|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - mtimber
51
« on: September 19, 2010, 06:47 »
too much space.. sometimes they don't care.. the majority of agencies accepts it..
AGAIN! please forget IS for a while... they don't deserve us (big or small contributors)..
What about zoom IN the picture (or get closer) and vertical perhaps? it would be more appealing and would fill the frame a lot better!
Thank you. I thought the whole point was to allow space for writing etc? As to using Istock. I appreciate your concerns, but I want to learn stock photography and Istock's high standards are the perfect training vehicle for me. So I am using them as a teaching aid. :-)
53
« on: September 17, 2010, 10:52 »
I don't know is your monitor is calibrated, but first, you have to check the histogram of your original image. You will notice that your graph is empty on the right side, which means your image is underexposed. Sometimes, the graph can be blank on the right, but in this case not, because the background of the image is white. Yes, I boosted colors a bit, You don't have to do it so much, but you must do it a little, because your image is all greyish and a bit dull. Increase the contract to correct this, but watch not to make color banding on that white-gray gradient.
And yes, if you take a look at best selling IS images you will notice they all have saturated colors. Although IS says your images must look natural, I advice you to take a look at best selling images and decide yourself. The main point is not to ruin the quality of the image, or to make artifacts.
I checked the histogram and although not pushed up hard to the right, it is heavily into the right. If I over expose when taking the shot, then I will just blow the whites out surely?
:-)
Now I already start to think that you don' get what I'm saying.
I'll post you two histograms. First one is your original histogram, with red arrow showing empty space on the right side of the graph. Second histogram is corrected one, with right slider moved to the left, and a little bit brightened curve on the graph, with maintained black part of the image.
You don't have to increase the exposure in your camera. Do it in Photoshop, or any other editing program that you use and your whites won't be blown out.
Thank you, I will give that a try. :-)
54
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:04 »
I don't know is your monitor is calibrated, but first, you have to check the histogram of your original image. You will notice that your graph is empty on the right side, which means your image is underexposed. Sometimes, the graph can be blank on the right, but in this case not, because the background of the image is white. Yes, I boosted colors a bit, You don't have to do it so much, but you must do it a little, because your image is all greyish and a bit dull. Increase the contract to correct this, but watch not to make color banding on that white-gray gradient.
And yes, if you take a look at best selling IS images you will notice they all have saturated colors. Although IS says your images must look natural, I advice you to take a look at best selling images and decide yourself. The main point is not to ruin the quality of the image, or to make artifacts.
I checked the histogram and although not pushed up hard to the right, it is heavily into the right. If I over expose when taking the shot, then I will just blow the whites out surely? :-)
55
« on: September 17, 2010, 05:48 »
Thank you all for your help so far.
I am here to learn from those that know more than me and I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience.
Mark :-)
56
« on: September 17, 2010, 05:47 »
It should be brighter, just a bit more saturated, and with a little bit more contrast.
Thank you for taking the time to give me a visual example. :-) Your edited example really surprised, because on a colour corrected monitor, the first image is actually the correct colours. So istock like you to overemphasize the colour?
57
« on: September 17, 2010, 05:45 »
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
No. Being not considered not useful for stock (no stock worthy) is one of the rejection causes stated on their tutorial.
It was rejected for lighting, not for lack of stock-worthiness.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a dishonest culture at the company (at the top, anyway). 
What would you say was wrong with the lighting?
58
« on: September 17, 2010, 05:44 »
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-)
Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection.
Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons.
If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
Thank you. :-)
No. Being not considered not useful for stock (no stock worthy) is one of the rejection causes stated on their tutorial.
59
« on: September 17, 2010, 05:44 »
There is actually a problem with the flat dull colors and the lightning in the image as well. It look like everything is wrong.
You might have more success if you shoot each of the vases separately and overexpose by around 2 IL. Then adjust the curves using photoshop and use the pen tool to isolate your vases. You could also do some close up and do the same steps using photoshop. Good luck
Thank you :-) Why would I want to shoot these individually? I do not understand your recommendation. :-)
60
« on: September 16, 2010, 13:42 »
If the image is dull (sory), they tend to be much more harder at other aspects.
Why am I getting the sense that getting a straight rejection explanation is going to be difficult with istock... :-) Both of your points so far have not actually dealt with anything technical, which is their stated reason for rejection. Are you saying that a photo can be technically correct, but they will reject it for subject matter, but state that it is for technical reasons. If that is the case, then that is a dishonest culture at the company...?
61
« on: September 16, 2010, 11:31 »
Please ignore this thread, I have posted a similar thread in the newbie section.
62
« on: September 16, 2010, 11:29 »
It have no commercial value, that's the big issue. It can be in focus and have a good lightning, I would reject it, because it might never sell IMO
I forgot to add, it was rejected for these reasons, or one of them at least: -Flat/dull colors -Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background) -Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows - Distracting lens flares -Incorrect white balance Which would indicate a lighting issue possibly? Thank you for taking the time to reply. :-)
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
