Post a full size image if you�re going to rant about focus so we can see.

I shoot birds and other wildlife (and occasionally wildflowers) with a Canon 500 F4 wide open, which is guaranteed to turn the background into a lovely blur. SS never refuses those.

Landscapes are a different story. They do need to be in focus front to back, so I assume that's what you're dealing with. Mine are occasionally rejected for focus, but I usually can see the problem even before submitting a shot. If I can't fix it by cropping (turning an OOF shot into an in-focus panorama or vertical, for example), I just accept the fact that it's a bad image and move on.

If you have a lot of rejections for focus, maybe either your shooting technique or your processing technique needs work.

thanks for the informations.
indeed most of the images to refuse are images of landscape. I prefer sometimes to forget rather than to upload them again

I agree with SS's rejection of the image you just shared. The foreground is probably the most visible/important part of the image, and here it is both a very large area and severely out of focus. Very distracting. The subject is in an odd position relative to the rest of the shot, meaning that the composition is not appealing.

To be honest, I would not have submitted this image in the first place.

I think it should of been accepted but I would be surprised if it sold once. BUT an art buyer might have that exact need for that image. I personally would crop out the bottom 2/3s

Unless it's a verrrrry large file, cropping out the bottom 2/3 wouldn't likely leave the minimum size required by SS.

Far better, if possible, would be to reshoot the church, getting much closer to it and framing it nicely in its setting.

Tough crowd!

How about if the image was used in some sort of advertising usage where there was text over the blurred foreground. Seems it would work quite well for that.
Think about in image of a model holding a blank sign. Would you criticize that for having a blank area in the image?    This is stock.

at shutterstock they don't understand Depth of field. I have a lot of images refused for the out of focus. must send only clear images on all plans. Here is another rule to make mediocre photos, without relief !!
"The main subject is out of focus or is not in focus due to camera shake, blah blah blah ..." I work with Nikon D700, D750 at often high speeds etc etc and I know how to use photoshop, even some images made with a tripod are refused with this excuse. Poorly adjusted AI or incompetent examiners is in any case a bit depressing. after several returns the image is accepted and even sometimes sold

Always put �bokeh� in description & keywords

Tough crowd!

How about if the image was used in some sort of advertising usage where there was text over the blurred foreground. Seems it would work quite well for that.
Think about in image of a model holding a blank sign. Would you criticize that for having a blank area in the image?    This is stock.

No, white text would be hard to read because of the yellow flowers and light-colored grass. So it would be a bad image for advertising usage.

I don't like the composition either, the church is too close to the edge of the photo and the blurred part takes up too much space.

Quote from: wds on May 19, 2020, 21:03

Tough crowd!

How about if the image was used in some sort of advertising usage where there was text over the blurred foreground. Seems it would work quite well for that.
Think about in image of a model holding a blank sign. Would you criticize that for having a blank area in the image?    This is stock.

As it was already said. It is blurred a lot for a normal image of church in nature and it is not blurred enough for putting the text there. It should be blurred more or less but this is the great example of a shot when it basically does not suit anything. It the camera would be closer to the foreground and it would be shot from lower point of view, it could be blurred more and with better composition would be fine. But this is basically between two methods which would make sense and therefore, it does not make it. It is neither of them. Too much and not enough.

Exactly. Very well said.

In the end, it doesn�t really matter what we all think. It was refused, for good reason. Most designers use Photoshop. If you provide an in-focus image, a designer can always apply blur filters to be creative. You limit your market when you shoot blurry. You would have a better chance at sales if you shoot landscapes in focus. And yes, there are instances where creative blur works, if done correctly.

at shutterstock they don't understand Depth of field. I have a lot of images refused for the out of focus. must send only clear images on all plans. Here is another rule to make mediocre photos, without relief !!
"The main subject is out of focus or is not in focus due to camera shake, blah blah blah ..." I work with Nikon D700, D750 at often high speeds etc etc and I know how to use photoshop, even some images made with a tripod are refused with this excuse. Poorly adjusted AI or incompetent examiners is in any case a bit depressing. after several returns the image is accepted and even sometimes sold

Put �bokeh� in keywords, description & title


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always put �bokeh� in description & keywords

What we see in the image in question is nothing even close to �bokeh�.

It's just plain bad composition with a distracting foreground.

These days you just have to use brute force and keep re-submitting.

My record is 6 but on average it gets through after the 3rd time (assuming the image is OK technically).

This is bad advice. If a photo is commercially non-viable, something that most of us in this thread seem to agree with, then the solution is not to 'keep resubmitting', the solution is to improve your skills and submit a BETTER photo.

Edit: noticed the part between brackets too late, however in this case we can safely say the images are not technically OK.