MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: StockXpert says: poor lighting  (Read 12669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 10, 2006, 13:46 »
0
This one was rejected at StockXpert for poor lighting.  Do you agree?  I didn't use a very strong lighting as I thoght a cozier, homely look would be more appropriate.



Regards,
Adelaide


Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2006, 14:57 »
0
I hate to say it, but I think I agree with StockXpert.  The overall image is flat, without much depth.  It also appears to be a bit underexposed--is this photo in sRGB or aRGB color space?

You might try a bit of cross lighting in this image.  Put a light on each side of the camera, at about a 45 degree angle.  Use full lighting on one side, and about half as much on the other.  This will add some shadows for depth, but also keep the shadows from being too sharp.

« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2006, 00:41 »
0
I think I would agree with professorgb as well.

I would also sudjest moving the light a little farther away from the subject.  The light is too bright on the bottom left of the plate and burns out any detail, while the top right of the image is left in shadow.  Even though you probably did not light this with your on camera flash, it has the same look.   You could also try hanging a thin sheet of some sort infront of your light source to difuse the light a bit.

« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2006, 16:59 »
0
I used natural lighting from the window.  As I said, I wanted it to look like a cozy daily scene, not a staged one.  Maybe I can apply a gradient filter to make lighting more even.

And I have no idea about the color space I'm using... How can I know that?  I use PSP, not PS.

Regards,
Adelaide

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2006, 17:17 »
0
Look at your camera's settings to determine if you're using sRGB or aRGB.  If you're using aRGB, programs that aren't color aware, like most browsers, will display the image with muted colors and look washed out.

As to the lighting, I recommend that you not make the lighting more even, but less even.  Even lighting will make this image even flatter.  What you might consider instead of a gradient filter is take the current file and increase its contrast and saturate the colors.  This will add depth and warmth to the image.  I've done this--adjusted levels, contrast, and saturation, and while it's a bit dark (I was working with your thumbnail), I think it's somewhat improved.  Nonetheless, you might want to re-shoot with a bit better lighting.




I used natural lighting from the window.  As I said, I wanted it to look like a cozy daily scene, not a staged one.  Maybe I can apply a gradient filter to make lighting more even.

And I have no idea about the color space I'm using... How can I know that?  I use PSP, not PS.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2006, 22:05 »
0
I liked the suggestion of increasing contrast and I have just submitted them a new version, although I think their rejection may be more related to the shadowed are on the top, with the pots and cup.

My digital is a P&S, Canon A520. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2006, 22:10 »
0
I am not familiar with your camera model.  I think that the chances are very good you are shooting in sRGB--most point and shoots are set to that color space.

My digital is a P&S, Canon A520. 

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2006, 22:20 »
0
I liked the suggestion of increasing contrast and I have just submitted them a new version, although I think their rejection may be more related to the shadowed are on the top, with the pots and cup.

My digital is a P&S, Canon A520.

Regards,
Adelaide

If you're using Windows XP (not sure about other lower versions, but you could try), you could see the the colorspace from the file properties. Click on the file/properties, then go to the "summary" tab, then click on the "advance" button. It shows the EXIF data of the file. There is a field there named "Color Representation" which identifies if you're using sRGB or aRGB.

Moreso, I also have Canon G5 and P&S canon SD550. Just like what Prof said, the color space their using by default is sRGB.

Regards

« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2006, 17:19 »
0
Indeed, now I see it's sRGB.  However I'm still clueless about the meaning of this.  :)

In the edited images, I don't see thsi information.  Is it kept through edition, unless you call a specific command to change it?

The new version was approved, however it's hard to say if the same inspector would give the same verdict!  I will try to use more contrast in other images, though I'm very careful not to add artifacts in them.  Thanks, professorgb!

Regards,
Adelaide



Greg Boiarsky

« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2006, 17:37 »
0
Hola Madelaide,

You're quite welcome, although I think I should take lessons from you, not the other way around.  I'm hardly a best seller . . .

As for the difference in aRGB and sRGB, don't worry about it at this point.  Almost all the microstock sites prefer sRGB, which is what your camera shoots.  When you buy an SLR, then worry about color space.  But, just for the record, sRGB is the color range that is displayed by most monitors, particularly those running on Windows.  The other color space, aRGB, is richer--a wider range of red and blue, if I remember correctly.  This is the color space you'll want to use for macrostock and for printing your own photos--when you get a good printer and dSLR.

Cheers,
Greg

Thanks, professorgb!

Regards,
Adelaide





 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5339 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 17:18
by melastmohican
5 Replies
3664 Views
Last post December 26, 2009, 17:56
by pixel86
22 Replies
8853 Views
Last post November 17, 2011, 17:59
by rubyroo
39 Replies
5500 Views
Last post November 05, 2015, 17:23
by etudiante_rapide
14 Replies
9798 Views
Last post September 18, 2016, 11:14
by Mantis

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results