Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

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.

The 300 dpi rule is actually outdated. It comes from a time when most printers printed in 60 screen (60 lines per inch). Today a 70 or 80 screen is the standard. What is actually needed are images with about 350 or 400 dpi. If a printing company can print in a 100 screen, even considerably more.

So:
An image has a resolution of 4,500 x 3,375 pixels, then it is sufficient for a printing company that

- printed in a 60 screen, for a size of 38,1 x 28,1 cm
- printed in a 70 screen, for a size of 32,1 x 24,1 cm
- printed in an 80 raster, for a size of 28,5 x 21,4 cm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to thank Alexandre Rotenberg for the information about Arcangel. And thank you, Deb, for bringing this up once more. I did not know this agency before.

Since I found 10 books with covers that were made with my images, I decided to apply there. Unfortunately I was rejected. The reasons were detailed and extensive. And I admit that most of my images are certainly unsuitable for book covers. I am aware that the typical microstock style is not suitable there. In addition, I would have had a problem with the minimum width of 4,500 px anyway - but I didn't have the info until after I had sent the application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

I am aware that the typical microstock style is not suitable there.

Sorry to hear that Wilm.

There is a microstocker @Masson (I hope he doesn't mind me mentioning him) who has some images I feel are perfect for book covers (apart from not being portrait).  He is my favourite and at some point I may buy some as art.  I wonder if his images are available elsewhere ie art sites?  If you read this Masson please let me/us know.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

I would like to thank Alexandre Rotenberg for the information about Arcangel. And thank you, Deb, for bringing this up once more. I did not know this agency before.

Since I found 10 books with covers that were made with my images, I decided to apply there. Unfortunately I was rejected. The reasons were detailed and extensive. And I admit that most of my images are certainly unsuitable for book covers. I am aware that the typical microstock style is not suitable there. In addition, I would have had a problem with the minimum width of 4,500 px anyway - but I didn't have the info until after I had sent the application.

I'd try again in a few months.

These from your port would be suitable imo as concepts to re-create for a fresh batch submission. 

Potential book covers.jpg

Share this post


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

I'd try again in a few months.

These from your port would be suitable imo as concepts to re-create for a fresh batch submission. 

Potential book covers.jpg

Thank you very much, Alexandre.

That's interesting, because I wouldn't have thought of three of your examples.

The image of the ship I had sent there.
I had made a subjective selection of images that I thought might come into question - a few examples are given below.

 

Bahngleis_grau.jpg

Bruecke_von_unten.jpg

Fensterladen.jpg

Kloster_1.jpg

light_and_door_2560.jpg

NebelamPostsee3.jpg

Platz_am_Meer.jpg

road_to_nowhere_Fog.jpg

Stuhl.jpg

Traumhafte_Terrasse.jpg

Verfall.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

Thank you very much, Alexandre.

That's interesting, because I wouldn't have thought of three of your examples.

The image of the ship I had sent there.
I had made a subjective selection of images that I thought might come into question - a few examples are given below.

 

Bahngleis_grau.jpg

 

Fensterladen.jpg

Kloster_1.jpg

light_and_door_2560.jpg

NebelamPostsee3.jpg

Platz_am_Meer.jpg

road_to_nowhere_Fog.jpg

Stuhl.jpg

Traumhafte_Terrasse.jpg

Verfall.jpg

The above all have potential to be accepted but probably won't sell on there because they're not unique enough and suffer from a serious flaw, which I'm trying to remedy with my new submissions with some success, in that they lack an interesting person / people as the main subject. If you go to your local bookshop and see the best-selling romance/thriller/suspense novels, they have one thing in common with usually placing at least one person within the frame, even if minimalist or silhouetted. See below some examples licensed via Arcangel. 

Obtaining a willing model isn't easy so the best thing is to use a friend/relative or even yourself. You may be able to get away with unreleased general members of the public as long as they're not clearly identifiable. 

unnamed.jpg

Share this post


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

The above all have potential to be accepted but probably won't sell on there because they're not unique enough and suffer from a serious flaw, which I'm trying to remedy with my new submissions with some success, in that they lack an interesting person / people as the main subject. If you go to your local bookshop and see the best-selling romance/thriller/suspense novels, they have one thing in common with usually placing at least one person within the frame, even if minimalist or silhouetted. See below some examples licensed via Arcangel. 

Obtaining a willing model isn't easy so the best thing is to use a friend/relative or even yourself. You may be able to get away with unreleased general members of the public as long as they're not clearly identifiable. 

unnamed.jpg

Hi Alexandre,

once again, thank you very much for taking the time to bring this subject to my attention!

Yes, the problem with the missing persons is certainly also a problem. 

On the other hand, when I look at book series, such as Charlotte Link, Dan Brown, Frank Schätzing, Henning Mankell, Gil Ribeiro and many more, they are usually free of people.

But, sure, it would certainly be beneficial to add to the theme.

And, yes, that's also true, my images are not unique enough and mostly too static or a bit boring.

Share this post


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

If you go to your local bookshop and see the best-selling romance/thriller/suspense novels, they have one thing in common with usually placing at least one person within the frame, even if minimalist or silhouetted.

 

35 minutes ago, Wilm Ihlenfeld said:

On the other hand, when I look at book series, such as Charlotte Link, Dan Brown, Frank Schätzing, Henning Mankell, Gil Ribeiro and many more, they are usually free of people.

This is interesting. I think you are both right. If you look at bestsellers on the internet there are very few people depicted on the covers (very quick survey!) But strangely enough it seems like Arcangel customers prefer images with some kind of humans on them. I’ll have a look at the bookstore next time I’m there. Personally I think that Wilms really great images would be even better suited for covers with a kind of person. A hand in the image of the cemetery and so on .... Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Firn said:

Maybe it has something to do with the genre as I mostly read Fantasy and Sci-Fi.

Yes, I think so. Arcangel and Trevillion specialise in romance/suspense/thriller/horror type novels. 

According to their filters, Arcangel have just over 782,000 images in their collection. Out of those, just over 268,000 have "nobody" (34%).

Sometimes it's not even an identifiable person that's required, it's just a shadow or a hand that is needed to make an image standout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this thread, I gave it a shot and I am accepted by Arcangel. However, most of my potential photos are already uploaded to SS or to AS after the royalty drop here. Need to dig deeper into archives first and shoot purposely for the site.  I will allocate different photographs for exclusive uploads and some generic upload to microstock ones. I will test the waters over there and see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gaurav Aryal said:

After reading this thread, I gave it a shot and I am accepted by Arcangel. 

Congratulations 🥂 Glad the thread is helping out 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found Arcangel on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ and after two months of taking photographs specifically for them (vertical composition, story telling, "film look"...) edited to 20 and after three days of nervy waiting........I am accepted!  Alexandre Rotenberg, thank you for all  inputs and information, if we ever meet beer is on me. My next step is Stocksy. Haunting task, but I have 4 months to prepare application form and get out of this microstock misery. 1st of January is deadline! (I'm out anyway). Good luck to all of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Savo Ilic said:

I found Arcangel on https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/ and after two months of taking photographs specifically for them (vertical composition, story telling, "film look"...) edited to 20 and after three days of nervy waiting........I am accepted!  Alexandre Rotenberg, thank you for all  inputs and information, if we ever meet beer is on me. My next step is Stocksy. Haunting task, but I have 4 months to prepare application form and get out of this microstock misery. 1st of January is deadline! (I'm out anyway). Good luck to all of you.

Congrats to you as well, Savo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jose HERNANDEZ Camera 51 said:

Not agree, yours photos are great !!! and suitable everywhere, i think they miss the point with you

Thank you very much for your kind words, Jose!

I will definitely try again there at a later date.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been an interesting read, and I'm compiling my submission for Arcangel.

Looking at my book collection though, most covers extend to spine and the back, so is it not that you need a landscape image, but with the right hand side a strong vertical?! Otherwise how do they match in your back page?! Or am I overthinking this!?

 

Share this post


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

Stocksy: does anyone here contribute? Anyone applied? Any information to offer?

Thanks..

Tried 3X and not lucky. Whatever it is they're looking for, isn't what I do (apparently).  🙃

Share this post


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

Parallel universe!

Opinion: Businesses, especially corporations, should pay to use your photos
Published Aug 13, 2020 | Kara Murphy
https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/3121668278/opinion-businesses-especially-corporations-should-pay-to-use-your-photos

That's interesting. My two biggest sales have actually been through flickr (both for 500$) but they were two in over 10 years on the site. Both would have been rejected on Shutterstock (and maybe other stock sites as well) because back in those more innocent times, I deliberately put noise in my images to make them look "filmy". But I'm happier with those sales than the few cents I'm getting right now.

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...