Author Topic: rejected photo (Read 10670 times)

chl · « **on:** July 31, 2009, 22:31 »

I'm new in stock photo. recently I submited a photo to a microstock company but rejected. I was not given a clear comment about this photo. I hope you all could give me some comment on this photo. Also kindly let me know how to improve this photo. My photo link is http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3776242931/#

Thanks

bittersweet · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2009, 23:02 »

Maybe it has something to do with the halos around the tails of the kites?

chl · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2009, 23:31 »

How to eliminate that halo?

Phil · « **Reply #3 on:** August 01, 2009, 00:20 »

I think the only way to eliminate is to reprocess from the original.

Looks to me like you've done a really high radius high pass sharpen or really strong hiroloam on it ?? and left the top most layer on normal rather than luminosity causing some color artifacts. There is also some ca, particularly around the bottom right cloud. Its also got some banding type artifacts in the sky especially on the darker blue areas on the right hand side. On my screen the areas that I would expect to be white on the kites is pinkish some sites (thinking SS here) my say the your white balance is incorrect (although clouds are fine for me, so maybe not

chl · « **Reply #4 on:** August 01, 2009, 04:12 »

May I know the microstock company accept 16bit photo or 8 bit photo?

chl · « **Reply #5 on:** August 01, 2009, 04:22 »

Thanks for the comments on my photos.

Please advice if RAW format is better than JPEG format if when we take the photo?

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2009, 04:30 »

The sites accept 8 bit jpegs. I used to use jpeg in camera all the time and had no problems but now I use raw, as storage is cheap. Try to do as little as possible with the original photo when you are submitting your first batches. When you know what will be accepted, you can experiment more.

click_click · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2009, 08:04 »

There is major color fringing going on around the shapes of the kites and their tails.

The colors seem to be off. I'd say the base color of the kite is white and then there is a design painted/printed on them. The white doesn't look white. The kites with the green design have a pinkish hue in the white. The one design in red has a turquoise tint in the white. I could be wrong, could be part of the design.

The sky has been ruined. You must have pushed the saturation too much and created "banding". Furthermore the clouds contain a lot of artifacts. Always edit in 16-Bit RAW and when you're done convert it down to 8-Bit.

Also around the edges of the clouds you can see the color fringing.

It's a nice concept but the big amount of clouds make it impossible to separate the kites from the sky. So it would have made a big difference if there were few to no clouds that day.

astrocady · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2009, 08:09 »

The halo almost looks like the effect you get with HDR or if the kites were added to the picture.

click_click · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2009, 08:14 »

Quote from: astrocady on August 01, 2009, 08:09

The halo almost looks like the effect you get with HDR or if the kites were added to the picture.

But I don't think it was the OP's intent to create an HDR...

He/She would have mentioned that, I'd assume.

chl · « **Reply #10 on:** August 01, 2009, 09:51 »

This photo is not HDR. Maybe I adjusted the curve in lab color too much.

cathyslife · « **Reply #11 on:** August 01, 2009, 10:00 »

You didn't mention which micro you submitted to. Each one has different "rules" and it takes a while to know what each one will accept.

istockphoto does not like highly saturated photos. They want the photo to be as close to straight from the camera as possible...no filters, nothing. Only fixing of noise and specks are tolerated. Unless you are a BIG moneymaker for them, then you can get as artistic as you like.

Dreamstime used to accept highly saturated photos, not sure if they do anymore though. I learned the trick of using lab colors to bump up saturation, but don't do it for micro anymore.

You will have to surf around and do some research and see what's currently being accepted on the sites.

By the way, I think your photo would be a good one, if it didn't have the technical issues. If you can go back to the original and do a little less monkeying around, it might be worth it.

I shoot in RAW format, change to 8 bit jpgs. Camera raw gives you a lot more control, but again, you have to be careful about changing too many things. The purists say that you should NOT do any photoshopping, you should learn to take a good shot right in your camera. I somewhat agree.

chl · « **Reply #12 on:** August 01, 2009, 10:43 »

Thank you for your valuable advice. I submited this photo to Fotolia. My camera is canon 500D and the lens is Canon EF-S 18-55mm F3.5 - F5.6 IS with extended lens ED-DIGITAL 0.45 x PROFESSIONAL HI-DEFINITION DIGITAL WIDE ANGLE LENS. Is it enough to produce stock photo quality?

chl · « **Reply #13 on:** August 01, 2009, 11:09 »

I read an artikel saying that downsizing the photo will reduce the noise. How to downsize the photo?

click_click · « **Reply #14 on:** August 01, 2009, 11:34 »

Downsizing means reducing the image size in pixels.

For example your original file is 3008 x 2000 in Photoshop you goto "IMAGE" and then "IMAGE SIZE" (CTRL+ALT+I) there you can enter a smaller value than 3008 in the width field.

Let's say you chose 2500 pixels width, then your image will be downsized from 3008 to 2500 pixels in width and the height should be reduced proportionally so that the aspect ratio stays the same.

If you have little noise which could get you into trouble, reducing or downsizing your image can help to get it through the review process but on most agencies you won't get as much royalties since the image will be sold in smaller sizes than the native resolution.

It's always best to make sure that you take the picture with correct camera settings as well as a tripod, remote shutter release and other tricks to get the best results!

Try to google for some tutorials about basic camera settings and tips for good exposures.

Good luck!

chl · « **Reply #15 on:** August 02, 2009, 00:35 »

thank you

I have a polarize filter. Do I need to remove it when I do indoor shooting?

CCK · « **Reply #16 on:** August 02, 2009, 01:12 »

I think the problem lies with post processing. I'm sending you a message on flicr

chl · « **Reply #17 on:** August 02, 2009, 08:27 »

I do not have external flash which I guess more powerful than built in flash. Do you think I need to buy one for shooting the potrait and indoor photo? I saw a lot of stock photo are with white background. I guess white background will sell better. Are all these photo taken in the studio with white background wall?

click_click · « **Reply #18 on:** August 02, 2009, 08:48 »

Quote from: chl on August 02, 2009, 00:35

thank you
I have a polarize filter. Do I need to remove it when I do indoor shooting?

Dear chl,

I suggest you take a beginner's course in digital photography. Don't take this as criticism, take it as advice!

You will learn the basics much faster this way than asking this forum all your questions from A to Z.

If you don't have the money to take a class then use the internet to read more about the questions that you have.

There some fantastic tutorials online that will help you a lot. Also they might be written more detailed than many of us can write - because we're also trying to get some shooting done

The polarizer filter will slow your shutter speed down in any given situation. That means it becomes harder to get sharp images because of longer exposure times. Depending on what lens you are using you might have to adjust the filter every time you re-focus because it rotates the end of the barrel where the filter is attached.

You have to learn about the advantages and uses of filters. Simply do a search online for tutorials.

On-camera flash will very rarely give you proper light for portraits. I suggest you get an off camera flash with remote trigger. On ebay you can find cheap solutions. I bought a wireless trigger for my off-camera flash and I can even use it now for my new studio lights. It cost me $30 instead of buying the pocket wizard.

Good luck!

chl · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:04 »

Thankyou for your suggestion. Sorry I'm too excited to ask many questions.
Which type of off camera flash you are using? Is Vivitar 285HV Flash a good off camera flash?

click_click · « **Reply #20 on:** August 02, 2009, 10:25 »

Quote from: chl on August 02, 2009, 10:04

Thankyou for your suggestion. Sorry I'm too excited to ask many questions.
Which type of off camera flash you are using? Is Vivitar 285HV Flash a good off camera flash?

That flash is $87 with free shipping at Amazon.com

I shoot with Nikon's SB-600 so I can't give you a recommendation for this flash. However, some photographers just buy any cheap off-camera flash and remote triggers just to have a "cheap" portable light source. You will be using light modifiers as well like bounce cards or silks so it doesn't really matter which brand you buy.

I suggest to read a lot about off-camera flash units. It could save you some money in the long run! Also consider that you might need a light stand to mount the flash on, including the bracket! Those are additional costs. But you can build that yourself if you're good at improvising.

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** August 02, 2009, 14:08 »

About online learning, there are some good sites with lots of tutorials:

http://digital-photography-school.com/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/
http://photo.net/learn/
http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/toc.html

willie · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2009, 16:25 »

Quote from: chl on August 02, 2009, 10:04

Thankyou for your suggestion. Sorry I'm too excited to ask many questions.
Which type of off camera flash you are using? Is Vivitar 285HV Flash a good off camera flash?

Allow me to pass on one very simple advice. As Stirling Moss (great driver) once said, "there are no bad cars, only bad drivers!".
The same with camera equipment. The BEST is only subjective. Mostly the ones they own.
You have to learn to use the equipment rather than love the brand.

A good photographer can take a "lousy" camera and "lousy" lens , "lousy" flash,etc.. (although I cannot really find too many of those with the standard of digital cameras), and still find the sweet spot, the best lighting ratio,etc.. and get the BEST images that a "lousy" photographer using the top of the line Canon or Nikon setup with Broncolor, Norman,etc... lights..

Learn to see the light and master your equipment. You will spend less time worrying if your equipment is up to standard.
Much like the rock musicians who uses a battery of gadgets who can't play a simple I got Rhythm changes with a simple acoustic guitar , and telling everyone , "hey look , I got more sound boxes than any other guitarist in the universe".

chl · « **Reply #23 on:** August 03, 2009, 06:17 »

I really touch

with all of you all advice and help. You all are my master.

This Friday I will be going to beach and mountain to take some photos.

Moonb007 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 04, 2009, 16:12 »

Good luck...and remember to shoot in RAW

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: rejected photo (Read 10670 times)

chl

bittersweet

chl

Phil

chl

chl

sharpshot

click_click

astrocady

click_click

chl

cathyslife

chl

chl

click_click

chl

CCK

chl

click_click

chl

click_click

madelaide

willie

chl

Moonb007

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors