1
Photo Critique / Re: Application to Istock: Rejections
« on: February 14, 2009, 19:54 »
If you ask me, its all personal preference. I always shoot in RAW; the images that I posted here are from RAW files. The artifacting in the hair I believe is from too much luminance reduction in the sky, not JPEG compression.
The reasons I shoot in RAW is so I have some freedom to push/pull the exposure in post production. RAW allows this to happen, to a certain extent. JPEG "Locks" the luminance values in their place, not allowing the detail to follow exposure values. Now, I do believe, if you are very confident, that it is ok to capture in JPEG, if your happy with the exposure! But, don't expect to try and push/pull the exposure later and keep as much detail.
By the way, I'm a newbie at stock and Istock is the first that I'm applying to. Also, just because Istock rejects for over filtering doesn't mean that the quality is poor. Istock just doesn't want any images that are touched up very much, which I like to do. You can see this in my personal work on my site at www.andrewalwardphoto.com , which I know most of it is probably not suitable for stock.
Anyway, back to the origin of this thread, I'm not sure if you guys have commented on this one yet - http://a3.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e011017a94653860e-pi
I think Adelaide did, but I'm not sure. This one is like I said, no effects, no filtering like you asked for. The only thing I did was pull it from RAW, adjust levels because my exposure was way off, and brought the sky luminance down just a tad, and no sharpening, no Photoshop. Let me know if its any better or worse, and sorry Adelaide if this is the image you were talking about, I appreciate this criticism.
Thanks again.
The reasons I shoot in RAW is so I have some freedom to push/pull the exposure in post production. RAW allows this to happen, to a certain extent. JPEG "Locks" the luminance values in their place, not allowing the detail to follow exposure values. Now, I do believe, if you are very confident, that it is ok to capture in JPEG, if your happy with the exposure! But, don't expect to try and push/pull the exposure later and keep as much detail.
By the way, I'm a newbie at stock and Istock is the first that I'm applying to. Also, just because Istock rejects for over filtering doesn't mean that the quality is poor. Istock just doesn't want any images that are touched up very much, which I like to do. You can see this in my personal work on my site at www.andrewalwardphoto.com , which I know most of it is probably not suitable for stock.
Anyway, back to the origin of this thread, I'm not sure if you guys have commented on this one yet - http://a3.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e011017a94653860e-pi
I think Adelaide did, but I'm not sure. This one is like I said, no effects, no filtering like you asked for. The only thing I did was pull it from RAW, adjust levels because my exposure was way off, and brought the sky luminance down just a tad, and no sharpening, no Photoshop. Let me know if its any better or worse, and sorry Adelaide if this is the image you were talking about, I appreciate this criticism.
Thanks again.