MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photo critique request, many thanks!  (Read 6059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 08, 2009, 05:09 »
0
Dear all,
Many thanks in advance for your help. I submitted some shots to istockphoto last week and was rejected on the grounds of same subject. The three photos were:


AT 100% newbielink:http://www.tuscanyfortwo.com/_DSC0641W.jpg [nonactive]


AT 100% newbielink:http://www.tuscanyfortwo.com/_DSC0718W.jpg [nonactive]


AT 100% newbielink:http://www.tuscanyfortwo.com/_DSC0735W.jpg [nonactive]

So I tried again last night but was rejected for the following reason:
At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be your best work. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.

The photos this time were:
Stealth Bomber

AT 100% newbielink:http://www.tuscanyfortwo.com/B-2A Spirit 1W.jpg [nonactive]
Californian Poppies

AT 100% newbielink:http://www.tuscanyfortwo.com/Poppies%201W.jpg [nonactive]
Bristlecone Pine

AT 100% newbielink:http://www.tuscanyfortwo.com/Bristlecone%201W.jpg [nonactive]

If anyone could enlighten me as to why they weren't accepted or give any constructive criticism I'd be very grateful as I looked up each of the subjects on istockphoto before uploading them and thought they were relatively similar in quality and were of reasonable composition? ?

Many thanks again
Liz




« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2009, 05:19 »
0
First batch:
Images are too noisy and some of them aren't sharp. There are also logos on shirts etc. And they also said that you need to send different subjects, these are all the same.
The second one would be the best one, if there was a ball in the image too (and if the image was sharp)

The second batch:
All images are way too noisy, soft, dark & murky and boring. And don't send them flowers, if you do, your flower image should be very, very spectacular.

If these are your best images you have a long way to go. And I'm saying this in a friendly fashion, so don't take it too hard, you just may need to upgrade your camera or lenses and practice more.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 05:23 by Perry »

« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2009, 05:34 »
0
2nd batch.
top image, artifacts jpeg compression? (I'm not good with which is which :))  in sky, plane is too dark cant see detail
2nd image, white balance seems to be out, as said dont send any site flowers for approval process.
3rd image, sky is too dark, istock would say overfiltered :)

« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2009, 05:51 »
0
If these are your best images you have a long way to go. And I'm saying this in a friendly fashion, so don't take it too hard, you just may need to upgrade your camera or lenses and practice more.


Is it just the workflow and have you oversized or over processed some of the images, I looked at the Exif for 'Bristlecone 1W.jpg', a 55mb (18mb compressed), 3635 x 5335, 24 bit, and for some reason the Resolution is set at 4000 ppi, it was saved 3 times after conversion from a Tiff to a jpg which if they were edits would degrade the images.

There is no camera information in the exif, so is it a scan or what kit was used, 5335 would be a big sensor on good kit, or it could just be a scan size.

The Polo shot _DSC0718W.jpg from a Nikon D300 @ 500mm (full zoom or fixed?), f8, 400 ISO for 1/1000 of a second, not the sweetest of focal lengths or best ISO, maybe a few test shots to find the sharpest and best range for the Camera and Lens.

For me with submission shots use the K.I.S.S priciple, Keep it Short and Simple good sharp images minimal post processing, always worked for me.

David  ???  
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 06:06 by Adeptris »

« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2009, 05:55 »
0
These may be shot on film(?)

« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2009, 06:03 »
0
Yes, sorry I should have been more clear.
The landscapes/planes are on an F100 with Velvia or EBX then scanned at 4000dpi with a Coolscan 9000. The multiple file saving from tiff is 1) to change from 16 to 8 bit for jpeg, 2) to add the watermark and 3) to make the thumbnail. The uploaded images (to istock) were only changed from 16 to 8bit.
Thanks for all the comments so far, I'm beginning to understand what I need to change.


« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2009, 10:57 »
0
Hello Liz, and welcome here.

Permit me to give you my humble opinion. Not so expert as a reviewer, but as a photographer.

My guess is the exposure and composition are the weak points.

Of the photos here, I see only one good one that would be IS acceptable (remember this is just my guess), which is the first one .
If you had presented the first image and two other different subjects with the good  compositional format like this one. I think you would have got an approval.

The image #1 is well cropped, well exposed .
image 2 and 3 has a bit of over processing, or maybe it's just my eyes.
and the composition is not as good.
the action caught is excellent though.  but perharps the angle of the shot
is a bit weak with the background (the van) a distraction.

Your second batch is actually not as good as the first, due to the subject matter and exposure. This could be easily corrected with Levels adjustment. But other than the Batch 2 Image 3, you could try better subject matter.

Also, Batch 2 suffers from over saturation and contrast. ( It would be accepted by SS but not IS.) Well, at least from my own perspective of  IS standard, as IS prefers as little post processing as required, and as neutral as possible.

I would say , in general, ease off with the saturation , over processing, and contrast. Go for shooting in RAW if you are shooting digital and  did not, so you don't have to do that much of a noise reduction. And ease off with the UE. Try to get the exposure spot on,
more to Batch 1 Image 1, except with less post processing.

Also, try to shoot using the sweet spot, as even at this small size you presented here, it does seem a bit soft. Find a good combination of aperture to get it nice a crisp and sharp, and a shutterspeed so you can freeze the action enough so to have it clean edged and well-defined.

Other than that, I guess, keep shooting and get them as good as you have with Batch 1 Image 1. Nice tight compostion cropping, nice balanced highlight and shadow detail.

Good show. Best of luck to you .

P.S.
I did not read your technical details. I simply look at your photos and "critique" it from there. I feel this is best, as I presume IS is not going to be concerned
on the technicalities of how you made those images, but judging you solely on the merit of the images itself.
So I feel it best to do the same. Cheers for allowing me to add this "unqualified critique".



 
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 11:07 by perseus, Who ? »

« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2009, 11:33 »
0
I though image number 1 suffered from the dreaded 'focus not where we expected it rejection', I am looking at the polo club, for me that is part of the subject and should be in focus.

Even with a D300, 500mm, f8 the DOF is very shallow, only a matter of inches, have a look at this DOF Calculator

Just my humble opinion, and likewise no expert, that is why I write software, lol

David  ;)

« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2009, 11:42 »
0
I though image number 1 suffered from the dreaded 'focus not where we expected it rejection', I am looking at the polo club, for me that is part of the subject and should be in focus.

Even with a D300, 500mm, f8 the DOF is very shallow, only a matter of inches, have a look at this DOF Calculator

Just my humble opinion, and likewise no expert, that is why I write software, lol

David  ;)


you are right, David.
but it looks more like it became soft in the post processing, as the club is in the same plane as the horse  which is all in focus. perharps it was rendered soft (out of focus) with the cleaning up of the background. which i pointed out would have been much better not to over process.
something IS is never too crazy about (too much post processing).


on looking at it now, a second time, the post processing applied to all of the first batch is more or less similar in intensity.  thus, a retraction to Image 1 with added comment, ie. less post processing with Image 1 Batch 1 as well.
but I still like the composition nonetheless.

afterthought 2:
the action shots would be great as isolated separately.
or even as silhouttes. it could be very generic with selling potentials.

WAIVER :
 no MICRO stock expert here , and even less IS knowledgeable...
 just  my unqualified guesstimation ;)
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009, 11:57 by perseus, Who ? »

Dan

« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2009, 17:24 »
0
  From  all  i've  read  -  it  seems  flower  shots  are  not  good  for  a  review.  There  are  many  many  of  the  that  one  would  have  to  be  exceptional  to  get  approved.
  The  vechile in  the  shot  of  the  horses  doesn't  help.
  I  may  be  the  worst  to  give  an  opion  but  that's  what  it  is  -  my  opion.

« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2009, 20:42 »
0
I actually really like the second shot a lot!  It seems like a really good capture of action and I think it's framed well.  The trees/grass line in the background is a bit distracting, but it doesn't take away from the overall picture that much IMO.

The first is good and most likely stock worthy.  The first thing I noticed in the third was the yellow van.

The film scans look way over processed.  I've never scanned a strip of film in my life but even with the small images you posted I, in my limited knowledge, would have rejected them.

If your new to stock, you'll find that quality standards for images is pretty much sky high now.  It's a matter of learning the rules and how to play the game.  On the other hand I see well composed and exposed art-type photos now and all I see is chromatic aberration, noise and jpeg artifacts. 

Can't see the forest for all the trees...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3026 Views
Last post December 23, 2009, 13:14
by PowerDroid
32 Replies
18303 Views
Last post March 27, 2010, 09:47
by nancypics
20 Replies
8230 Views
Last post May 17, 2010, 05:13
by pimpampoen
17 Replies
4976 Views
Last post May 19, 2010, 18:51
by Dreamframer
4 Replies
1775 Views
Last post January 06, 2014, 16:57
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results