pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photo critique please  (Read 4410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 14, 2011, 02:34 »
0
Hello, i'm new to istock and trying to figure the quality out.
Can you please check and inform if the following 2 picture is acceptable or not?
Thank you.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_2884-2drop.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_5099-2drop.jpg


« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2011, 02:48 »
0
I think the money would go through, though the WB may be just a tiny bit too blue. I wonder what it is I am seeing next to the bow on top of the box. Iis that a bit of background that hasn't been properly isolated? I would reckon on an "isolation too feathered or too rough" rejection for that one.

« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2011, 03:21 »
0
Thank you for the comments.

About the box, i couldn't understand the problematic  part you mention.
Can you please advise more detailed? :)

« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2011, 03:39 »
0
Thank you for the comments.

About the box, i couldn't understand the problematic  part you mention.
Can you please advise more detailed? :)

On the top of the bow on the right hand side I think I can see what looks like a shadow that could be from poor isolation of the background (i.e you've had a darker background that you've tried to fade out to create white). It's hard to tell without seeing a 100% version. If I'm right, istock would reject it for that.

« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2011, 04:17 »
0
The Box:
You also need to focus to the correct distance: the photo with the box is focused in the closest corner. A much better focus would be in the bow knot. Now the knot is blurry and it bothers me, also you have depth of field in the front of the object that you don't use.
The ribbon is a bit loose.
There's also a lump of background colour bottom right.
There is a turquoise "halo" in the edges.
By removingthe biggest dust spots (maybe a dozen) would be time well spent, it only takes a few seconds.

The Money:
Why are almost all of the money upside down?
Lighting could be more interesting / better.
Some of the money are used and a bit dirty. In a shot like this I think a decision should be made: either new clean money or money that looks clearly used.
A shot of this kind should be really, really good because sites arealredy full of pictures of euros already.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 04:20 by Perry »

« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2011, 04:36 »
0
"By removingthe biggest dust spots (maybe a dozen) would be time well spent, it only takes a few seconds."
You mean the sensor dusts?

Thank you for the critiques, you helped a lot!
I won't upload these. Will try to improve and reshoot images.

« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2011, 04:41 »
0
"By removingthe biggest dust spots (maybe a dozen) would be time well spent, it only takes a few seconds."
You mean the sensor dusts?

No, just white dust spots on the box. Look the image at 100% and clone out the spots (you can always find more by magnifying even more, but IMHO that's useless) There are only something between a dozen and 20 spots that bother most.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 04:42 by Perry »

« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2011, 04:44 »
0
Ok that's clear now :)

I read that sometimes istock does not accept currencies. I wonder these would be acceptable? (Maybe after impoving light as you suggested above)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23976648/IMG_5093-1drop.jpg

« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2011, 08:44 »
0
I'd be surprised if any of these make it through the IS application.

The last money shot specifically looks too soft IMO.

And not only that, it's the creative side that iStock wants to see.

Anyone can shoot a gift box over white or bills of money on a table.

Look at the shots on iStock with these subjects and see how you can improve those shots!

« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2011, 09:01 »
0
Improper isolation on the box. There are stray pixels all around the edges, but especially at he bottom where the ribbon meets the base. It would never be accepted at iStock.

Here's how you check it: Open a Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer and move the Brightness slider all the way to the left. Zoom in and you'll see floating pixels.

« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2011, 09:29 »
0
yep box wont go in, do it again, feather the selection

« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2011, 09:42 »
0
Here's how you check it: Open a Brightness/Contrast adjustment layer and move the Brightness slider all the way to the left. Zoom in and you'll see floating pixels.
Thank you for the tip.
Is there a way to correct these floating pixels or need to shoot a new image?


I am trying to learn the acceptable quality for now. I hope in future i will shoot more creative things.
Thanks for all ideas!

« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2011, 10:12 »
0
Take your pen tool and carefully outline the edge of the box. You've just created a path. Save the path. Convert the path to a selection. Feather the selection 2 or 3 pixels. Go to Layer>New>Layer via Copy. Now you have a clean edge all the way around the box. Create a new white layer under your new Box layer, and merge.

By the way, go back to your Path and convert it to a Clipping Path. Isolated objects with Clipping Paths are much sought after.

« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2011, 10:17 »
0
By the way, go back to your Path and convert it to a Clipping Path. Isolated objects with Clipping Paths are much sought after.

do you have any proof of that? lately I found that just a few use it, dont know if it is a better deal to designer, it has no work thats the real fact but are really more search in that?

« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2011, 10:33 »
0
Yes, I have proof. Some of my sales result from searches the have "clipping path" in them. When I buy from microstock, if given the choice between two similar images I will always choose the one with a clipping path. It's just less work. Besides, if you have already gone to the trouble of creating an isolation with a path, why not include the path? It's not any extra work.

« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2011, 10:49 »
0
Yes, I have proof. Some of my sales result from searches the have "clipping path" in them. When I buy from microstock, if given the choice between two similar images I will always choose the one with a clipping path. It's just less work. Besides, if you have already gone to the trouble of creating an isolation with a path, why not include the path? It's not any extra work.

I agree, honestly I have never done it because I was feeling that it was a thing of the past, perhaps should start doing it from now on, thanks for sharing

red

« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2011, 10:55 »
0
Certain designers only use images with clipping paths. I worked for a large firm that produced newspaper inserts, flyers, broadsheets, and other multi-page advertising sections. If the images they purchased did not have paths I had to create them which was very time-consuming (think grocery store ads where great looking fruit and vegetable images are used all the time). Just a note, most sites do not retain the path you created in all sizes of the images they sell, only your originally uploaded image. So, buyers may think that they are getting the path but if they buy certain sizes, the path is stripped out by the size conversion process.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2011, 11:09 »
0
Quote
Certain designers only use images with clipping paths

In creating some of my images I use the pen tool and have a clipping path, but when I save to JPG, the clipping path is lost (I think). What file format and which sites accept uploads with clipping paths? This sounds like a marketplace I am missing!

Steve

« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2011, 11:25 »
0
Here are the steps: Once you create the path, you must Save Path. (Path 1) Then go to the drop down menu in the Paths palette, and click on Clipping Path. You will notice that the title "Path 1" changes to an outline font.

« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2011, 05:32 »
0
Your links are brocken.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5293 Views
Last post September 10, 2009, 20:42
by davey_rocket
6 Replies
1872 Views
Last post May 28, 2011, 17:13
by click_click
8 Replies
2241 Views
Last post May 29, 2011, 19:31
by webbing
14 Replies
2444 Views
Last post May 30, 2011, 15:55
by click_click
2 Replies
1334 Views
Last post June 03, 2011, 19:40
by luissantos84

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors