second reject

chl

« on: August 24, 2009, 06:44 »

#link

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


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2009, 07:22 »

#link

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


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

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

#link

Dear Ivan,

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

Many Thanks


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2009, 11:55 »

#link

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. Grin


« Last Edit: August 24, 2009, 11:56 by RacePhoto »	Ignore \| Logged

tobkatrina

« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2009, 18:08 »

#link

If I were the reviewer, I would have rejected it too, sorry Sad

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


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2009, 04:15 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

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

#link

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


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2009, 16:41 »

#link

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?


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

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

#link

Quote from: chl on August 25, 2009, 07:18

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


	Ignore \| Logged

lbarn

Premium Member

« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2009, 20:30 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

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

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

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

#link

Quote from: chl on August 26, 2009, 08:06

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


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2009, 04:17 »

#link

Thank you whitechild. These few days the weather condition in my place is couldy. I will shoot when sunny day to compare the difference


	Ignore \| Logged

Dook

« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2009, 06:26 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2009, 10:53 »

#link

Below are few of my other photos links. Please feel free to comment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3867198075/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3867952202/#in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3867940606/#in/photostream/


	Ignore \| Logged

Dook

« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2009, 11:47 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2009, 18:01 »

#link

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 Sad

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....


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

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

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2009, 04:19 »

#link

Yes, all this is possible in GIMP, just maybe requires little more time to do the same.


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

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

#link

Dear Ivan,

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


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #20 on: September 02, 2009, 06:15 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

araminta

« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2009, 07:15 »

#link

Whitechild... you have a lot of patience Wink

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 Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

chl

« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2009, 08:54 »

#link

Thank you for all the patient to answer my question. Sorry if I'm cause any inconvinience


	Ignore \| Logged

JerryL5

« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2009, 10:07 »

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2009, 16:38 »

#link

Quote from: chl on September 03, 2009, 08:54

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: second reject

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results