pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Haha, I am not sure anymore what actually means "poor quality"?? :D  (Read 24084 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2010, 13:00 »
0
I know how it's like to be reviewer, so I know that if you look at images 100% you can't make such mistake. This is one of images that was rejected at FT. It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago. It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.







donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2010, 14:03 »
0
In my opinion I would assume those would be very good stock simply because of all the concerns with global warming. You don't really see alot of those energy source windmills. Don't quite understand where they were coming from on that one.

« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2010, 14:24 »
0
You don't really see alot of those energy source windmills.

They are all around the place wherever I travel. Very easy to shoot. Well covered subject (hey, but what is not...;]). You can certainly see a lot of those.

« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2010, 14:33 »
0
Yes, I'll give you that it may be 'stockworthy', but this looks like a snapshot to me - like you were driving along the highway, saw the turbines, stopped the car, and made a few camera clicks. Looking at it even closer leads me to think that because the turbines aren't all facing the same direction, some of them aren't working - not exactly ideal conditions, don't you think? The minimal effort put into this image is easily apparent, and given the number of almost identical images to this available, as a reviewer I'd have rejected it. Sorry to be so harshly critical, but in my eyes you don't have a leg to stand on by complaining that images like this are rejected. If you want to increase your income, you'll need to put in more effort than you've shown here.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 14:42 by sharply_done »

« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2010, 14:57 »
0
That one is a stock worthy shot (agree with Sharply, it could have been much better) but FT would have rejected it for lack of a property release. It is something that they are very particular about, especially when you are showing the entire plant which makes it easily identifiable. If you obtain a property release it will be accepted. Had you shot the rotor blades only, without the context of the plant, then that would probably have been accepted.

« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2010, 15:32 »
0
Yes, I'll give you that it may be 'stockworthy', but this looks like a snapshot to me - like you were driving along the highway, saw the turbines, stopped the car, and made a few camera clicks. Looking at it even closer leads me to think that because the turbines aren't all facing the same direction, some of them aren't working - not exactly ideal conditions, don't you think? The minimal effort put into this image is easily apparent, and given the number of almost identical images to this available, as a reviewer I'd have rejected it. Sorry to be so harshly critical, but in my eyes you don't have a leg to stand on by complaining that images like this are rejected. If you want to increase your income, you'll need to put in more effort than you've shown here.

You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?

« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2010, 15:41 »
0
The rejection was:
The image contains one or more technical problems:


    * Blurry or out of focus
    * Over/Under exposure
    * Framing problem
    * Over or under saturated colors
    * Problems with contrast
    * Noise or Pixelation
    * Quality of routing
    * Interpolation problem

Obviously some FT reviewers don't know that far objects can be slightly distorted because of warm air rising from the ground, and that this natural phenomenon can't be avoided even if the day is cold if there is a mix of clouds and sun. As we see here, IS, DT and SS reviewers know that. Find me someone who doesn't trust more to IS reviewers that to FT reviewers.

« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2010, 15:45 »
0
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."




RT


« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2010, 15:48 »
0
It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago.
You should really remove your portfolio links before making a statement like that  ;)

It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.

I'd say it has an editorial stock worthiness but agree with sharply_done it has the appearance of a roadside grabshot which is fine for editorial,did you take any others from different perspectives/angles?
To be totally honest I'm surprised you had it accepted at iS and SS as RF without a property release DT however I'm not surprised about.

« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2010, 15:49 »
0
You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?

Yes, I'd say most agencies accept (what I would call) snapshots.
As you well know, just because they're accepted doesn't mean they'll sell, and selling is the name of the game. I know you'll probably come back with something like "I've already made $10 with this", but I'll be surprised if this image earns much more. Count yourself lucky if it does.

« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2010, 15:51 »
0
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Looks like you used your pop up flash.

« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2010, 15:51 »
0
It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago.
You should really remove your portfolio links before making a statement like that  ;)

It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.

I'd say it has an editorial stock worthiness but agree with sharply_done it has the appearance of a roadside grabshot which is fine for editorial,did you take any others from different perspectives/angles?
To be totally honest I'm surprised you had it accepted at iS and SS as RF without a property release DT however I'm not surprised about.

Ok, today it's second popular after dinosaur footprint (which was also rejected by FT :), and accepted by IS, SS...

« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2010, 15:54 »
0
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Looks like you used your pop up flash.

Of course I did. You can't expect a hummingbird to pose for you when you see one standing in the front of you once in several months, especially if it's endangered species. This image was made totally by surprise, and it's worthiness is ecological.

« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2010, 15:56 »
0
There is another ugly image that Ft rejected




RT


« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2010, 15:56 »
0
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

They should have also added that birds shot in captivity require a property release.

Just having a rare subject does not qualify an image as being a good stock image, it's shot sitting on it's perch in a cage using what looks like an on camera flash.

« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2010, 15:58 »
0
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

They should have also added that birds shot in captivity require a property release.

Just having a rare subject does not qualify an image as being a good stock image, it's shot sitting on it's perch in a cage using what looks like an on camera flash.

My God...Who said it was in cage? :D It was outside, in the garden, totally free.

« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2010, 16:00 »
0
You should have captured it.  I hear they're endangered, and likely very valuable!

« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2010, 16:07 »
0
You should have captured it.  I hear they're endangered, and likely very valuable!

:D lol
No, I adore birds.
I raised few crows, one eagle, one awl, one dove and few sparrows when I was a kid, but I let them fly away when they grew enough.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 16:13 by Whitechild »

« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2010, 16:13 »
0
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."


Yes, I'd agree with that reviewer's sentiment, too.

The shot of the bird itself is fine, but the image as a whole needs work. If it was me I'd crop and rotate the image so that the bird was vertical with his beak pointing to the top left - this would give him a reason to be placed where he is. Next I'd get rid of the other branches and clone out the distracting spots on the remaining branch. As a finishing touch I'd make the sky light blue and use levels to make the branch a dark green, which would give the image a nicely strong graphical element. Here's what two minutes in Photoshop can do:
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 16:20 by sharply_done »

RT


« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2010, 16:14 »
0
My God...Who said it was in cage? :D It was outside, in the garden, totally free.

Nobody said it was in a cage, but your shot certainly suggest that it is, there's no wildlife environment included in the shot and these birds are not known for their patience while a photographer walks around taking shots using a flash. If this was shot in the wild why did you use such a harsh flash setting?

« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2010, 16:20 »
0
My God...Who said it was in cage? :D It was outside, in the garden, totally free.

Nobody said it was in a cage, but your shot certainly suggest that it is, there's no wildlife environment included in the shot and these birds are not known for their patience while a photographer walks around taking shots using a flash. If this was shot in the wild why did you use such a harsh flash setting?

The shot was in wild. I have a witness for it. It was in Cactus garden in Palm Springs. The bird was on the branch, right in front of me, because hummingbird feeder was close. I didn't have my SB-800 with me. The bird was there for several seconds, so I made few shots, and the next moment it was gone.

« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2010, 16:23 »
0
What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."


Yes, I'd agree with that reviewer's sentiment, too.

The shot of the bird itself is fine, but the image as a whole needs work. If it was me I'd crop and rotate the image so that the bird was vertical with his beak pointing to the top left - this would give him a reason to be placed where he is. Next I'd get rid of the other branches and clone out the distracting spots on the remaining branch. As a finishing touch I'd make the sky light blue and use levels to make the branch a dark green, which would give the image a nicely strong graphical element. Here's what two minutes in Photoshop can do:


Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.

« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2010, 16:28 »
0
Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.

That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.

« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2010, 16:32 »
0
Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.

That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.

I'm not sure IS would accept the image with so green branch. It looks oversaturated, you must admit it

« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2010, 16:37 »
0
I'm not sure IS would accept the image with so green branch. It looks oversaturated, you must admit it

Gimme a break: I spent two minutes on it - a trivial amount of time and effort.
Look at the point I'm trying to make, not the image.
If you don't change the way you think about your imagery, you are dooming yourself to a low selling portfolio.
Is that what you really want?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
47 Replies
19684 Views
Last post February 04, 2009, 10:54
by Lcjtripod
9 Replies
6352 Views
Last post March 22, 2011, 13:12
by donding
8 Replies
4501 Views
Last post July 29, 2012, 08:00
by OM
6 Replies
2512 Views
Last post August 28, 2014, 11:00
by Ploink
9 Replies
3088 Views
Last post March 15, 2015, 16:42
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle