MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photo Critique => Topic started by: kalmiya on July 23, 2012, 11:12
-
Hello everyone,
Got a few rejections at istock, so I'm hoping to get some meaningful/constructive
critisism on my photo's
lightbox
1 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120421-0835.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120421-0835.jpg)
2 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120623_3722.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120623_3722.jpg)
3 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120623_3724.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120623_3724.jpg)
4 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120623_3730.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120623_3730.jpg)
5 -http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4218.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4218.jpg)
nature
6 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4205.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4205.jpg)
7- http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.jpg)
refuel
8 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120421-0830.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120421-0830.jpg)
9 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120421-0831.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120421-0831.jpg)
portrait
10 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120225-0134.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120225-0134.jpg)
11 - http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120701_3850.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120701_3850.jpg)
... and the big question: which ones would be good for a submission?
thanks for your help!
-
1. good probably best if cropped though
2. lacks contrast and focus might be off
3. underexposed
4. underexposed not sure i like the magnifying glass lying there a hand holding it might do better
5. crop, white balance or neon green reflections no good
nature
6. focus, noise, maybe white balance too
7. underexposed, not really interesting
refuel
8. snapshot looking
9. snapshot looking, underexposed, water drops, framing off
portrait
10. underexposed, busy, on camera flash, unclear what it is supposed to be about
11. good, i think needs more light, blown out background part is distracting too
Your big question though, maybe the first one but probably none of the rest will get through.
-
Sorry! all rubbish, go back to the drawingboard, have a good look at pro-files and then pick another choice. You are way out!
-
1)- copyright/trademark, lighting, focus OOF due to too shallow a DOF.
2)- LCV due to framing, cropping and or composition, also OOF with to shallow a DOF.
3)- copyright/trademark, exposure.
Not even going to look at the rest.
-
@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.
@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.
@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?
-
clean your subjects before shooting them
-
The corn would be your best shot if it were properly exposed. The last couple are snapshots. Making conceptual shots like "pouring money in your gas tank" need to be more ... stylized then just sticking money in your gas tank. Don't crop things that are supposed to be isolated.
-
@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.
@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.
@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?
I am not talking about the OOF BG.
I am talking about the OOF from a shallow DOF in the front.
Shallow DOF needs to go from front to rear. The focus needs to be tack,razor sharp in front fading out to the rear.
-
@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.
@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.
@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?
Good! hard criticism, yes and you didnt mind, did you? thats a bloody lot better then many other neewbies here. I will tell you exactly what to look for and what to do. Mail me on my site mail here at MSG.
I am really glad you took my criticism the right way. Good for you!
all the best. :)
-
THE GOD OF STOCK HAS SPOKEN!!! you will be rich very soon kalmiya!!! ::)
-
THE GOD OF STOCK HAS SPOKEN!!! you will be rich very soon kalmiya!!! ::)
No, no, Wim, now dont be a silly billy, not the God but a disciple. For Gods he will have to turn to Sean but I doubt he has any time for this. Sorry Wimmy boy but there you go. :)
-
@luissantos84: Gosh, I'm embarassed to say, but you are right... Started by cleaning my coins (one article recommended ketchup - and that actually works!).
@sjlocke: Had that comment a few times, and I admit I find it difficult to see when exposure is correct. I modified the original raw in lightroom - is this better?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216b.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216b.jpg)
(original raw-file:http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.CR2 (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.CR2)).
@ruxpriencdiam: I understand - going 'over the top' on the background caused the foreground to lose the focus too much - going to retake such a shot, but with larger DOF.
@lagereek: Came here to learn, so any help is appreciated - and thanks for the offer, I'd be happy to get tips on what to look for.
-
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.
-
@luissantos84: Gosh, I'm embarassed to say, but you are right... Started by cleaning my coins (one article recommended ketchup - and that actually works!).
@sjlocke: Had that comment a few times, and I admit I find it difficult to see when exposure is correct. I modified the original raw in lightroom - is this better?
[url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216b.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216b.jpg[/url])
(original raw-file:http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.CR2 ([url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.CR2[/url])).
@ruxpriencdiam: I understand - going 'over the top' on the background caused the foreground to lose the focus too much - going to retake such a shot, but with larger DOF.
@lagereek: Came here to learn, so any help is appreciated - and thanks for the offer, I'd be happy to get tips on what to look for.
Good for you and dont take any notice of any jealous bums here, they had their chance........ and blew it! :)
-
@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.
@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.
@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?
Good! hard criticism, yes and you didnt mind, did you? thats a bloody lot better then many other neewbies here. I will tell you exactly what to look for and what to do. Mail me on my site mail here at MSG.
I am really glad you took my criticism the right way. Good for you!
all the best. :)
Come on, we all need to learn at your feet.
No private tuition!
-
@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.
@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.
@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?
Good! hard criticism, yes and you didnt mind, did you? thats a bloody lot better then many other neewbies here. I will tell you exactly what to look for and what to do. Mail me on my site mail here at MSG.
I am really glad you took my criticism the right way. Good for you!
all the best. :)
Come on, we all need to learn at your feet.
No private tuition!
Oh come on now, not YOU, Scottish gals are impossible to teach, they always stand on the top of Ben Nevis, thinking they are Mrs Braveheart. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
THE GOD OF STOCK HAS SPOKEN!!! you will be rich very soon kalmiya!!! ::)
No, no, Wim, now dont be a silly billy, not the God but a disciple. For Gods he will have to turn to Sean but I doubt he has any time for this. Sorry Wimmy boy but there you go. :)
Don't apologise to me King Lagereek, apologize to the poor guy wasting all his time on your rubbish ;)
-
I would like to know what they told you on the rejection notices. Otherwise it's hard to know. Of all the agencies I contribute to, I think Istockphoto has the best inspectors. I learned a lot from their rejections.
-
THE GOD OF STOCK HAS SPOKEN!!! you will be rich very soon kalmiya!!! ::)
No, no, Wim, now dont be a silly billy, not the God but a disciple. For Gods he will have to turn to Sean but I doubt he has any time for this. Sorry Wimmy boy but there you go. :)
Don't apologise to me King Lagereek, apologize to the poor guy wasting all his time on your rubbish ;)
Well mate, I gave you a hell of a lot of help and advice on dozens of private site-mails you sent me here. What did you learn? NOTHING, exept using your big mouth, I strongly suggest you clamp up a bit, take a stum-powder and split, or you could join the conversation in a civil manner, the way your mother taught you. Fair enough.
I certainly do not need some pupil mouthing off behind my back. thanks for your co-op.
-
I love you too man.
-
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.
What do you think?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg)
-
You could also retain the nice rich color of the blue sky and maintain the deep green of the cornfield.
I am surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of cornfields and also have one in my backyard.
Of course the OP can adjust better since they have the original.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7112/7632642748_0fc3a2781a_b.jpg)
-
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.
What do you think?
[url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url])
Watch out with overprocessing mate, IS likes them natural looking. Put more focus on exposure, noise and sharpness, keep the colors neutral.
Good luck!
-
I would like to know what they told you on the rejection notices. Otherwise it's hard to know. Of all the agencies I contribute to, I think Istockphoto has the best inspectors. I learned a lot from their rejections.
First time "composition".
At this point I can honestly say the first 2 images _really_ sucked and the 3rd one, while I personally like it, was not good for a stock-site https://picasaweb.google.com/117205949410349346735/2011Gaiapark#5658540296844530514 (https://picasaweb.google.com/117205949410349346735/2011Gaiapark#5658540296844530514)
Second time "Too similar" ( 2 product-photo's).
- photo #1 and #8 from initial post
Third time tried to be more varied and got "composition":
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120524_2089.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120524_2089.jpg)
and #3 and #10 from initial post
-
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.
What do you think?
[url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url])
yep! you may go to curves and lower the 255, will take away some of the whites you have on the central cloud
-
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.
What do you think?
[url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url])
yep! you may go to curves and lower the 255, will take away some of the whites you have on the central cloud
Decreased the "hilights" to -9 and put the hilight curve a bit down also (from being a straight line), makes the clouds more "puffy" and which takes away a bit of the shine on the leaves also.
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d.jpg (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d.jpg)
lightroom settings
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d_basic.png (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d_basic.png)
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d_curve.png (http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d_curve.png)
Not sure how to achieve the "deeper green" like ruxpriencdiam did yet...
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.
What do you think?
[url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url] ([url]http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg[/url])
Watch out with overprocessing mate, IS likes them natural looking. Put more focus on exposure, noise and sharpness, keep the colors neutral.
Good luck!
True - I usually stay away from the saturation slider because I have a tendency to make the colors "scream"...
But let's see where this leads.
-
Let the others talk about the technicalities and their opinions.
I notice that you have thought about concepts, and thats the right way to go. You are already far above the snapshooters of pets and fences.
Your humans have difficulties with keywords.
meaning... what would you search for to get them? What concept are they?