I've recently become a contributor to stock photo companies (shutterstock, iStock, Alamy, etc.)
I am struggling with a decision, and I would like to get some feedback.
Which of these two photos would be more downloadable as a stock image?
1.)
or
2.)
Can you spot the difference? Shot #1 is the original. #2 has something cloned out.
Thanks in advance for your help!
p.s. the colors don't look like this on my screen. These seem a bit more washed out, which can happen on 365 if you don't convert your image to sRGB. Ah well, you get the idea. They will be more vibrant on the stock sites...
@homeschoolmom ha ha, thanks. Yes, it was very easy to clone out. You can make it out as a plane if you use the magnify tool. But, I don't want people to think it's dust! :)
I'd go for 2 as well. As has already been said, the plane looks too much like dust or a mark at first glance, which can be enough to make people move onto the next of the several thousand images in their search results.
Regarding sRGB vs. Adobe RGB, I would again re-iterate that, in my opinion, sRGB should always be used both anywhere on the web, and anywhere where you don't have complete control of the entire workflow process. Stock photography meets both of those criteria. The benefits of using Adobe RGB are extremely minimal compared to the disadvantages of having a client who doesn't understand colourspaces (many don't) not being able to figure out why the image they bought displays differently depending on what they do with it.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I checked and my photos are in fact saving in sRGB. So, I don't know what the color issue is with this site, this particular time. ;-)
Whilst there is probably scenarios where a plane in the image would fit a customer's need I suspect this particular plane is a little to small on the image to be useful. As a customer if I needed a plane I would probably clone on from another image. Therefore number 2 it is.
There are monitors capable of displaying over 96% of AdobeRGB but they are hideously expensive and rare amongst those viewing your pictures online. AdobeRGB in general is more useful for the print environment and whilst I take Raw files in camera with Adobe RGB and do some HDR work in this colour-space my output to screen is usually sRGB unless I have have changed the default and not switched back.
Definitely #2. Pretending that I am a "not so savvy" customer, I look at the black dot (i.e. the plane) and to me it looks like a black dot on your lens! Would I want to buy a picture where it looks like the pro forgot to clean their camera?
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
@archaeofrog lol, didn't think of it that way, but you are right!
Regarding sRGB vs. Adobe RGB, I would again re-iterate that, in my opinion, sRGB should always be used both anywhere on the web, and anywhere where you don't have complete control of the entire workflow process. Stock photography meets both of those criteria. The benefits of using Adobe RGB are extremely minimal compared to the disadvantages of having a client who doesn't understand colourspaces (many don't) not being able to figure out why the image they bought displays differently depending on what they do with it.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I checked and my photos are in fact saving in sRGB. So, I don't know what the color issue is with this site, this particular time. ;-)
There are monitors capable of displaying over 96% of AdobeRGB but they are hideously expensive and rare amongst those viewing your pictures online. AdobeRGB in general is more useful for the print environment and whilst I take Raw files in camera with Adobe RGB and do some HDR work in this colour-space my output to screen is usually sRGB unless I have have changed the default and not switched back.
David, that's exactly what I was thinking..."what if the customer wants a plane?" but that's where a better photo of a plane comes in handy. ;-)