MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: second reject  (Read 13666 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

chl

« on: August 24, 2009, 06:44 »
0
Dear all,

I'm facing another reject of my photo to Fotolia. You may view my photo at  http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3851441035/#

Please feel free to comment.

Appriciate your valueble views.

Many Thanks


« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2009, 07:22 »
0
Basically, your photo has concept. So, your idea was OK. About quality of the photo I can't really judge because I can't see it in full size, but it looks to me like there are at least two problems:
1. Soft focus
2. Chromatic aberration (purple fringing)
Also, smaller problem could be that harsh shadow on the upper part of the image.
Do you know how to fix those problems or you need help?
Regards,
Ivan

chl

« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2009, 07:29 »
0
Dear Ivan,

Appreciate if you could let me know how to fix the problem you mentioned.

Many Thanks

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2009, 11:55 »
0
If you could have composed the shot without the "junk" on the horizon, and just sand, it may have improved it. (junk because I didn't look at all the stuff, cars, trash cans, buildings)  :) If you took the same shot with all sand, I don't think the shadow of the post would be a big concern. I understand that using natural light it's difficult to avoid heavy shadows. Put the Sun over your shoulder, to put the shadows behind things.

You could also have used a fill flash and an off camera flash from the back left, simple optical trigger, to fill in the shadows and back shadow. Just using the flash on the camera in bright Sunlight will help remove shadows on the subject.

What reason did they use for the rejection? If it was "not suitable for stock" then all the composition and lighting won't help a bit.  ;D
« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 11:56 by RacePhoto »

tobkatrina

  • Crazy Bird Lady
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2009, 18:08 »
0
If I were the reviewer, I would have rejected it too, sorry :(

To me it has little to no commercial value and it is shot at the worse possible time of day when light is the harshest. I can't envision what product or service this could represent or how a designer could implement this into a design. Don't get discouraged, just refocus what you shoot! :)

Just my honest 2 cents :)

« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2009, 04:15 »
0
Chl,
This image can't really be improved, unfortunately. You could just maybe sharpen it a little bit, but that is very risky because sharpening produce lots of noise. Also, purple fringing could be removed, but it's worth trying only on simple objects and you have it all around. Tell me, which lens do you use? Purple fringing is often lens problem.

chl

« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2009, 07:18 »
0
Dear all,

Thanks for your all comment

Dear Ivan,

My camera lens is
canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
with extension of ED-DIGITAL 0.45 X PROFESSIONAL HI-DEFINITION DIGITAL WIDE ANGLE LENS

« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2009, 16:41 »
0
OK, good. The interesting thing about your photo is that nothing seems very sharp. One could thing the lens focused on something else, but I can't really find any sharp object on the image. Also, it doesn't look like it was camera shake (maybe I'm just making a mistake because the image is not in 100% size). Do you have other images accepted on fotolia that you made using this lens?

lisafx

« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2009, 18:24 »
0
Dear all,

Thanks for your all comment

Dear Ivan,

My camera lens is
canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
with extension of ED-DIGITAL 0.45 X PROFESSIONAL HI-DEFINITION DIGITAL WIDE ANGLE LENS


There's your problem then.  That is not a good quality lens.  You will continue to have problems with sharpness, chromatic aberration, etc. when using that lens.  To then slap a wide angle adapter on it degrades the quality even more. 

If your budget is limited, this is the best low cost lens I know of for Canon.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/206434-USA/Canon_6469A005_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html

« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2009, 20:30 »
0
I am not convinced that it is the lens directly, as I have many pictures in my ports on multiple sites made with this same lens before I upgraded last year.  If this "extension of ED-DIGITAL 0.45 X PROFESSIONAL HI-DEFINITION DIGITAL WIDE ANGLE LENS" is the type that screws onto the filter end (front end) of the lens, I would think that the add on "filter extender" is more likely your problem.  Most of these "front filter lens attachments" were actually made for camcorders, not modern digital DSLR cameras.

As lisafx noted the 18-55 IS is not the best lens, but adding that front screw on wide angle adapter, cannot help, but more likely "amplifies" the short comings of the lens.  I would say take that wide angle lens adapter off and only take stock photos without it.

chl

« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2009, 08:06 »
0
Dear Ivan,

Unfortunately I don't have image accepted by fotolia at this moment. What is your email address? I could email you that photo.

That extension lense cost me about USD 290.

« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2009, 10:24 »
0
Dear Ivan,

Unfortunately I don't have image accepted by fotolia at this moment. What is your email address? I could email you that photo.

That extension lense cost me about USD 290.

I understand you paid the lens enough to expect satisfying results. But I'm afraid Lisa and lbarn had right about the lens. Lets hope the problem is just in the filter extender. I would advice you to take off extender, and to make some images without it. Also, feel free to send me the photo. I will check it out, and send you back problematic cropped parts of your photo. Then you should make some probe images without the extender (in similar conditions to this image if possible). This way you can compare results, and if you want you can send me back one of your probe images, or you can post it here.
My email is [email protected]

Regards,
Ivan

chl

« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2009, 04:17 »
0
Thank you whitechild. These few days the weather condition in my place is couldy. I will shoot when sunny day to compare the difference

Dook

« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2009, 06:26 »
0
That lens is not good, but there are other reasons for this picture to be rejected. It is not time of the day neither. It has a long shadow, so it is some time afternoon.
But, these people and shopping stands behind in a distracting shadow, together with very untidy sand (stones, trash and uneven surface) make it look - not stock oriented.


Dook

« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2009, 11:47 »
0
The last one is very good. Good light and composition, some sort of concept, too.
The firs one I just do not like. It is picture of nothing.
The second one could be good with more carefully chosen model.

« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2009, 18:01 »
0
chl, on the first image you probably wanted to show wood texture, but tell me, is that fish in the water? Anyway, this image has the same problem as first one you send us. It's not sharp :(
Second image has the same technical problem...not sharp and has color aberration. This image has a message (which I can't really say for the first image with wood texture). The guy is enjoying on the beach... It would be even better if you could add more warmth, because he is on the beach, and we should feel how warm is there by just looking at image. When you make an image, pay attention on color balance. Tone of your image has great influence on atmosphere of the image. If you shoot happy people, smiling people, nice idyllic landscapes, food etc., your images should have warm tone. If you shoot sad people, depressed scenes, lonely people etc.. you can experiment with colder, blue tones. Also, I have to say that Dook has right when he says you have to choose your models more carefully. Most of us have not only skin imperfection, (even professional models), but all those things are usually corrected in Photoshop. So, your model is perfectly normal looking young man, but it's not enough for stock. It has to be more than that... BTW, did you notice that horizon on your image is hot horizontal?
Third image has the same problem with sharpness, but generally it's not bad. It has a concept, the model looks nice, colors are better. The most problematic thing here is composition I think. Try to avoid placing models in the center of the image. Try to show the space in the front of the model, like the model is entering the image. If your model is sitting on the hill for example, and watching at the beautiful landscape in the front of him, than show that landscape on your image. If your model is walking, show the path in the front of him. Don't let the model going out of the image, unless it was your intention because of the idea of the image.

I fixed a bit your second image. I fixed the horizon, models belly, models skin....

chl

« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2009, 04:09 »
0
Dear Ivan,

Yes there are fishes at the back of the wood.

Thanks for correcting the model skin and horizontal. Is it possible to do it also in GIMP?

These are also with the extension lens. I think I will sell off this extension lens since it does not fit to my camera.


« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2009, 04:19 »
0
Yes, all this is possible in GIMP, just maybe requires little more time to do the same.

chl

« Reply #19 on: September 02, 2009, 05:58 »
0
Dear Ivan,

Which kind of photo need model release? How about the photo that you edited since he wear sunglass?
 

« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2009, 06:15 »
0
chl, choose one agency and read the FAQ about file requirements and model releases and copyright. It seems you don't know some very basic things about stock photography. I think you will find there all info you need, and it would be much faster that asking me one by one question.
The answer to your question is: Every recognizable person on the photo needs model release, with or without sunglasses. Even silhouettes need model release if it's possible to lighten the image enough to see the face.

« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2009, 07:15 »
0
Whitechild... you have a lot of patience  ;)

Chi, I'm afraid that the days microstock agencies need to build their database is now gone forever: you should no longer try to answer to the question "why was this image rejected?" after it has been rejected, but you should answer the question "why will this image be accepted?" before the submission.

Could you answer this question concerning your rejected image? Why do you think it should have been accepted?

And "because I would like it to be accepted" is not an acceptable answer  ;D

chl

« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2009, 08:54 »
0
Thank you for all the patient to answer my question. Sorry if I'm cause any inconvinience

JerryL5

  • Blessed by God's wonderful love.
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2009, 10:07 »
0
The original post looks ok as to focus to me. If you have photoshop
you might try this, though it may not be accepted. Also a rock and bottle is removed.


« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2009, 16:38 »
0
Thank you for all the patient to answer my question. Sorry if I'm cause any inconvinience

You didn't cause any inconvenience, just, you would learn much faster by reading tutorials that posting one by one question here. I'm trying to save your time. :)

« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2009, 16:43 »
0

« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2009, 04:22 »
0
chl,

This can be very useful:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Wow, Adelaide this is awesome. Thank you for sharing.



chl

« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2009, 06:07 »
0
thankyou madelaide  and thankyou whitechild

chl

« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2009, 06:11 »
0
thankyou jerry

JerryL5

  • Blessed by God's wonderful love.
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2009, 10:17 »
0
thankyou jerry

You're welcome, Chl :)

chl

« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2009, 02:12 »
0
Dear White Child,

Below please find the photo link that taken without the extension lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3889284956/#

Do you think it is better than the photos before with extension lens?

« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2009, 09:34 »
0
I checked it out, and it still looks a bit soft to me, but at least I can't see any purple fringing. Lighting here is different, and there is no any big contrast like on the first image you showed to us, so maybe that's the reason why I can't find any purple fringing, but also, maybe there won't be any purple fringing without extension. What bothers me is that softness. I would like if someone else could take a look at this picture and tell us if it's soft or not. Maybe it's just my auto suggestion. Your images are all resized to 1024 pix, so we can't check it in full size to really say the difference.

« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2009, 13:02 »
0
It also looks a little bit soft to me. Maybe you can post a part of the picture in the original size? Only at 100% we can best see the technical issues.

chl

« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2009, 08:11 »
0
Below is the photo link that with UV filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3892879320/#

Below is the photo link that without uv filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3892101941/#

« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2009, 11:16 »
0
UV filter doesn't look like problem to me. Both images have the same sharpness. But, as Goldenangel said, we have to check it at 100% size. Crop some focused small part of the image and post it in original size. Don't resize it to 1024 pix.

chl

« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2009, 05:54 »
0
Dear White Child,

I have emailed the original photo to your email account.

« Reply #36 on: September 07, 2009, 15:40 »
0
Ok chl, I got your image and here is what I saw:
The image itself has good lighting, but it lacks contrast. Somehow, that lack of contrast makes it look a bit soft, If you take a close look at the center of the image (the focused part) you will notice that leaves edges are sharp enough, but one thing is missing...leaves texture. I guess it's because the contrast of the image is pretty low and those small differences in contrast that make the texture of the leaves visible are missing. The other problem is chromatic aberration (purple fringing). It's not strong in focused part of the image, but if you look at other parts it's pretty strong, especially when you get close to the corners if the image. It's normal to have chromatic aberration in those parts of the image when they are not focused, but on your image it's little too much. I don't know how much you paid for this lens, but obviously it's not very good. I don't say you have to spend thousands of dollars to have a decent lens, but this one will give you pretty much trouble. I honestly think you should consider the possibility of selling this, and buying some new lens. I didn't have time to find and read some review for this lens. You can google for it. I just told you what I saw. Next time when you buying some new lens read as much reviews as you can.

Now, what you can done to make some of your images acceptable on microstock. In your place, after full editing of image, I would apply very small amount of sharpening, and resize the image to 4 Mpix as a final step. I also tried to increase the contrast on your image using curves, and after is I resized the image to 4 Mpix, and it looked just fine. Both methods looked good with this image. The only problem still remains chromatic aberration...if it's too visible, your image will be rejected again.

chl

« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2009, 08:08 »
0
My camera and lens still under warranty. I will see this could be solve under warranty

« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2009, 16:51 »
0
Good idea...

« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2009, 17:13 »
0
I think you may be "missing the boat" thinking that this can be fixed via a warranty.  Purple fringing isn't necessarily a total disaster, since it can be reduced in most photo processing software from photoshop, to photoshop elements, paintshop pro and even through a script for GIMP.  

I have owned the same lens that you are using, and sometimes purple fringing was a problem, but very  few times it couldn't be modified by photo editing software.  Istockphoto seems to find the photos with this problem most frequently.  I also have the 28-105 lens that Lisafx told you about.  If you look at bottom of page in each link (page 2) of the following lens review site for each lens, you can see that the lens you are using has more of a problem with purple fringing than the 28-105.

15-55 IS
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=1

28-105
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/189-canon-ef-28-105mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

Granted, Whitechild was able to view your image full size and see the level of the purple fringing problem, but I am less convinced that its a warranty type issue due to the nature of the lens.

« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2009, 18:31 »
0
Maybe he thinks he can turn back this lens and get another one while still in guarantee...

« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2009, 19:02 »
0
Or have it checked and calibrated.

RacePhoto

« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2009, 21:26 »
0
Purple fringing isn't necessarily a total disaster, since it can be reduced in most photo processing software from photoshop, to photoshop elements, paintshop pro and even through a script for GIMP.  

I have owned the same lens that you are using, and sometimes purple fringing was a problem, but very  few times it couldn't be modified by photo editing software.  


I haven't had issues with purple fringing with this lens, but since it seems that some day I will. Maybe you can explain how to correct it with Photoshop, CS3 or Elements for all the people who will be reading the thread? Others describe it as "easily" correct.  :)

I've had images submitted to IS rejected for purple fringing, when they were identical to red, orange and green subjects, same lighting, settings, everything, but the subject was Blue. Funny how that works?

RacePhoto

« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2009, 21:37 »
0
Thank you whitechild. These few days the weather condition in my place is couldy. I will shoot when sunny day to compare the difference

Funny how I keep coming back to this thread and it's interesting with all the informative responses. Two comments.

If you could host the photo somewhere so people can look at the EXIF data, and full size, it's helpful to see what else you are doing, instead of drawing it out, one message at a time, question by question.

Second, you actually would like to be shooting on a sunny overcast or cloudy day, because that will eliminate your harsh shadow problems. Bright Sunlight is much more difficult, you get extremes in light and dark, which make the photos nearly impossible to correct afterward. Shadows are the enemy!  ;)


« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2009, 01:41 »
0
I haven't had issues with purple fringing with this lens, but since it seems that some day I will. Maybe you can explain how to correct it with Photoshop, CS3 or Elements for all the people who will be reading the thread? Others describe it as "easily" correct.  :)


The second method has worked for me:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/133/article1.html

chl

« Reply #45 on: September 10, 2009, 10:07 »
0
Thank you for all of the informations. I guess this lens model performance is at the same par with the price. More expensive lens perhaps give better result. I will save money for better lens in the future.

« Reply #46 on: September 10, 2009, 19:53 »
0
A)  A couple of years ago I read about a photoshop action called "Purple Fringe Killer" on luminous-landscape.  I can't remember where I got it, it may or not be the one mentioned in the link below:

http://blog.lorrifreedman.com/index.php/2008/07/30/hdr-and-the-purple-fringe/

B)  I read about another fairly inexpensive (around 25 US bucks) plugin called PT lens while researching a lens with distortion problems at 17-18mm on the istock forum.  PT lens runs either as a filter in photoshop or stand alone, and you can zoom into the purple fringe area, and adjust sliders to modify the fringing.

I usually try to remove the fringing on a layer with a selection, so the modification only applies to the problem area.  Purple Fringe Killer is sort of automatic, there are no settings, it just runs, as opposed to PT lens which has other options and things it can accomplish.  The only downside to PT lens that I have found is it runs out of memory on a stitched panoramic of 3 tiles or more, so then "purple fringe killer" is the only choice.  Most of my purple fringing areas occur when an object intersects with a bright blue sky, like around a light pole in a parking lot, or a shiny roof edge against the sky.

Hopefully one day I can upgrade to better glass, and this problem will go away completely.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
8900 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 04:44
by litifeta
43 Replies
13398 Views
Last post June 03, 2009, 05:24
by Milinz
15 Replies
7326 Views
Last post July 17, 2010, 12:53
by borg
26 Replies
9554 Views
Last post April 09, 2017, 22:50
by YadaYadaYada
4 Replies
3789 Views
Last post January 24, 2019, 11:31
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors