MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photo Critique => Topic started by: frozensage on November 23, 2011, 08:52
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/sets/72157628109741287/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/sets/72157628109741287/)
are these photos good enough or do I need some more post processing?
-
I think these might have been OK six years ago but they don't have sufficient impact for today. They would need tidying up, anyway, to get rid of distracting wires etc. but I doubt if it is worth the effort. Sorry.
-
I'd guess that ever one of them has copyright issues, including the ring design. The blue building that looks like the ends of oil drums is an interesting pattern, but why would anyone want it? Distinctive (as in protected) and it has no message.
-
[url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/sets/72157628109741287/[/url] ([url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/sets/72157628109741287/[/url])
are these photos good enough or do I need some more post processing?
No you need different subjects, sunny shots with fluffy clouds, no electric wires and a property release for the building. Apart from that, it's fine. ;)
-
Thanks.
I'm only looking for whether the shots have any technical issues. Not the subject or who's gonna buy it. The reason I got was it had issue with exposure. is there?
-
Thanks.
I'm only looking for whether the shots have any technical issues. Not the subject or who's gonna buy it. The reason I got was it had issue with exposure. is there?
I guess it doesn't matter, the photostream is no missing. But you had written before that one of the blue building photos was rejected for Copyright, so I don't know why you would be asking about only the exposure question? Let me put it another way, say you asked about exposure and there were people in the picture, cars with license plates and it was a dull composition. Would you want people to answer, sure the exposure is great... and not mention that there are three other reasons that the images would be rejected?
Would you then be asking, why didn't someone mention that?
Better yet, at an agency I had a picture rejected for lighting (that great vague reason) and when I fixed the lighting, it was rejected for Not Suitable for stock. Why didn't they say that the first time? >:(
-
These are different building. The copyrighted ones I resubmitted and got them approved (how random).
Now I have issues with this nothing having enough contrast or bad lighting?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/6409385645/#in/set-72157628109741287/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/6409385645/#in/set-72157628109741287/)
too warm or the colour's too yellow/red?
-
These are different building. The copyrighted ones I resubmitted and got them approved (how random).
Now I have issues with this nothing having enough contrast or bad lighting?
[url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/6409385645/#in/set-72157628109741287/[/url] ([url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/45642175@N06/6409385645/#in/set-72157628109741287/[/url])
too warm or the colour's too yellow/red?
Interesting and yes, that amazing random approval lottery.
Opinion of the image in question is, white balance possibly off, it looks yellowish, maybe better described as tan. Do you have your monitor color corrected?
Hey I've had rejections for color balance when I shot at Sunset and intentionally had a golden cast. It didn't fly. ;)
-
Interesting and yes, that amazing random approval lottery.
Opinion of the image in question is, white balance possibly off, it looks yellowish, maybe better described as tan. Do you have your monitor color corrected?
Hey I've had rejections for color balance when I shot at Sunset and intentionally had a golden cast. It didn't fly. ;)
Yes funny that I just calibrated my screen over the weekend as well. I actually intentionally made it more warm and golden to give that fried food appeal... guess it didn't come off :( might just adjust the white balance abit to the blue side of things once I get the chance.