Author Topic: Rejection: (Read 9156 times)

andych · « **on:** July 26, 2010, 12:54 »

Hi all

I am new to microstock and submitted some images to Dreamstime, expecting some rejections. Of the twelve I submitted, they refused 6 and of those, I can agree with 4 - partly testing their submission criteria (model release for people with backs to camera?).

One of the images they refused for the following reasons:

- Lack of composition. Please visit the Stock Photo Utilities section of our site or the message boards for more information on how to produce stock-oriented images.
- Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure.

I didn't think it was a composition issue, so I corrected the lighting, boosting the contrast and generally giving it a makeover. I resubmitted it failed just on poor lighting

Your comments are most welcome, is it worth tweaking and resubmitting?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andym8y/4830824287/# [nofollow]

Magnum · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2010, 13:13 »

It´s a good shot so I would try to fix it. Stock agencies likes bright images, almost overexposed.

donding · « **Reply #2 on:** July 26, 2010, 13:26 »

Just go to be careful with noise if you lighten it to much.

andych · « **Reply #3 on:** July 26, 2010, 14:03 »

Quote from: Magnum on July 26, 2010, 13:13

It´s a good shot so I would try to fix it. Stock agencies likes bright images, almost overexposed.

Hmm, food for thought. If I increase the exposure it'll risk burining out the clouds and the snow. There will be a limit, spose its finding it and adjusting accordingly, but watching out for noise as Donding points out. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Magnum · « **Reply #4 on:** July 26, 2010, 14:12 »

Brighten the whole image, then you historybrush back the sky. Very likely there will be noise, I don´t know how the original looks like.

Snufkin · « **Reply #5 on:** July 26, 2010, 14:17 »

I would go and shoot the castle again, before sunset, after sunrise or in broad daylight with a deep blue sky and fluffy clouds.
If it is illuminated at night, then a blue hour shot would be cool.
The point is not to get pics accepted but to sell them multiple times.
The reworked version is IMHO better, but still it is not very "stocky".

The foreground seems somewhat weak too, as far as I can tell DT reviewers don't like too much copyspace, they tend to reject such images for "lack of composition".

Magnum · « **Reply #6 on:** July 26, 2010, 14:33 »

Reshoot is the best option. If it´s possible ofcourse. I wish I had that chance on a few shots myself, three years later and wiser $:-\$

And it´s pretty hard to sell at all if it´s not accepted, Tom

andych · « **Reply #7 on:** July 26, 2010, 14:34 »

Quote from: Tom on July 26, 2010, 14:17

I would go and shoot the castle again, before sunset, after sunrise or in broad daylight with a deep blue sky and fluffy clouds.
If it is illuminated at night, then a blue hour shot would be cool.
The point is not to get pics accepted but to sell them multiple times.
The reworked version is IMHO better, but still it is not very "stocky".

The foreground seems somewhat weak too, as far as I can tell DT reviewers don't like too much copyspace, they tend to reject such images for "lack of composition".

I would love to go back but have moved country since, but it is an area I would like to go back to and get some shots in better conditions. I agree, the foreground seems weak and IMO it would have been but for the footprints and the copyspace can be cropped out by the editor (Is it DT the requires the full image and not crops?). This is where photography becomes subjective and what one person likes, another dislikes.

Snufkin · « **Reply #8 on:** July 26, 2010, 14:40 »

It looked like a very picturesque location so I did a search for Bamburgh on DT.
Surprise, surprise, the competitors have already done exactly what I wrote in my previous post.

I recommend to the OP to have a look at those pics and answer to himself if he can come up with a shot that could compete with the images already available.

Snufkin · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2010, 14:47 »

If one cannot revisit a particular location, it is a good idea to move on, find another place, wait for favorable conditions and submit pictures that can compete with what's already online. Tweaking weak photos is IMHO a waste of time. (I used to do it myself in 2008)

Dreamframer · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2010, 15:34 »

Lighten the image on the left side. It's pretty dark there. Also, lighten the whole image a bit, and increase saturation just a little bit.
Be careful not to make too much noise if you don't have some noise reduction software.

FD · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2010, 16:21 »

Quote from: andych on July 26, 2010, 12:54

Your comments are most welcome, is it worth tweaking and resubmitting?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andym8y/4830824287/#

Yes. Hint: soft light layers.

FD · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2010, 16:29 »

Quote from: andych on July 26, 2010, 14:03

Hmm, food for thought. If I increase the exposure it'll risk burining out the clouds and the snow.

Hint: use a very steady tripod and do exposure bracketing. Put shots in several layers and erase selectively. It's called HDR-light. Some contrasts in landscapes are just too large to bridge by the best cam possible.

You can also take several exposures within an hour but the clouds will differ. If the castle is lit at night, you can do a night shot and replace the castle in twilight by the night shot. Should be gloomy and unreal (like all HDR) but very appealing.

ap · « **Reply #13 on:** July 26, 2010, 16:31 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 26, 2010, 16:21

Quote from: andych on July 26, 2010, 12:54
Your comments are most welcome, is it worth tweaking and resubmitting?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andym8y/4830824287/#

Yes. Hint: soft light layers.

i like this version. how did you tweek it?

andych,
i checked the dt versions and none had your expansive beach foreground without seaweed somewhere. so, this is unique in it own way.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #14 on:** July 26, 2010, 16:37 »

Recently I submit images like this, and they get accepted without problems. Someone will say they are overfiltered, but unless you are messing with tiny details on the image you should be just fine.

You don't have to saturate colors so much. This was just an example. But I often do it and they don't get rejected.

FD · « **Reply #15 on:** July 26, 2010, 16:43 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on July 26, 2010, 16:37

Recently I submit images like this, and they get accepted without problems. Someone will say they are overfiltered, but unless you are messing with tiny details on the image you should be just fine. You don't have to saturate colors so much. This was just an example. But I often do it and they don't get rejected.

I like your edits too. The beach is kindof empty but there can be done a lot with the clouds.

FD · « **Reply #16 on:** July 26, 2010, 16:51 »

Quote from: ap on July 26, 2010, 16:31

i like this version. how did you tweek it?
i checked the dt versions and none had your expansive beach foreground without seaweed somewhere. so, this is unique in it own way.

Soft light layers. Make a new layer on top and change it from "normal" to "soft light". Then add a gradient from bottom to half up, colors white>nothing (transparent). Another layer for the clouds: on top black to nothing near the horizon. Then play with the transparency.

You should be aware that this kind of images is not in demand in commercial stock though. The competition in HDR is very stiff and there are some great artists around you'll have to compete with.

Check the port of Bart Heirweg : http://www.bartheirweg.com/portfolio

ap · « **Reply #17 on:** July 26, 2010, 17:04 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 26, 2010, 16:51

You should be aware that this kind of images is not in demand in commercial stock though. The competition in HDR is very stiff and there are some great artists around you'll have to compete with.

but your version is probably more commercial than the original.

thanks for the instruction! i hope i don't turn into a 'soft light' monster on all my old photos that i am now going to tweek.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2010, 17:08 »

play a little with soft light and overlay mode and see what suits better.

FD · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2010, 22:23 »

Quote from: ap on July 26, 2010, 17:04

thanks for the instruction! i hope i don't turn into a 'soft light' monster on all my old photos that i am now going to tweek.

There are more tricks that don't add noise. But I was so stupid to give the soft light away. Shame on me ;-) Keep da secret, will ya?

I also use it on models to get that 'special' glow.

ap · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2010, 22:33 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 26, 2010, 22:23

There are more tricks that don't add noise. But I was so stupid to give the soft light away. Shame on me ;-) Keep da secret, will ya? I also use it on models to get that 'special' glow.

yes, we need to keep these secrets to ourselves.

unfortunately this is a public board.

i'll try it on my models too, in addition to landscapes.

andych · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2010, 22:38 »

Quote from: FD-regular on July 26, 2010, 22:23

There are more tricks that don't add noise. But I was so stupid to give the soft light away. Shame on me ;-) Keep da secret, will ya? I also use it on models to get that 'special' glow.

Thanks for the feedback everybody, never thought of using layers like that to enhance a landscape so will give it a try.

FD · « **Reply #22 on:** July 27, 2010, 12:20 »

Quote from: ap on July 26, 2010, 22:33

yes, we need to keep these secrets to ourselves. unfortunately this is a public board.

I know

For the OP, I'm not sure if you got it all. A working example says so much more. Also for everybody else interested, I put the PSD with all layers in my public dropbox. Feel free to download (you don't need a Dropbox account for it):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8852448/4830824287_e37821703c_b.psd
Beware that after flattening the layers, there will be a lot of added noise and blobs in the upper left dark clouds. Don't use noise reduction on it but a simple Gaussian blur of 2.0 or more. Do that in a separate layer and selectively erase in the original top layer with a 50pct soft brush until the noise is gone. The blur doesn't matter there since the original clouds were blurred already.

In the PSD, toggle the visibility of the several layers one by one to see how they work. In particular, have a look at the green coloring.

If it is in any way useful to you and you don't have a Dropbox account yet, please consider using my referral link signing up for a free account: https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg4NTI0NDg5
I normally don't post referral links unless I can give something in return.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rejection: (Read 9156 times)

andych

Magnum

donding

andych

Magnum

Snufkin

Magnum

andych

Snufkin

Snufkin

Dreamframer

FD

FD

ap

Dreamframer

FD

FD

ap

Dreamframer

FD

ap

andych

FD

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors