Microstock Photography Forum - General > Photo Critique

Help on rejected photo...

(1/2) > >>

bjorn:
Hi,

I had a rejection from istock that I don't really understand.
I don't mind rejections, as long as i can learn something from it.
I would really appreciate it if one of you can have a look at the photo and can tell me what i'm doing wrong. Describe where i have to look or (even better) Cut out a part, put some arrows ;-) and email it or post it here, whatever you prefer...
I know there has been some posts on artifacting, and i read them but still...

Point is also, i shot it in Raw (canon 350d), used C1 to convert it to jpg12 so where are the artifacts created?

Below the iStock feedback, i asked for more details/reason and got the reply in the second line.

This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is commonly created by the quality settings in-camera or in post-processing.

As you've requested I've taken another look at image number xxx which was rejected due to artifacting. The compression is contained in the ejects of the objects in the image and the cloud areas of the file.

Thanks a million!
Regards,
Bjorn

see: mg_9352.jpg


maunger:
look in these areas (see notes)







Hope that helps


* captures done with Skitch on the mac - really cool tool - i have 2 invites to beta if anyone wants one.

Mitch

Egypix:
Hi, sometimes i got same problem with istock, i use 350d also  but my rejected photos work in SS !!

w7lwi:
Don't see much more than maunger pointed out.  There's another spot to the left of the tower than should be cloned out.  The rough edges of the cable don't bother me as that's the twist in the steel that makes up the cable.  Hopefully a reviewer would know that.  The white edging below the cable is a no-no however.  I really don't think the edging at the top of the cloud should be a problem.  Still, it can be removed if needed.  I suspect if this was submitted to SS, it would be rejected for lighting.  They seem to want everything lit to some degree lately ... the tower, background mountains, etc.  Silhouette or not, that's what they seem to be after.  Agree you should clean up the towers, buildings, etc. at the bottom of the image.

thesentinel:
IMO the whole of the mountain/sky edge looks to have the effects of edge sharpening with a defined white outline at 100%.

It doesn't bother me that much and at smaller sizes it would add to the sense of crispness, but that transition is not natural looking. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version