MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Do I need to adjust my monitor?  (Read 3381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 25, 2009, 16:36 »
0
I got some images reviewed today, and all the shots I took on a beach were rejected. I can see that I should have done some spring cleaning on the beach before this shot (hence the rejection for composition), but I can't really understand that it should be rejected because of a low color profile? My monitor is not the best or easiest to calibrate visually, so it could be the problem. Do I need to get a new monitor, or is the entire problem in the person in front of the computer?
(I didn't see the point in including a 100% sample, since the rejection reasons were color and composition).

If you're feeling a bit grumpy today, you're welcome to point out all the other mistakes in the rest of my portfolio too.


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2009, 16:52 »
0
I don't think it has anything to do with your monitor. Some reviewers pick whatever is closest to represent their rejection reason. Vague , perharps but it's not something we are unaccustomed.
I once had an image rejected because I changed the colour profile. I don't do any post processing out of the ordinary. I never touch the colour profile in camera or in photoshop. It's the same for all the hundreds or even thousands of RAW images that went through my cameras and PS. Still I do get the odd rejection with this reason.
I simply don't bother with it, and write it off as one of those canned responses. No need to waste your energy on just one image. You can produce a lot more with that same wasted energy by moving on and taking more new photos for uploading.

« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2009, 10:09 »
0
Hi Gaja,

Quite interesting, I think this image has potential - and it's quite easy to do some 'spring cleaning' even now. I am not sure it's a "low" color profile problem, it may be that the baby and the beach have about the same level of color intensity (I'd lighten up the beach and clean up all the twigs etc with a healing/cloning tool), I also see a somewhat yellow-ish ting in the entire image (I just calibrated my monitor a few days ago and based on the feedback I got, it's pretty accurate). I wonder if something like this'd get this image approved:


puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2009, 12:00 »
0
again still guessing, but based on the two images from Chasing Moments,
one is yes, too yellow, and the other is a bit cyan (note the shoe and sock, an absence of red, and the grass, not green... ).
but strangely enough, neither of them has clean white highlights on the child's cheek, but pink.  if your calibration is correct or if you did not do any post processing, the highlight is usual white, as reflections are.  in this case, they are both pink, like you painted on it, or did some highlight /shadow adjustment that went wrong.

« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2009, 10:38 »
0
Thank you both for very helpful tips! I am taking in all the information, and am very happy to get the opportunity to learn!

The only things I did with the raw file was changing the color temperature to ca 6000, I can a agree that that was a bit high, it looks much better when it's less yellow. Then I upped the saturation a bit, and tweeked the levels to get rid of the greyness. But very careful tweeking. No curves, no color change, no burn tool or coloring.

This is from the original raw file, on my screen it is very blue.

« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2009, 10:44 »
0
This was btw also rejected because of lighting. I guess I should try to adjust my eyes to like brighter pictures. I'm just too afraid of overexposure and loss of detail.

« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2009, 11:55 »
0
If you shoot in raw, you can put the exposure quite a bit up, before noise and artefacts become too strong. So you can always get back to the original. However I also discovered that at least with the canons  images are a third to 2/3 stops underexposed. So I always overexpose 1/3 or 2/3 while shooting. Never had problems loosing detail. But you can always look at the histogramm which will show you if you loose detail. I do not know what kind of equipment you have, but if you use a fast lens wide open, these images would become more pleasing, because the background would not distract so much. Attached is my take on the image. The warm tone is ok in my opininion, but the colors are dull and could use a bit more pop. This is overall an unexiting image. If the lighting would be better a reviewer might find another reason to reject it. like the dirt in the sand. Just think of how a buyer want to use that image. I could think of someone working for a hotel wanting to show the sandy beaches or the beautiful playground. The sand is full dirt it would be no good advertisement and I would never want to advertise with such an image.

« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2009, 11:57 »
0
Wrong Image attached, here the changed:


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
monitor is profiled!

Started by Greg Boiarsky Computer Hardware

4 Replies
3631 Views
Last post August 10, 2006, 09:01
by Striker77s
8 Replies
5545 Views
Last post September 06, 2006, 16:36
by IRCrockett
5 Replies
7040 Views
Last post March 03, 2009, 10:11
by maigi
7 Replies
3965 Views
Last post April 28, 2013, 06:19
by Mantis
12 Replies
3115 Views
Last post June 02, 2020, 05:17
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors