Author Topic: Feedback on a shot from a series (Read 5911 times)

gloch · « **on:** November 13, 2015, 14:43 »

Could I get some feedback on a shot that came from a series I recently shot? I ask because they were rejected from SS and wanted to get some other opinions on where it needs to improve.

marthamarks · « **Reply #1 on:** November 13, 2015, 14:56 »

What is the focal point of this shot? Who would want to buy it?

gloch · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2015, 15:12 »

Thanks.

You bring up good points and I'll have to think about that. However, I was more hoping for technical feedback. Does it look soft? Lighting problems?

-gl

sigalavaca · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2015, 15:14 »

there is a lot of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) on the rocks to the left of the models

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2015, 16:06 »

The CA on the rock edges just shouldn't be there - Lightroom will automatically take care of that for you. I'm guessing that's not why they rejected it.

Did they reject it for lighting? SS doesn't like prominent shadows and although the light is soft, there is a large area of dark rock in the foreground that they may have taken exception to, especially because there's a light area right next to it.The white T shirt's a little gray.

On the other hand, if they rejected it for focus there's nothing to say. Their automated pre-screening software tags masses of stuff as out of focus and if you get a reviewer who just follows the software's lead, perfectly good images get rejected.

Here's what I would have done in post - very quick and dirty but just to give you an idea

Pixart · « **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2015, 16:40 »

I can't see without zooming in but what do the shoes look like? Is that a label on the left girl, and I've had sneakers rejected because of the design similar to the one on the right - even when logos are removed.

gloch · « **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2015, 17:04 »

No logo on the shoes.

gloch · « **Reply #7 on:** November 13, 2015, 17:05 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 13, 2015, 16:06

The CA on the rock edges just shouldn't be there - Lightroom will automatically take care of that for you. I'm guessing that's not why they rejected it.

Did they reject it for lighting? SS doesn't like prominent shadows and although the light is soft, there is a large area of dark rock in the foreground that they may have taken exception to, especially because there's a light area right next to it.The white T shirt's a little gray.

On the other hand, if they rejected it for focus there's nothing to say. Their automated pre-screening software tags masses of stuff as out of focus and if you get a reviewer who just follows the software's lead, perfectly good images get rejected.

Here's what I would have done in post - very quick and dirty but just to give you an idea

Lighting and focus was mentioned on almost all of the photos. I just wanted to get a check from experience contributors as to whether these are redeemable.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #8 on:** November 13, 2015, 17:09 »

Good pic in general - can be better without that rock in upper left corner from composition point of view. (you can clone it out and replace it with some sky).
Other than that - who knows, reviews are so subjective. Maybe reviewer didn't like the models.

VB inc · « **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2015, 20:49 »

Not talking from technical stand point but more of visual composition. This image can be improved by the girls poses. Think contrapposto where one leg has brunt of the weight. Right now it is not appealing and sort of confusing. I think the girl is bending down and pointing to the rock formation but it seems like she is passing gas. (hehe sorry but its just a awkward pose) The shot would be much better in my opinion if you shot at a 3/4 angle from the back instead of fully back view. Also, If you brought them slightly closer to the camera to make them fill a bit more of the image and took 2-3 steps to the left of where you shot this image. The nice rock formation in the middle of the background would separate itself from the other rock formations to help stand out and to showcase thats what she is pointing to. At least thats what I think she is pointing to. You have to think of yourself as the director of this image and everything matters.

Difydave · « **Reply #10 on:** November 14, 2015, 11:46 »

If the original was big enough I'd have cropped it quite hard as well as doing something like Jo Ann's alteration. Crop enough to make the girls "big" in the rh side of frame, and put the arch just to left of centre, just leaving the one angled bit of rock on the left. Sky and ground cropped to keep more or less the original proportions.
Still a big area of rock on the ground there, but would give a much stronger subject.
Just my take.

pkphotos · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2015, 15:58 »

I don't see anything wrong with the photo. A large percentage of photos are rejected for reasons that don't make any logical sense.

gloch · « **Reply #12 on:** November 16, 2015, 11:44 »

Thank you for the feedback. I will revisit the post work and resubmit. Nuthin's gonna get me down!

-gl

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** November 30, 2015, 10:25 »

Quote from: Sarah Parker on November 30, 2015, 10:21

I want to deal with macro photography. I have a EOS REBEL T2i and would like a help on how to start looking for a macro lens. I thought to http://www.macroringflash.com/canon-mr-14ex-ii/ but I'm not sure if it's the right decision. Thoughts?

Start a separate thread?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #14 on:** November 30, 2015, 12:47 »

as mentioned theres fringing on the rocks and the shoes seem to have a logo and for me the clothing doesnt match the scene. if you want to attract the big outdoor retailers the scene needs to make sense. want to sell this a lot then i suggest dressign the models as if they were properly prepared for a hike into the dessert or grand canyon. it all looks too casual to me. serious hikers do not wear flimsy sneakers and a jumper when climbing rocks. the shot will get a few sales like this but it has a lot more potential

malamus · « **Reply #15 on:** December 29, 2015, 06:08 »

Potential for a fantastic image.

The first thing I noticed which nobody has mentioned is the girls are under exposed. My thoughts were confirmed when I looked at the camera data. As you may know, pattern metering evaluates the whole scene. as a result, the bright day has lowered the exposure of the girls (which are the focus) and foreground. Personally I would have evaluated on the girls with spot or centre weighted (or canons equivalent) then brought back the light bg a little. fill flash could have helped but thats not my style .

Also, on the image i downloaded, something nasty is happening with compression of the file, see the artifacting on the legs.

Other notable points:

CA
I would crop in a little
adjust the pose
depending on your situation, reshoot on a blue sky day

finally, WOW WHAT A BEAUTIFUL LOCATION, so much potential for inspiring imagery, if I had access to that location I would be shooting it for months!

authenticcreations · « **Reply #16 on:** December 29, 2015, 06:46 »

Hello all,

Shutterstock doesnt reject on subject. Besides that it looks great.

The first thing i see is that the girls and rocks are little underexposed. To fix that you can reduce shadows in lightroom. I think on Dreamstime and other agencies it would not be a problem..... i just know that SS is very sensitive with that.

Mirco

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Feedback on a shot from a series (Read 5911 times)

gloch

marthamarks

gloch

sigalavaca

Jo Ann Snover

Pixart

gloch

gloch

Elenathewise

VB inc

Difydave

pkphotos

gloch

Sean Locke Photography

Microstockphoto

malamus

authenticcreations

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors