already - standard 5616 x 3744; 21 MP, so is it better to keep the size as is ?

 

 

I am not sure about this but last year I came across some articles and videos looking at printing resolution which explored the "300 dpi" rule everyone seems to know.  Their position was the 300dpi came about when hi level cameras were still around 10-12MP and was the best quality for certain sizes from those files.  With the increase in MP more recent cameras are actually capturing more data and setting 300dpi can actually result in the loss of these extra pixels and the fine detail they can contain.  It may be that PS auto resolution considers the MP of the camera and sets the resolution to keep all the extra pixels without upsizing or losing them.

It is important to understand in this context that size of image and resolution are not the same thing.  Arc apparently want images a minimum of 4500 on longest size - that does not change if the image is being shown at 70dpi, 300dpi, or 560dpi.  What those resolutions change is the physical size of the image - so at 70dpi those 4500 pixels are going to take up a lot more room than at 560dpi.  It may be that when chosing auto resolution PS is choosing the best physical size for the pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Studio 2 said:

Interesting. This is a pain (quote below) as it looks as though it won't be OK to just remove the images from other agencies if accepted onto T.  Looks like they want brand new ones but that's a lot of trouble to go to.

Good luck if you do apply although your skill will probably suffice.

'Available images not already represented by another agency.'

Correct. These would be brand new images exclusive to Trevillion (should I be accepted)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...