pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejection ?  (Read 6219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 07, 2008, 14:20 »
0
I got this rejection today

"This file contains an excess of pixel discoloration when viewed at 100%, which we felt too severe and would affect the quality of print production".

First time seeing this reason, wondering if someone knows what it means?

Is this a result of the image being underexposured?

Have resubmit option, is it fixable?


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2008, 15:03 »
0
How about showing the image?

jsnover

« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2008, 15:19 »
0
Typically that's very bad color noise, so if you have some deep shadow areas (which would then be underexposed), that'd be a place to look. If the area that's suffering is out of focus and/or not very detailed, you can generally fix with Noise Ninja (or the like) masked to show only those parts that really need cleanup

« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2008, 15:26 »
0


I know this is too small to see much. I am pretty sure the problem is in the shadows along her torso and hair. Her skin was underexposed to keep from blowing out the sarong and white wash to much. Used a lot of noise reduction/blur on the shadows. I don't think it will sell that much, I just liked the file and wanted to have it in my port. Maybe shot not possible without a fill light?

« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2008, 15:34 »
0
Typically that's very bad color noise, so if you have some deep shadow areas (which would then be underexposed), that'd be a place to look. If the area that's suffering is out of focus and/or not very detailed, you can generally fix with Noise Ninja (or the like) masked to show only those parts that really need cleanup

Thanks, I think you got it right. the color starts to break up in the darkest of shadows, like a patchy red and black. It was a new rejection so I was curious.

RT


« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2008, 17:09 »
0
Could I also suggest you straighten the horizon, it's one of the things I always look for in a shot that features the sea.

« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2008, 17:35 »
0
I thought about the horizon but didn't straighten it because I didn't want to lose the hand in the top right hand corner. Usually that is the first thing I do in photoshop. I think I remember trying it and liked it better this way. Its not cropped so I didn't have much room. I figure they can always crop it later or not. My eyes are drawn to the girl and mood first, only after staring for a while do I notice the crooked horizon. Probably different for everyone. Also, the table and chair would be tweaked if I move the horizon.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 17:49 by cdwheatley »

« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2008, 17:51 »
0
I thought about the horizon but didn't straighten it because I didn't want to lose the hand in the top right hand corner. Usually that is the first thing I do in photoshop. I think I remember trying it and liked it better this way. Its not cropped so I didn't have much room. I figure they can always crop it later or not. My eyes are drawn to the girl and mood first, only after staring for a while do I notice the crooked horizon. Probably different for everyone. Also, the table and chair would be tweaked if I move the horizon.

In that case, why not straighten the horizon by cloning it down without moving the girl or the rest of the image... it is blurry enough you could fake it pretty easily... would make for a more marketable image :)

vonkara

« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2008, 18:15 »
0
If you have it on StockXpert we could zoom at 100% and maybe be able to see the pixels discoloration

« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2008, 18:17 »
0
In that case, why not straighten the horizon by cloning it down without moving the girl or the rest of the image... it is blurry enough you could fake it pretty easily... would make for a more marketable image :)

I agree a leveled horizon line is a good thing, but I never stop noticing a tilted horizon in one of IS' initial pages, it's a photo of a smiling little kid at the beach.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2008, 18:48 »
0
I thought about the horizon but didn't straighten it because I didn't want to lose the hand in the top right hand corner. Usually that is the first thing I do in photoshop. I think I remember trying it and liked it better this way. Its not cropped so I didn't have much room. I figure they can always crop it later or not. My eyes are drawn to the girl and mood first, only after staring for a while do I notice the crooked horizon. Probably different for everyone. Also, the table and chair would be tweaked if I move the horizon.

In that case, why not straighten the horizon by cloning it down without moving the girl or the rest of the image... it is blurry enough you could fake it pretty easily... would make for a more marketable image :)
Right, I like this idea. It just takes a little work to do it. Not sure I want to waste my time though unless the image starts selling a lot on other sites, but I don't think its gonna happen.

« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2008, 18:59 »
0
In that case, why not straighten the horizon by cloning it down without moving the girl or the rest of the image... it is blurry enough you could fake it pretty easily... would make for a more marketable image :)

I agree a leveled horizon line is a good thing, but I never stop noticing a tilted horizon in one of IS' initial pages, it's a photo of a smiling little kid at the beach.

Regards,
Adelaide
Agree here also. I like a level horizon as well but oddly enough one of my favorite images that I have done has a crooked horizon. Sometimes it just works, not sure why, but doesn't feel the same when you straighten it. I always try and trust my gut more than composition rules. If a picture looks or feels better upside down or sideways, crooked, twisted, noisy, out of focus...why not go with it. I've had more sales and magazines print my crooked swing picture than any of the straight ones. Not because its crooked but because the emotion is different that way.

A good example is the couple picture that is in the top 50 of all time on shutterstock. Bigtime crooked, but it works.

One thing I always check is if it makes you dizzy  :) if it does than its not gonna work.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2008, 19:10 by cdwheatley »

RT


« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2008, 19:15 »
0
I agree that in certain circumstances a crooked horizon works, but IMO it needs to look deliberate, and yes composition rules are there to be broken.
But in this instance the horizon isn't crooked enough.
To fix it would take seconds and I think the shot is good enough to warrant it:

Try select all>edit>distort then (with a grid in place) just pull the top left hand corner down until the horizon is straight, after which select the history brush and brush back the part of the sky, woman and the white surf that was also affected, it may need a tiny bit of healing but it should be OK, hard to tell with the logo where it is.

Re the initial rejection reason, if the discolouration was that bad I think you'd see it even at this size, I think you suffered the fate of an over zealous reviewer who doesn't really understand printing.




« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2008, 19:33 »
0
Cool advice!! Thanks, I will try that RT. If it doesn't work than at least I will have learned a new trick  :)
The image was shot on beach with a steep incline so lining up the horizon without making the chair and table crooked was kinda tough. Also agree it would be better if it was more crooked. As for the noise or discoloration in the shadows(the rejection reason) you might be right about that also. It was somewhat borderline and could have gone either way with the reviewer.

« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2008, 14:21 »
0
How about the warp function? (edit/transform)  and a little historybrush. 

« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2008, 18:53 »
0
I agree that in certain circumstances a crooked horizon works, but IMO it needs to look deliberate, and yes composition rules are there to be broken.

I think there are many circumstances in which an unleveled horizon gives an extra touch - never in landscape though.  In this example, as the woman looks "normal" and the horizon line is quite blurred, I don't think it matters much.  It's the same about the kid's image at IS, he's expression is so cute and he looks "untilted", so in the end the horizon doesn't affect it (although it calls my attention much more than here, as it is less blurred there and the kid is at the corner, so the horizon is much more present in the composition).

Regards,
Adelaide


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Unfair rejection on 123RF

Started by Beppe Grillo 123RF

14 Replies
5804 Views
Last post April 17, 2013, 12:18
by mr
10 Replies
3666 Views
Last post July 07, 2016, 01:21
by Dodie
12 Replies
3080 Views
Last post February 27, 2017, 07:18
by baz777
10 Replies
2150 Views
Last post July 05, 2017, 22:44
by k_t_g
7 Replies
569 Views
Last post February 09, 2020, 09:41
by dragonblade

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle