MicrostockGroup

Show Posts

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 - kalmiya

Pages: [1]

Photo Critique / Re: istock photo critique please

« on: July 23, 2012, 17:40 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 23, 2012, 17:06

Quote from: kalmiya on July 23, 2012, 16:08
Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2012, 14:36
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.

What do you think?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg

yep! you may go to curves and lower the 255, will take away some of the whites you have on the central cloud

Decreased the "hilights" to -9 and put the hilight curve a bit down also (from being a straight line), makes the clouds more "puffy" and which takes away a bit of the shine on the leaves also.

http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d.jpg

lightroom settings
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d_basic.png
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216d_curve.png

Not sure how to achieve the "deeper green" like ruxpriencdiam did yet...

Quote from: Wim on July 23, 2012, 16:26

Quote from: kalmiya on July 23, 2012, 16:08
Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2012, 14:36
Yep, better. Up the saturation too.

What do you think?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg

Watch out with overprocessing mate, IS likes them natural looking. Put more focus on exposure, noise and sharpness, keep the colors neutral.
Good luck!

True - I usually stay away from the saturation slider because I have a tendency to make the colors "scream"...
But let's see where this leads.

Photo Critique / Re: istock photo critique please

« on: July 23, 2012, 16:31 »

Quote from: princigalli on July 23, 2012, 15:15

I would like to know what they told you on the rejection notices. Otherwise it's hard to know. Of all the agencies I contribute to, I think Istockphoto has the best inspectors. I learned a lot from their rejections.

First time "composition".
At this point I can honestly say the first 2 images _really_ sucked and the 3rd one, while I personally like it, was not good for a stock-site https://picasaweb.google.com/117205949410349346735/2011Gaiapark#5658540296844530514

Second time "Too similar" ( 2 product-photo's).
- photo #1 and #8 from initial post

Third time tried to be more varied and got "composition":
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120524_2089.jpg
and #3 and #10 from initial post

Photo Critique / Re: istock photo critique please

« on: July 23, 2012, 16:08 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 23, 2012, 14:36

Yep, better. Up the saturation too.

What do you think?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216c.jpg

Photo Critique / Re: istock photo critique please

« on: July 23, 2012, 14:28 »

@luissantos84: Gosh, I'm embarassed to say, but you are right... Started by cleaning my coins (one article recommended ketchup - and that actually works!).

@sjlocke: Had that comment a few times, and I admit I find it difficult to see when exposure is correct. I modified the original raw in lightroom - is this better?
http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216b.jpg
(original raw-file:http://kalmiya.dyndns.org/images/2012/stock/20120722_4216.CR2).

@ruxpriencdiam: I understand - going 'over the top' on the background caused the foreground to lose the focus too much - going to retake such a shot, but with larger DOF.

@lagereek: Came here to learn, so any help is appreciated - and thanks for the offer, I'd be happy to get tips on what to look for.

Photo Critique / Re: istock photo critique please

« on: July 23, 2012, 12:57 »

@traveller1116 - thanks for the constructive feedback, now I understand some of the mistakes I'm making - going to pay attention to this. Going to make a new one with the magnifying glass being held and improve a few others using your feedback, and see where I can get.

@Lagreek: Hard criticism - but thanks for it, and your time.

@ruxpriencdiam - Concerning the OOF - I was intentionally making the background blurry at F2.8, so I guess I overdid that... Would it be better to increase DOF only slightly, or should it be sharp all the way?