Author Topic: My first flower.... (Read 6984 times)

chellyar · « **on:** March 29, 2007, 04:26 »

I know it's a reviewers worst nightmare, the flower shot, and I've resisted the temptation to upload any for the last couple of years since I started doing microstock, but I finally broke down and uploaded a macro flower shot.

Got approved on stockxpert so far, so it can't be that bad, given they have my highest rejection ratio by a long shot...

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #1 on:** March 29, 2007, 07:31 »

I agree with StockXpert, thats a nice one

RSI Hospitalera · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2007, 08:03 »

This reviewers worst nightmare are bad keywords, not flowers

Imho as a submitter flowers GET approved as long as they are technically perfect and properly keyworded and sell pretty well also. As a reviewer I approve every flower that meets the above criteria. A word to key wording (pun intended) it helps enourmsly if you know the correct name of the flower, ideally also the scientific name... SY

admart01 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2007, 08:26 »

I would agree that if xpt accepted a flower shot it is probably a very good flower shot. I show no restraint in photographing and uploading flower shots. They, along with autumn leaves (and, oddly my husband staining our deck), are my best producers. I enjoy looking at flower shots and making money from them

BTW, that's shot of yours had wonderful light and creamy colors. BOL

chellyar · « **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2007, 05:38 »

:-).

maybe I should do more flower shots...

I don't know the latin name for this one though, its from our garden, shot inside under a softbox. I was actually trying to get a photo of a praying matis I'd 'chilled' and stuck on the flower, but it recovered quicker than I thought it would, and did a runner.... So I went with the flower by itself.

rinderart · « **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2007, 10:27 »

That old addage about no more flowers or sunsets is really false, as a reviewer myself, I'll take them If there different and quite good. No problem. I think the addage should be no more "Snapshots" of flowers or sunsets.

chellyar · « **Reply #6 on:** April 07, 2007, 19:05 »

FYI.

this just got approved on DT, making it a clean sweep with all the sites I'm on... Only about 30% of my images get a clean-sweep approval, so I might have to submit more flowers... Sorry to all the reviewers out there.

osiris59 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2007, 06:42 »

I've a lot of flower pictures which were approved without any problem in my portfolios at several agencies. And I have to say that some of them sell very well.

ptlee · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2007, 11:29 »

Hmmm... flowers? What a great idea

!

leaf · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2007, 15:08 »

oh hey flowers - why didn't i think of that. I am going out to shoot a few

actually i was thinking of doing almost that. My wife has a cactus that is flowering... perhaps there isn't TOO many of those

: yep I was right. only 951 results for 'cactus flower' on istock

rjmiz · « **Reply #10 on:** April 08, 2007, 17:43 »

Gee, I don't think its that spectacular myself, but congratulations on finally getting a flower approved.

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** April 08, 2007, 18:11 »

you tryin' to pick fights again??

i think most people appreciate the odd critique here and there, but a negative comment is usually followed by some way you think it should be better... or improved upon.

pr2is · « **Reply #12 on:** April 08, 2007, 19:46 »

Not a flower per se but fairly close to "forbidden territory"... Not having any single flower on any of sites and never even attempting, I just had to try and submit this, will see what happens

rjmiz · « **Reply #13 on:** April 08, 2007, 20:30 »

"you tryin' to pick fights again??"

The answer is NO I am not.

And so I will conform to your wishes, and try to be more constructive in my critique.

1. The original appears to hace a yellow colorcast to it. This is sometimes caused by the cameras' sensor, or wrong WB
2. The image would be more interesting if it had some focal point of interest.

Now This is my opinion...please note I am NOT an expert in any way shape or form.
I have included the same image below with the colorcast removed, and I think it now looks better.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #14 on:** April 08, 2007, 20:52 »

Err . . . it's a flower. How can you discern a yellow cast in a flower? Unless you know the botanical features of the plant, you can't know what the coloring is "supposed" to be.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Quote from: rjmiz on April 08, 2007, 20:30

1. The original appears to hace a yellow colorcast to it. This is sometimes caused by the cameras' sensor, or wrong WB

rjmiz · « **Reply #15 on:** April 08, 2007, 21:01 »

The way I determine a color cast is finding the images white 255, black 0, and neutral gray 128 RGB.
Then use curves in PS to make the adjustments

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #16 on:** April 08, 2007, 21:48 »

I see. The problem with this method is that not all images have a true white. If the flower doesn't have a true white, then there would be no yellow cast. Also, you're working with a reduced-size jpeg, so the colors could be affected by compression artifacts.

Chellyar, how does the color match up with the flower? Is Bob's adjustment accurate?

Quote from: rjmiz on April 08, 2007, 21:01

The way I determine a color cast is finding the images white 255, black 0, and neutral gray 128 RGB.
Then use curves in PS to make the adjustments

rjmiz · « **Reply #17 on:** April 09, 2007, 08:14 »

I'm sorry...I disagree. There is no trouble with this method. It is taught universally.

I just did a google search for "removing color cast with curves". this was the first
site that came up in the search. It is the exact method taught to me years ago.

The only thing with this tutorial is they don't show how to determine the gray point.
However, all who read it would still benefit greatly from this tutorial.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/digitaldarkroom/lessons/removecolorcast.html

Eco · « **Reply #18 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:15 »

Well, let’s assume the original have a color cast I still like its color more than the "corrected" image. I flower like that needs to have a warm color.

chellyar · « **Reply #19 on:** April 09, 2007, 14:35 »

Quote from: rjmiz on April 08, 2007, 17:43

Gee, I don't think its that spectacular myself, but congratulations on finally getting a flower approved.

It wasn't so much 'finally getting' one approved.. I had never submitted one as it's the classic silly stock photo, and thought it was odd that it would be approved on all sites after reading the doom and gloom about them from sites and some reviewers...

Took the image while chasing a big praying mantis, I think it's the only flower shot I've taken in about 18 months, I normally avoid them, unless it's daffodil catalogue shots, but that's a whole other cup of coffee!!!

chellyar · « **Reply #20 on:** April 09, 2007, 14:40 »

Cor a debate on colour cast no less....

For what it's worth, it was shot auto-WB on a 20D, so very likely that an all yellow subject (that is full frame) would have a yellow cast, the Auto-wb on the 20D seems to sway to the warmer colours under natural light.

Hope you folks all had a good easter.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My first flower.... (Read 6984 times)

chellyar

Freezingpictures

RSI Hospitalera

admart01

chellyar

rinderart

chellyar

osiris59

ptlee

leaf

rjmiz

leaf

pr2is

rjmiz

Greg Boiarsky

rjmiz

Greg Boiarsky

rjmiz

Eco

chellyar

chellyar

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors