Author Topic: Shutterstock rejection: Please critique (Read 10507 times)

Yay Images Billionaire · « **on:** March 24, 2014, 23:25 »

Hi, I'd appreciate some critique on these photos please.

I did a shoot of some standard themes: businesswoman at desk/woman at whiteboard/generic model shots. I thought these all have some sales potential. I've had about 85% of them accepted at the other agencies, but SS has rejected almost all of my photos from all three sets with the same reason:

Focus--Image is not in focus or the focal point is not appropriate for the composition.

Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.

Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.

Each set had a different lighting setup, so should not be too similar in lighting.

Here are examples from each set:

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-61607756/stock-photo-beautiful-chinese-female-operator-at-office-desk

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-61550303/stock-photo-asian-teacher-in-front-of-whiteboard

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-61673579/stock-photo-chinese-businesswoman-standing-against-isolated-white

Are there any things in these I could fix to resubmit to SS? I think these have sales value and I have dozens of variations I want to submit.

TIA.

JPSDK · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2014, 23:59 »

Its difficult to see if there is noise or how focus is in the resolution you provide.
The light?
Yes they seem washed out, overexposed on parts on the hair, lack of colour depths on the face. The light is very flat.

disorderly · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2014, 00:10 »

It would be useful to know what settings you used to take the photos and how you edited them before submission. Specifically: aperture, shutter speed and ISO. What was the light source? How did you determine white balance? Did you shoot RAW or JPEG? (RAW gives you a lot more opportunity to adjust contrast and make the picture pop.)

The composition looks fine, although the white board looks like it's off center. Easy enough to fix, assuming my eyes aren't deceiving me.

Yay Images Billionaire · « **Reply #3 on:** March 25, 2014, 01:47 »

The camera settings were ISO 100 F9 1/200. shot in RAW.

Key light was a shoot through umbrella from camera right (left on white background shots). Fill was brollybox from camera left for desk. For the whiteboard shots I used a light reflecting off a big white backdrop sheet on left.

I did shoot with a gray card, but took the color temperature down a little (I find Asian marketing prefers whiter skin tones).

I will check if one of the other agencies has bigger previews.

This is one they accepted. I don't see how the quality is any different to the rejected files.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=182919977

Ron · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2014, 02:32 »

My opinion is you got lucky with the one accepted at SS as its blown out for the major part of the image. The other ones are have also lighting issues, as the shirt is blown out. All images are too hot.

Cant judge on focus and noise.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2014, 03:30 »

I suppose that you have already set the highlight point to be no more than 95-97%
And looking at your portfolio it is understandable that you have enough experience to know what means "focus" and "noise".
So, I would simply resubmit the images as they are with a note to the editor: "I think that once again your bot made some misjudgment…"

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:07 »

Quote from: imagesbykenny on March 24, 2014, 23:25

http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-61673579/stock-photo-chinese-businesswoman-standing-against-isolated-white

Are there any things in these I could fix to resubmit to SS? I think these have sales value and I have dozens of variations I want to submit.

I think you may want to study today's style of images a bit more. The lighting on these is very even and isn't very interesting. And the "business woman doing a sexy pose" is the kind of thing people mock in comedy articles.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2014, 06:19 »

And from a keywording perspective why does every shot of a sexy woman in a jacket, white shirt (and short skirt) make her a “businesswoman”? A woman dressed as your model is sexy, yes, but there is nothing else in the shot to indicate that she is performing any business function. I believe the days of posing pretty women looking at the camera on a white background are over. At least the market is saturated with like photos.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2014, 09:05 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on March 25, 2014, 06:19

And from a keywording perspective why does every shot of a sexy woman in a jacket, white shirt (and short skirt) make her a “businesswoman”?

And from a keywording perspective why does every shot of a woman [in a jacket, white shirt (and short skirt)] make her a “sexy woman”?

(This is surely a nice girl, but I am not sure that, on the photo, she looks so sexy)

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2014, 09:21 »

Isn't 'sexy', like 'cute', 'beautiful' and 'adorable' (etc) a pretty subjective and pretty useless keyword?

OT: I just did a search for 'ugly woman' on SS. It mostly seems to mean 'pulling a stupid face', but some of the women classed as ugly look perfectly normal to me (subjectively).
"ugly woman" has no results on iS but ugly woman (split) also has women pulling stupid faces, one or two normal looking women, and one conventionally-attractive woman with the title, "Beauty is only skin deep", with no hint of anything sinister going on 'under the surface'.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:08 »

Yes, the word "beautiful" is put on almost every image - beautiful cat, beautiful flower, beautiful pasta, beautiful sunset, beautiful baby, beautiful car, beautiful house - pretty useless in all instances.

JPSDK · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:08 »

Quote from: imagesbykenny on March 25, 2014, 01:47

The camera settings were ISO 100 F9 1/200. shot in RAW.

Key light was a shoot through umbrella from camera right (left on white background shots). Fill was brollybox from camera left for desk. For the whiteboard shots I used a light reflecting off a big white backdrop sheet on left.

I did shoot with a gray card, but took the color temperature down a little (I find Asian marketing prefers whiter skin tones).

I will check if one of the other agencies has bigger previews.

This is one they accepted. I don't see how the quality is any different to the rejected files.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=182919977

That one got accepted because it has a quality of its own in its "impactfull outblownness". it has style.

JPSDK · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2014, 10:10 »

Quote from: imagesbykenny on March 25, 2014, 01:47

The camera settings were ISO 100 F9 1/200. shot in RAW.

Key light was a shoot through umbrella from camera right (left on white background shots). Fill was brollybox from camera left for desk. For the whiteboard shots I used a light reflecting off a big white backdrop sheet on left.

I did shoot with a gray card, but took the color temperature down a little (I find Asian marketing prefers whiter skin tones).

I will check if one of the other agencies has bigger previews.

This is one they accepted. I don't see how the quality is any different to the rejected files.
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=182919977

You might want to experiment with a third light, a sharp small one, that can produce small shadows and support the two flat lights.

disorderly · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:11 »

I would ignore the advice about keywords. Note that the rejections were all related to the images, not their metadata. I like general words like 'beautiful' and 'sexy', and have seen at least a few sales via such search terms. If the reviewers don't object, I see no reason to avoid them.

Regarding the reasons they did give, do you see any noise or stippling at 100%? At those settings you definitely shouldn't have noise problems, so whatever they see or think they see is coming from another source. Make sure you look at everything at 100% (I'm on a Retina Display MacBook, so with Photoshop CC I have to check everything at 200% to be sure) and clean up anything that looks like noise.

If you're getting focus rejections at F/9, I'd consider moving to ISO 200 and F/11. When I moved from a crop sensor camera (Nikon D300) to full frame (D800), I discovered the hard way that my Depth of Field at F/8 was a lot shallower than I'd expected. I've since figured out how to take advantage of that look and still get images accepted, but if I want a lot in focus I'll go back to F/11 or even smaller.

The lighting complaint may be a lack of contrast. I like to increase Clarity and Vibrance in Camera Raw; it makes the pictures pop more. But of course you'll have your own preferences.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:17 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 25, 2014, 11:11

The lighting complaint may be a lack of contrast. I like to increase Clarity and Vibrance in Camera Raw; it makes the pictures pop more. But of course you'll have your own preferences.

and a little Recovery to fix some blown highlights, I tend to underexpose a little because Recovery messes a bit the colors

PS: some dude have serious issues, I had a plus on this post, no longer have, oh man grow up!

Yay Images Billionaire · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:22 »

Thanks for all the advice!

I think I have been misguided. I hate this kind of flat lighting with bight skin tones, but I thought that is what sells, so I started doing it. I will stick to more dramatic lighting in the future. My shots of the same model that I did 2 years ago with much more dramatic lighting got accepted.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:24 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 25, 2014, 11:11

When I moved from a crop sensor camera (Nikon D300) to full frame (D800), I discovered the hard way that my Depth of Field at F/8 was a lot shallower than I'd expected.

I understand what you mean but shouldn't be the same if you hold still your camera while shooting? are you talking mainly because of the bigger sensor size and megapixels or also the weight?

disorderly · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:35 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 25, 2014, 11:24

Quote from: disorderly on March 25, 2014, 11:11
When I moved from a crop sensor camera (Nikon D300) to full frame (D800), I discovered the hard way that my Depth of Field at F/8 was a lot shallower than I'd expected.

I understand what you mean but shouldn't be the same if you hold still your camera while shooting? are you talking mainly because of the bigger sensor size and megapixels or also the weight?

Luis,

It's not about stability, but about the range of the image that is in focus. With a larger sensor I lose the "telephoto effect" of a narrower angle of view. To get the same composition, I have to be closer to my subject. That reduces the area of sharp focus.

In fact I actually made it worse; when I switched cameras I also moved from F/11 @ ISO 200 to F/8 @ ISO 100, the optimal ISO for the new camera. The first (male) model I shot with the new camera had huge muscles. When I had his eyes in focus, his arms blurred out.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:43 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 25, 2014, 11:35

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 25, 2014, 11:24
Quote from: disorderly on March 25, 2014, 11:11
When I moved from a crop sensor camera (Nikon D300) to full frame (D800), I discovered the hard way that my Depth of Field at F/8 was a lot shallower than I'd expected.

I understand what you mean but shouldn't be the same if you hold still your camera while shooting? are you talking mainly because of the bigger sensor size and megapixels or also the weight?

Luis,

It's not about stability, but about the range of the image that is in focus. With a larger sensor I lose the "telephoto effect" of a narrower angle of view. To get the same composition, I have to be closer to my subject. That reduces the area of sharp focus.

In fact I actually made it worse; when I switched cameras I also moved from F/11 @ ISO 200 to F/8 @ ISO 100, the optimal ISO for the new camera. The first (male) model I shot with the new camera had huge muscles. When I had his eyes in focus, his arms blurred out.

yeah I understand what you mean, I have been using 80-200 and it looks great in DX body at 2.8 but it isn't exactly stock where everything needs to be tack sharp, I know it is in fact 300 when zoomed to 200 but it also uses the center of the sensor which makes it look sharper (which will not happen on the FX body)

but I was still thinking I could continue shooting wide open without any concern, I know a few guys doing so, guess I will have to wait and see

anyway that is insane, what lens were you using?

disorderly · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:47 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 25, 2014, 11:43

anyway that is insane, what lens were you using?

24-70mm F/2.8. Although when the space is large enough to allow it, I prefer the 70-200mm F/4.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:51 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 25, 2014, 11:47

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 25, 2014, 11:43
anyway that is insane, what lens were you using?

24-70mm F/2.8. Although when the space is large enough to allow it, I prefer the 70-200mm F/4.

yeah, I have the 24-70 as well and I love it, guess I will have to find money to get a FX camera and try it myself, thanks for your explanations Harris

Ron · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2014, 12:52 »

I tend to overexpose a little as underexposing introduces noise. A little overexposure without blowing out, is easily corrected and keeps the quality in tact. Reducing noise from underexposure deteriorates the image quality.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2014, 12:55 »

Quote from: Ron on March 25, 2014, 12:52

I tend to overexpose a little as underexposing introduces noise. A little overexposure without blowing out, is easily corrected and keeps the quality in tact. Reducing noise from underexposure deteriorates the image quality.

I was talking about other type of photography outside the usual stock, anyway I have never reduced noise in my pictures, don't even know or want to learn

Goofy · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2014, 13:35 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on March 25, 2014, 06:07

Quote from: imagesbykenny on March 24, 2014, 23:25
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/image-61673579/stock-photo-chinese-businesswoman-standing-against-isolated-white

Are there any things in these I could fix to resubmit to SS? I think these have sales value and I have dozens of variations I want to submit.

I think you may want to study today's style of images a bit more. The lighting on these is very even and isn't very interesting. And the "business woman doing a sexy pose" is the kind of thing people mock in comedy articles.

But my boss thinks she is sexy!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock rejection: Please critique (Read 10507 times)

Yay Images Billionaire

JPSDK

disorderly

Yay Images Billionaire

Ron

Beppe Grillo

Sean Locke Photography

cuppacoffee

Beppe Grillo

ShadySue

cuppacoffee

JPSDK

JPSDK

disorderly

luissantos84

Yay Images Billionaire

luissantos84

disorderly

luissantos84

disorderly

luissantos84

Ron

luissantos84

Goofy

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors