Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 10, 2012, 01:13

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print

Topic: Critique please  

(Read 1244 times)
jmspix

New Member


« on: October 20, 2009, 14:05 »

There two images were declined by DT for the following reason:

Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure.

The images were shot with a flash through a shoot-through umbrella (right of camera) and a reflector was used for fill.  Can someone please explain this to me and hopefully provide some suggestions for improving the image.  Fotolia accepted this, which I know is irrelevant since each agency has different criteria, but it just further adds to my confusion.

http://jmspix.smugmug.com/photos/668854691_24Y7o-L.jpg

http://jmspix.smugmug.com/photos/668850633_BKdVQ-L.jpg

Thanks for your assistance!  Smiley







Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
gostwyck

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2009, 14:18 »

I guess you could argue that they're a touch on the dark side with too much shadow for stock. I think most likely the reviewer took the view that although they are nice portraits they are perhaps not particularly stock-oriented. They'll often look for technical reasons to reject under those circumstances. Nice images otherwise.


Ignore | Logged


ap


« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2009, 14:48 »

the ambience of the portraiture seems to imply a more personal rather than commercial use. that is, these were shot for a client for her own album. i know, it's a subtle difference.

but, if fotolia accepted it, then it is truly stockworthy. they never accept anything less than outright commercial.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 14:53 by ap »

Ignore | Logged


click_click


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2009, 20:16 »

If the model would have looked into the camera in the second shot it would have been a much better stock photo.

Furthermore you should decide where to go with your background. It's either blown out white or another distinct color.

In this case it just looks "dirty".

You can make it work with one light source to illuminate the model, bounce some light on the dark side and blow out the background.

With a white background you'll get a nice clean look.


Ignore | Logged


jmspix

New Member


« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2009, 06:01 »

Cool, thanks for the feedback guys!  Smiley  I will certainly work on it.


Ignore | Logged


sjlocke

iStock Gauge
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2009, 07:30 »

Your white balance is also off.  You can tell from the slightly blue backgrounds and cold skin tones.  Also, agree with the "not stock" call above.


Ignore | Logged


jmspix

New Member


« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2009, 07:37 »

Hmm, ok..I'll check on that as well.  I did have her hold a card and set a custom white balance in the camera. That said, operator error is certainly a possibility on my part.  Thanks!


Ignore | Logged


Art portfolio websites - FoundmyselfMicrostock Insider
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Please help critique
Photo Critique
sbonk 9 1485 Last post June 09, 2007, 19:29
by ianhlnd
Critique Away
Photo Critique
hjaphotography 10 2107 Last post October 24, 2008, 02:55
by Xalanx
Need critique
Photo Critique
nothingness 7 1212 Last post February 06, 2009, 08:51
by Peter
Please critique
Newbie Discussion
SalSanto 10 1214 Last post July 07, 2009, 14:11
by SalSanto
New to microstock, critique request
Photo Critique
Capt.Canuck 8 1372 Last post December 23, 2009, 13:14
by PowerDroid

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc