pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Need critique for rejection  (Read 3951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 29, 2015, 02:34 »
0
Hi All

I am very new with stock photography. Still need to learn more.
My main subjects are travel photography

I just received some rejections from canstockphoto.

Please give me some feedback, so I will know what to do.

File shows too much noise (a.k.a grain):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/90z52yw9ifoi22z/kemnade2.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1kn2jablpct1ytf/lourdes2.jpg?dl=0


File appears to be underexposed. Please consider re-shooting or
editing the file accordingly:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/munvhqwmpjccr5d/angkuh.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4swo83575rr655/Karlsruhe%20Palace%20Germany.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/63qldcpkq67qbwz/Ta%20Prohm%20Angkor.jpg?dl=0

 File appears to be too soft and/or out of focus, or may have an overly
shallow depth of field:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2f2k2k225bvefw7/grotto2.jpg?dl=0

Thank you guys


« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2015, 03:43 »
0
pretty decent shots imo.  :)

you can always change exposure and reduce noise in post processing, but be sure to shoot in RAW for the best results.

I indeed see some softness/unsharpness. What camera do you use? Be sure you use a good tripod and switch of shake reduction

« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2015, 03:56 »
+1
Thank you Hansen

I am using Nikon D80.

Can you please tell me which photo that has sharpness problem?

I tried to look at the photos with the noise problem in 100 % but could not find it.

« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2015, 04:26 »
0
the snow landscape and castle at night looked a bit soft to me.

And the noise, I also couldn't see very clear noise problems.

Nikon D80? The 10 year old model? If you are serious with stock, you really should consider buying a newer model.

« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2015, 04:32 »
0
Unfortunately I don't have budget for buying the new camera  :) , so I need to maximise what I have.

Should I post again later without fixing the noise problem? Maybe different reviewer will check the photo.

Thank you very much for your input hansenn

« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2015, 04:39 »
+2
you can try your luck ..... ;)

If I had that kind of camera, I would wait till the weather is perfect (sunny day, no night shots) and try to shoot some new submission shots. Your subjects are ok, also composition and exposure, so....

« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2015, 08:59 »
+2
Firstly I don't know anything about Canstock's particular requirements. So just what I see.  :)


Can't see much noise in any of the shots really, but they're tending to be what I'd call "overprocessed" they look slightly "smeary" in some areas, while being oversharpened where there are edges.
Exposure isn't great on a lot of them IMHO. Rather "flat and grey" lacking mid range contrast. The "shells" (whatever they are) have burnt out highlights, and are otherwise underexposed a bit. White balance is too blue as well.


Seems to me that with an older camera like that you'd probably be better staying away from night shots and so on unless you have exposure spot on "in camera", and know exactly how to process to get the result required by a particular agency.

« Reply #7 on: November 29, 2015, 09:07 »
0
Thank you Difydave for the input. Will take that into consideration for my next shot

« Reply #8 on: November 29, 2015, 11:59 »
+2
Now I see you submitted them at Canstock.

Forget that agency for now. Try to concentrate on the big ones, to start with shutterstock.

« Reply #9 on: November 29, 2015, 13:03 »
0
Dreamstime just accepted all photos. I will try shutterstock  for sure hansenn

« Reply #10 on: November 29, 2015, 13:33 »
0
good luck!

they also have an active forum, also good to ask for critique

« Reply #11 on: November 29, 2015, 14:02 »
+1
Now I see you submitted them at Canstock.

Forget that agency for now. Try to concentrate on the big ones, to start with shutterstock.

well said hansenn.
ss is the only place you earn money. and whatever is rejected by ss, you can be sure will be accepted everywhere else . if you dare, leave only the approved ones with ss, so you don't cannibalize your work.
and maybe after awhile, when these are not getting downloaded in ss,
then you can give them to the rest of the world :)

what i say this is that, once your earners get you money at ss, it will continue to make money for you, so you won't want to cannibalize these giving them elsewhere.
but for the non-starters, give them to everyone else.

best of luck.
hint" ... just stay away from those images with shadows. ss do not like shadows
and tight cropping . isolated images, make sure the white background is white... not off white.
and careful with your wb.

that's all. whatever, at this stage, take everything ss rejections seriously.
you can improve your work if you accept the approval as standard you maintain,
and the rejection is a hint of what ss does not like.

except for that one reviewer who will reject everything in one single swoop.
what that happens, wait a bit, then re-submit and hope you don't get atilla 's evil baby again 8)

but overall, 90% of the reviewers are good ppl.

« Reply #12 on: November 29, 2015, 14:18 »
0
Thanks edutiante_rapide  :)

« Reply #13 on: November 29, 2015, 17:00 »
+3
... but they're tending to be what I'd call "overprocessed" they look slightly "smeary" in some areas, while being oversharpened where there are edges.
Exposure isn't great on a lot of them IMHO. Rather "flat and grey" lacking mid range contrast.

I'd second the overprocessed issue. It's fine to post process your shots (and I'd recommend it as a general rule), but you need a gentler hand.

Taking grotto2. jpg as an example: Long exposure water has that smooth-ish look, but to me, the water in your shots just doesn't look right, even for a 15 second exposure. Plus there are some transitions from blurry to sharp along a diagonal line of the church stone wall that don't look right-the camera couldn't have created that as the wall wasn't moving and there's a constant plane- and some sharpening halos (crunchy crispy areas around edges) that should not be there. It's a shame you cut off the top of the church spire and there's banding in the sky. All of these things will likely not pass muster with Shutterstock, which is what you want to concentrate on, IMO

Good luck

« Reply #14 on: November 29, 2015, 17:32 »
+3
taking the issues mentioned by the previous 2 comments, i will comment on "over-processing".
the thing is these days with digital cameras, you don't need to guess if you had a good shot or not like in the old days of film.
you can shoot all day or night until you get the correct exposure .
so, this is what you should be doing... your homework to get the best exposure of any scene.
shoot, bracket, and take it home to inspect your best combo of shutterspeed and f stop at the optimum ISO .. usually 100, or 200 depending on your camera.

then this optimum exposure will not require you to do any more post processing except for colour balance and spotting or fringe-removal.
you can then have yourself a nice clean image that is not "over"processed.

don't waste time rescue  a bad image due to poor lighting or incorrect exposure. re shoot.
you are not in a situation where it is a once in a lifetime shot like say.. the eclipse of the moon or whatever.  always go for the best exposure and the least post processing.

you will then get into a habit of this workflow and see less rejections.

« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2015, 17:45 »
0
... but they're tending to be what I'd call "overprocessed" they look slightly "smeary" in some areas, while being oversharpened where there are edges.
Exposure isn't great on a lot of them IMHO. Rather "flat and grey" lacking mid range contrast.

I'd second the overprocessed issue. It's fine to post process your shots (and I'd recommend it as a general rule), but you need a gentler hand.

Taking grotto2. jpg as an example: Long exposure water has that smooth-ish look, but to me, the water in your shots just doesn't look right, even for a 15 second exposure. Plus there are some transitions from blurry to sharp along a diagonal line of the church stone wall that don't look right-the camera couldn't have created that as the wall wasn't moving and there's a constant plane- and some sharpening halos (crunchy crispy areas around edges) that should not be there. It's a shame you cut off the top of the church spire and there's banding in the sky. All of these things will likely not pass muster with Shutterstock, which is what you want to concentrate on, IMO

Good luck

Maybe there is some shifting of one of the photo. I used HDR to obtain all the detail. I will try to tone down my processing in the future. thank you Jo ann  :)

« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2015, 17:48 »
0
taking the issues mentioned by the previous 2 comments, i will comment on "over-processing".
the thing is these days with digital cameras, you don't need to guess if you had a good shot or not like in the old days of film.
you can shoot all day or night until you get the correct exposure .
so, this is what you should be doing... your homework to get the best exposure of any scene.
shoot, bracket, and take it home to inspect your best combo of shutterspeed and f stop at the optimum ISO .. usually 100, or 200 depending on your camera.

then this optimum exposure will not require you to do any more post processing except for colour balance and spotting or fringe-removal.
you can then have yourself a nice clean image that is not "over"processed.

don't waste time rescue  a bad image due to poor lighting or incorrect exposure. re shoot.
you are not in a situation where it is a once in a lifetime shot like say.. the eclipse of the moon or whatever.  always go for the best exposure and the least post processing.

you will then get into a habit of this workflow and see less rejections.

I really need to recalibrate my post processing style again for microstock. I am so get used to process all into HDR.
Thanks

« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2015, 18:36 »
+2
taking the issues mentioned by the previous 2 comments, i will comment on "over-processing".
the thing is these days with digital cameras, you don't need to guess if you had a good shot or not like in the old days of film.
you can shoot all day or night until you get the correct exposure .
so, this is what you should be doing... your homework to get the best exposure of any scene.
shoot, bracket, and take it home to inspect your best combo of shutterspeed and f stop at the optimum ISO .. usually 100, or 200 depending on your camera.

then this optimum exposure will not require you to do any more post processing except for colour balance and spotting or fringe-removal.
you can then have yourself a nice clean image that is not "over"processed.

don't waste time rescue  a bad image due to poor lighting or incorrect exposure. re shoot.
you are not in a situation where it is a once in a lifetime shot like say.. the eclipse of the moon or whatever.  always go for the best exposure and the least post processing.

you will then get into a habit of this workflow and see less rejections.

As long as you are in a controlled environment that's ok.
But go out and shoot some wildlife, you'll see that it's not so easy...
Nowadays you can achieve a lot with decent post processing, and I have shots with ISO 3200 accepted...

aly

« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2015, 19:35 »
0
Looking at all the images I feel that they may be brighter as SS does not seem to like dull  pics, from  my experience. Also if you use HDR    I was aware it was a no no as I used it a lot prior to becoming a SS contributor.  Now I shoot in RAW and process very minimally and nature , flowers and animals as well as vectors are mostly well accepted. Just keep on trying it's the only way to improve.

« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2015, 04:55 »
+1
Continuing the suggestions in this thread I applied for Shutterstock.

They Accepted 9 out of 10 (8 HDR photos)  :)

This is my still very small portfolio in Shutterstock. Please give some suggestions:

http://www.shutterstock.com/g/pramio+garson

Thank you guys.

« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2015, 15:36 »
+1
Its good that you got them accepted. I wouldnt have bet on it. I see smears and overprosessing in all of them. Like someone said before.
I dont know if it comes from the camera (lack of resolution) or if it is an photoshop induced artefact.
Look for the smears in the out of focus areas, such as on leaves, stones or trunks.

Comments on the snow picture:
 light of the lamps burn out, so the time of the day is wrong on the photo, you need to time it so you can expose ambient light at the same step as the street lights. In this case you shot too late, if its an evening photo.
There is a terrible lack of resolution on the green end of the bench, smears.
The snow is not resolved enough, there are no details or shadows where there should be. That comes both from quality of light, lack of contrast and camera resolution. It could maybe have helped if you had falshed the snow from the side or painted with light in a long exposure, so you got some contrasts into the snow.

« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2015, 16:16 »
0
Its good that you got them accepted. I wouldnt have bet on it. I see smears and overprosessing in all of them. Like someone said before.
I dont know if it comes from the camera (lack of resolution) or if it is an photoshop induced artefact.
Look for the smears in the out of focus areas, such as on leaves, stones or trunks.

Comments on the snow picture:
 light of the lamps burn out, so the time of the day is wrong on the photo, you need to time it so you can expose ambient light at the same step as the street lights. In this case you shot too late, if its an evening photo.
There is a terrible lack of resolution on the green end of the bench, smears.
The snow is not resolved enough, there are no details or shadows where there should be. That comes both from quality of light, lack of contrast and camera resolution. It could maybe have helped if you had falshed the snow from the side or painted with light in a long exposure, so you got some contrasts into the snow.

Agree with your suggestion JPSDK. Thank you.



« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2015, 16:55 »
+1
Unfortunately I don't have budget for buying the new camera  :) , so I need to maximise what I have.


Don't worry -the D80 is perfectly capable of producing images that get accepted and sell at stock agencies. I bought mine in 2007 and it is still going strong :) Congratulations at getting accepted at Shutterstock. Regards, David.

« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2015, 17:04 »
0
Unfortunately I don't have budget for buying the new camera  :) , so I need to maximise what I have.


Don't worry -the D80 is perfectly capable of producing images that get accepted and sell at stock agencies. I bought mine in 2007 and it is still going strong :) Congratulations at getting accepted at Shutterstock. Regards, David.

Thanks David  :)

« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2015, 17:08 »
0
But go out and shoot some wildlife, you'll see that it's not so easy...

That comment attracted my attention, Dirkr, because I shoot wildlife and I agree with what you wrote. It also made me want to see your work, which I just did on DT.

Very nice wildlife images!! Your portfolio is much like mine, except the critters we shoot live on opposite sides of the globe and have very different names and looks. Some day, I hope to have the chance to shoot wildlife Down Under.  8)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
7025 Views
Last post September 01, 2010, 17:12
by FD
9 Replies
2440 Views
Last post October 17, 2011, 10:03
by FD
58 Replies
11247 Views
Last post August 26, 2015, 18:10
by Alfa156Melb
23 Replies
5772 Views
Last post March 25, 2014, 13:35
by Goofy
6 Replies
1731 Views
Last post July 25, 2014, 05:10
by hairybiker777

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors