pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Somebody can help me?  (Read 2854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 02, 2008, 04:54 »
0
Recently I was accepted to IStock but same 3 pictures along with 4 another was disapproved with DreamsTime as "Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure.". Although they look well on my monitor, so I wonder that maybe my monitor wrongly calibrated and I see totally different picture than reviewers on other end?
Maybe someone can help me and review rejected photos on calibrated monitor and tell what he think? If you would like to help, please let me know and I'll upload few of them to my site and send you PM with URLs.(this is to save on bandwidth as I'm overused it last few months).
Thank you in advance!



« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2008, 11:52 »
0
It would be helpful if you posted a link to those shots. How else can anybody judge here?  :o

« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2008, 13:53 »
0
thanks for response, FlemishDreams!
I was going to send PM to everyone who agree to help in order to save on bandwidth from spiders who would try to retrieve these files(as while I didn't move my site to new hosting it have bandwidth overuse each month).
But guess you're right and it would be better to post links here:
http://www.flcd.net/Photo/temp/1.jpg
http://www.flcd.net/Photo/temp/2.jpg
http://www.flcd.net/Photo/temp/3.jpg
http://www.flcd.net/Photo/temp/4.jpg
http://www.flcd.net/Photo/temp/5.jpg

I've compressed all files so they have artifacts which doesn't appear on original files, and all of them got in comments of DT that have poor lighting or bad exposure. Some of them have small highlights, but I'm not if DT consider this as bad light, any advices are highly appreciated.

« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2008, 14:00 »
0
On my screen the hand in the 5 is really pink. And on the 4 the shadows are on our side, which seems to indicate the lighting was behind the eggs.

« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2008, 14:08 »
0
thanks for response, ParisEye!

On my screen the hand in the 5 is really pink.
flower originally have mix of pink and purple which is hard to describe but it wasn't totally pink from what I remember.

Quote
And on the 4 the shadows are on our side, which seems to indicate the lighting was behind the eggs.
indeed light was behind the subject and this was the point of the picture(background shouldn't be totally white but rather look as gradient).
is backlighting is rather unwanted for such kind of photographs?

« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2008, 14:15 »
0
I would think that all with the exception of 4 (the eggs) seem to have wrong white balance.

The colours on the hand seem to be bit too cold (pinkish, bluish cast). All the other seem to be bit too warm.

Also, all of them with the exception of eggs and hand are probably underexposed (I may be wrong since the monitor I'm now using for borwsing is far from perfect).

The eggs, well, the shadows cast to the front creates quite interesting perspective, it's bit strange but interesting.

« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2008, 14:32 »
0
I completely agree with Danicek, they're underexposed.
I like a lot the eggs shot (despite the wrong WB, background should be a gradient of grey not of brown) but I learnt the hard way that in microstock "artistic" shots don't pay well.
If I had to make a similar shot I'd firstly use tungsten WB from start (this is probably the cause of the overall "brownish" tint) so you have to mess less with the image later.
Then if you indeed use a tungsten light you better use something to "soften" it and avoid the harsh shadows of the eggs. Try oven paper in front of the lamp, it doesn't burn and works pretty well as a rudimental "soft box".
Then I'd also put some white foam or some other reflector in front and above the eggs so to have a more diffuse light all around.
Most of my food shots have backlighting too and you can see that it's pretty used everywhere because it adds a tridimensional look to the images, especially to rounded objects. But it can't be the only source of light (unless it is an artistic shot, but they're good for flickr and not MS).

« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2008, 14:37 »
0
Here's one of my shot with a similar kind of light:


« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2008, 14:38 »
0
As what I see you use only one source of light, who make some of the subject underexposed.

For the eggs you lightning is some kind of behind or too much on the side so the front is underexposed.

The last one just need that the dark background to be removed over white or black. And maybe look for the harsh reflections on some of the pictures.

Just my opinion, good luck ;)

« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2008, 15:04 »
0
Thanks for your responses folks! guess that it's really something wrong with my eyes, me or my monitor :)
I completely agree with Danicek, they're underexposed.
Can you tell the way you determine when photo is right exposed or wrong? is it's subjective view based on experience or there is a way to trick with levels for example or other way? (Asking because I wish to check my rest photos before submission to save time me and reviewers).

Quote
I like a lot the eggs shot (despite the wrong WB, background should be a gradient of grey not of brown) but I learnt the hard way that in microstock "artistic" shots don't pay well.
If I had to make a similar shot I'd firstly use tungsten WB from start (this is probably the cause of the overall "brownish" tint) so you have to mess less with the image later.
Actually this photo was done with only one light (the Sun from the window), it was done in the evening so that's why it got such brownish warm color. I actually had more photos from this session and there was secondary flash behind backgound replacing the sun which make it look white and not interesting in my opinion, so after discussion with wife we decided to submit this one and did wrong as appears  :P
Also are highlights on the eggs are rather considered as problem or add something to the photo?


Quote
Then if you indeed use a tungsten light you better use something to "soften" it and avoid the harsh shadows of the eggs. Try oven paper in front of the lamp, it doesn't burn and works pretty well as a rudimental "soft box".
Then I'd also put some white foam or some other reflector in front and above the eggs so to have a more diffuse light all around.
thanks for your advices! I'm going to try them out next time.

Quote
Most of my food shots have backlighting too and you can see that it's pretty used everywhere because it adds a tridimensional look to the images, especially to rounded objects. But it can't be the only source of light (unless it is an artistic shot, but they're good for flickr and not MS).
Nice shot, ale1969! and thank you for example as it's almost always better see than listen to better understand what person try to tell :)
BTW can you tell if milk pure white or have some light yellow and grey colors in it?

Quote
As what I see you use only one source of light, who make some of the subject underexposed.

For the eggs you lightning is some kind of behind or too much on the side so the front is underexposed.
indeed, you're totally right. But when I've used flash set on minimal power with diffuser in front of eggs to make them expose a bit better it create too unrealistic look so I've deleted it.

Quote
The last one just need that the dark background to be removed over white or black. And maybe look for the harsh reflections on some of the pictures.
so you mean that hand would work better if would be simply isolated on white background? as I think that could done this but not sure if stocks need it after this. I've specially not remove background as thought that it gives more ways for designer who may buy this photo to work with it.

« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2008, 16:48 »
0
As for bandwidth, use imageshack or flickr to showcase: they are free. Apart from the hand (bad angle, shallow DOF, grossly deformed) the other shots look fine to me. White balance might be a bit off, but that's easy to remedy by CTRL-M > auto. What I mostly do now is make shadows a bit more transparent by a soft-light white-filled layer at 20%, then compensate for lost vibrance. Stock apparently doesn't like heavy shadows like used in artsy shots, but I might be wrong.

Apart from the first flower (but there are so many already on Stock) I would say your shots are a bit uninspired. Take the strawberries for instance. Well... they are strawberries like you can find at any market. They are not STRAWBERRIES! WOW. Stock needs to be a bit bigger than life and overdone. Stock needs to draw attention immediately among the noise of competing visual stimuli.

But... this is very subjective and I don't know if it's even worth 2 cents.

« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2008, 19:30 »
0
As for bandwidth, use imageshack or flickr to showcase: they are free.

thanks for advice although I decided not to use 3rd party galleries for this purpose, I'm writing own photo gallery script which would use on new hosting to showcase my photographs, I just need to find time to finish it.

Quote
Apart from the hand (bad angle, shallow DOF, grossly deformed) the other shots look fine to me.

Maybe I've used wrong criteria for choosing photographs for uploading as I was choosing pictures which I could use myself in some artworks or illustrations.

Quote
White balance might be a bit off, but that's easy to remedy by CTRL-M > auto. What I mostly do now is make shadows a bit more transparent by a soft-light white-filled layer at 20%, then compensate for lost vibrance. Stock apparently doesn't like heavy shadows like used in artsy shots, but I might be wrong.

thanks! I'll try it out to see if it helps.

Quote
Apart from the first flower (but there are so many already on Stock)

Before uploading it I've did a search for echinopsis flower and found only few shots which are pretty different than mine, or it's wrong way of determining is there are too many similar pictures or not?

Quote
I would say your shots are a bit uninspired. Take the strawberries for instance. Well... they are strawberries like you can find at any market. They are not STRAWBERRIES! WOW.

Yeah I realize that it's not the best one, it originally should be used in my own book about organic gardening so I thought that it could be useful for stock as well.
I think that have better photographs which are special for me and I don't feel right to sell them on micrstocks so uploaded them(I've got more approved but need to make them live first) here: http://my.photoshelter.com/sensovision
but maybe I'm wrong and they are not so good either :P

Quote
Stock needs to be a bit bigger than life and overdone. Stock needs to draw attention immediately among the noise of competing visual stimuli.

maybe you're right and stocking is something not for me as I rarely win challenges. I do photography for pleasure and to catch moments of life, so not sure if I can understand conception of what's really needed for photo buyers and make right photographs.

Quote
But... this is very subjective and I don't know if it's even worth 2 cents.

you're wrong, I always appreciate constructive critique to my address as it let me know what's I'm doing wrong and what need to be changed for improvements. Thanks once again for your comments!

« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2008, 02:00 »
0
Thanks for your responses folks! guess that it's really something wrong with my eyes, me or my monitor :)
I completely agree with Danicek, they're underexposed.
Can you tell the way you determine when photo is right exposed or wrong? is it's subjective view based on experience or there is a way to trick with levels for example or other way? (Asking because I wish to check my rest photos before submission to save time me and reviewers).

Yes, my basic approach to determining if the image was properly exposed is by looking at it. You need well set monitor for this. There is however one very helpfull tool, histogram. By looking at it, you can determine underexposure, overexposure in most cases.

« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2008, 11:06 »
0
Years ago I had a faulty monitor and wasn't really aware of how bad it was  It was too dark, brightness control was at its maximum.  Thought not an issue for normal use (that's why I never bothered), I used to scan slides back then adjusting settings according to my monitor.  I was shocked when I saw those images in another computer, because they looked so washed out!

I had a good link about monitor adjustment, but I could not find it.  Here are some, however, that may help you check it:
http://w4zt.com/screen/
http://www.nicobastone.com/Monitor.htm
http://lifehacker.com/350228/calibrate-your-monitor-with-screen-check

Of course, a proper calibration tool would be great.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2008, 15:49 »
0
There is however one very helpfull tool, histogram. By looking at it, you can determine underexposure, overexposure in most cases.

I'm trying to analyze camera histogram by looking on different images on monitor and histogram they got on camera but if say truth it doesn't correlate much with it or I'm doing something wrong. Sometimes I can tell about overexposure when it's happened but some times not :P

Quote
Years ago I had a faulty monitor and wasn't really aware of how bad it was  It was too dark, brightness control was at its maximum.  Thought not an issue for normal use (that's why I never bothered), I used to scan slides back then adjusting settings according to my monitor.  I was shocked when I saw those images in another computer, because they looked so washed out!

my pictures looking completely different on other monitors also :P but most of times they look more saturated on my own.
Thanks for your links, Adelaide, I've checked my settings and seems that everything is set up correctly, guess that my monitor doesn't give good fidelity because of old age. So for now I'll try to trust more to autocorrection of white balance.

Quote
Of course, a proper calibration tool would be great.

I'm consider to buy PANTONE huey if got any sales and believe that I could really make something on stocks. But not sure if it's worth to invest in calibrator before I get new monitor as it wouldn't do the magic with old one I guess :)


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors