MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: epixx on January 20, 2008, 13:41
-
I've stopped worrying about rejections at SS, but some of them are more funny than others. Here's one from today:
(http://www.scanstockphoto.com/comps/2/comp341897.JPG)
Reason:
Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
I have considered different ways of improving the lighting in the photo. Asking the sun to hide behind a cloud to give a cooler, more even light could be an alternative. I could also take my studio strobes up in balloons on each side of this yellow one, to get correct studio lighting and not the unreliable sunlight I've used for outdoor shots previously.
Since the WB "may be incorrect", painting the sky in the correct SS-blue, is probably also a good idea.
On the other hand: all of this might cost more than 30 cent, so I'm not sure if I'm going to do it :D
-
when a balloon replaces the sun, that may indeed be a bad lightning.
-
Ah, but of course! Maybe the reviewer thought it was a photo of the sun. That explains uneven lighting, shadows and wrong WB as well...
-
I just find the image a bit on the dull side, not with WB incorrect.
Anyway with just playing with levels and adding a contrast curve it comes out like this:
(http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/7532/86222195iu3.jpg)
I'd give it a try, I found out SS love "popping" colors while IS don't and actually I had some rejections from the latter using the same calibration as SS where I have 100% acceptance in my brief experience.
-
proof to me that curves are worth of mastering them. I could not though ... What is the best book or web link to learn curves ?
-
proof to me that curves are worth of mastering them. I could not though ... What is the best book or web link to learn curves ?
If I remember correctly RJMiz has excellent tutorials covering the topic on his website. Otherway every half-decent book on PS retouching tecniques usually explain the usage of curves. On the very end you have to develop your own taste on them because they are just like different types of "film" (in the example above I used a provia-like curve to stop magenta to bleed to much for example).
-
Hmmm... well, when I evaluate "correct white balance" I look at whether the whites in the image have color cast... might it be that the clouds in the original image are on the blue-ish side?
-
I had a look at the whiter pixels into PS levels and they seemed ok to me.
IMHO the clouds don't have a blue cast, it looks like they're semi-transparent, not dense enough to stop all the blue from the sky to pass through them.
Fact is that if you change the white point you can see that the baloon colors go awry.
-
I think that there were just small problems with levels on this photo , so the colors seamed like washed out a bit , but nothing that cant be solved in few seconds , even auto levels option gives you the result.
Its interesting that a simple black gradient set on soft light blending mode puts this nice colorful photo into life especially on photos with sky like this one .
I just played with your photo for few minutes , I was messing with levels on the second one, and added a black gradient on the last one.
Hope you don't mind.
(http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3807/83237645oo2.jpg)
-
Wow.
-
I agree. Wow! You really made that picture pop. Just don't upload it to IS... 8)
-
Great work for sure!
-
May I?
IMHO, regarding the original v. the edited version: there is a blue color cast, the color picker reveals bluesh hue no matter where you look in the clouds, and I've never heard of ALL of clouds being blue because they are transparent... (I would agree that there might be a blueish strand at the edges of clouds... but not ALL of the clouds). In the edited version, this color cast is even more obvious, which really makes this image unsuitable for stock (to say nothing about the fact that now about half of the clouds is also overexposed)...
may I offer my take on color correction? richer colors, and a reduced blue-ness of clouds
(http://www.chasingmoments.com/Chasing%20Moments%20Images/JournalImages/83237645oo2_colorcorrected)
-
Only problem with Lizard's third image is now the cloud's blown. Take the cloud from the second image and pop it onto the third and you've got a winner for SS. And DanP68's right ... don't bother sending it to IS. The big "overfiltered" rejection.
-
I like the original picture the most. It is the most pleasant one for my eyes and from designers point of view it is the most usable (as it may be transformed into whatever I could need). In the same time I understand why that most colourful version could be of most interest to SS. It is their policy (and successfull one).
-
IMHO Lizard's second one, coupled with a touch of with black gradient added to the sky would work best. In the third one the colours appear to be too saturated and, as someone else had pointed out, the cloud's blown.
-
where are you guys getting brown clouds??
I like chasingmoments version best. I agree it is important to not 'overdue' the editing, but correcting the colors is not overdueing anything.
-
Chasingmoments version is the best for me too, the colors are naturals. I 've done a version very near but I don't know how to post an image on the forum.
-
I just wanted to point how contrast is affecting the photo , and those are just thumbnails so I think there is no need to be picky , is there a problem to add a layer mask a remove the problematic parts ?
I just wanted to say that buyers prefer clouds like that not that they look best , but don't take my word , just browse trough most popular landscapes photos on any site you like and you want find too much natural in them.
Anyway here you go , clouds as the were on original photo , I even removed the noise so I dont get noise refusal. ;D
(http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2554/75064741ry3.jpg)
-
Double post
-
Please,how do you post pictures in the forum?
-
Please,how do you post pictures in the forum?
I upload them in sites like Imageshack and then paste the link here.
Anyway these threads are so much funny and interesting seeing how the tastes of everyone could differ, this explains a lot about rejections.
-
Ok, thanks, here is mine:
(http://s144573887.onlinehome.fr/images%20forums/comp341897.JPG)
-
Wow... thanks a lot everybody. Interesting adjustments. What makes it complicated, and as was mentioned by a previous poster, is that there's no way it would be accepted at IS that way. I could obviously upload different versions, but the logistics of this are complicated as they are.
Anyway, this was a solid reminder that I need to spend more time post-processing some of my images.
-
Wow... thanks a lot everybody. Interesting adjustments. What makes it complicated, and as was mentioned by a previous poster, is that there's no way it would be accepted at IS that way. I could obviously upload different versions, but the logistics of this are complicated as they are.
Anyway, this was a solid reminder that I need to spend more time post-processing some of my images.
HEhehe... why don't you just isolate the balloon off the sky, the isolation will make a lot more money!! Adn you won't have to deal with clouds!
-
When I get home from work I'll play with it a bit. But I don't think the clouds add anything, compared to the blue of the sky and the yellow of the balloon, which is one of the naturally great color combos, the clouds are a very weak element, clone e'm out. For an image like this I don't thing that a gradient is the best solution, it looks good against a horizon because of the nature of the lum. of the sky, but there is naturally very little gradient when looking up. The balloon with a slight bit more saturation against a plain, well saturated sky (shifted toward the blue spectrum from cyan) is about as strong as this image can get, IMHO.
-
Hot air baloons are copyrighted. I think you need property release for each baloon.
-
SS have the most random, non-sensical rejection reasons in my experience (working with 14 agencies). There is nothing to learn or improve from their rejection reasons like the 'lighting' reason above, and that's what I see as the main reason for photographers to be receiving the exact rejection reason.