MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Depth of field images refused for the out of focus  (Read 1113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

miaoulis

« on: May 19, 2020, 03:32 »
+1
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


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2020, 08:27 »
0
Post a full size image if youre going to rant about focus so we can see.

« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2020, 08:35 »
0
I used to do food shots, which use a shallow depth of field, that would get those rejections. If you want to sell them there, you just have to keep resubmitting, like you did. 

« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2020, 09:09 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 09:11 by marthamarks »

miaoulis

« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2020, 10:03 »
0
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

« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2020, 10:08 »
+2
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 10:22 by marthamarks »

m

« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2020, 10:43 »
0
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
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 10:47 by m »

« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2020, 10:58 »
+1
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.

« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2020, 12:00 »
+1
To be honest, I would reject such an image as well. It is possible to get a nice landscape shot with blurred foregound but it is not so easy and it is very distracting here. It is blurred a lot and not enough at the same time. Lower and closer view (with smaller amount of the foreground) may serve better.

wds

« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2020, 21:03 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 21:08 by wds »

« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2020, 21:44 »
0
Today there are rejections of focused, unfocused images, due to an error in the upload, due to the SS title. It happens to all collaborators for a long time. It is a reality for everyone and every day. In this forum there are a few threads that refer to SS rejections. It is not a matter of Artificial intelligence. They are the guidelines that govern the standards of the examiners. Company guidelines. It affects us all.

« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2020, 15:45 »
0
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

« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2020, 16:02 »
+3
Foreground being out of focus is extremely uncommon. Almost never do you see an image like that in any advertising. There is no clearly no demand for such a shot. Think about your time, you spend time doing something that no one is going to buy. You want to study the market and see what kind of landscape photos buyers actually use. Let that be your guide. Otherwise you just learn the hard way.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2020, 18:42 »
+3
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.

« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2020, 12:37 »
+3
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.

« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2020, 17:23 »
0
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.

miaoulis

« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2020, 07:45 »
0
Hi
and you also find this image out of focus?


« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2020, 09:24 »
+1
In the end, it doesnt 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.

« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2020, 11:01 »
0
Hi
and you also find this image out of focus?

In my opinion it is in focus, however, you have an issue with color balance. There is an red-ish tint that is unnatural looking. The composition is also off centered, making the image quite a bit less useful. You cropped off the edge of the plants for no good reason. The verticals and horizontals of the word tiles are not straight. Having seen this image and your previous, I think you still have a lot to learn about shooting stock for advertising purposes. You need to pay attention to what images that are used in advertising look like. That is how you need to shoot. You need to shoot for the customer's needs.

« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2020, 15:18 »
0
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

« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2020, 15:31 »
0
Guess he or she didnt get the answers they were looking for.

« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2020, 17:34 »
+2

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.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2020, 06:28 »
0
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).

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2020, 09:42 »
+3
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.

« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2020, 10:17 »
+1
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.

I concur.

We've all noted here that there are waaaaaay too many bad images on SS and the other sites. If a given shot isn't good, we really shouldn't encourage the submitter to keep pounding on it, hoping that some reviewer somewhere will weaken or be lazy and let it in.

Quality over quantity is a good motto for almost any creative endeavor.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3108 Views
Last post June 17, 2007, 21:20
by litifeta
28 Replies
9095 Views
Last post October 06, 2009, 13:42
by Dook
74 Replies
16755 Views
Last post July 10, 2013, 14:18
by marthamarks
27 Replies
26729 Views
Last post February 19, 2014, 22:59
by JPSDK
7 Replies
3354 Views
Last post July 25, 2015, 11:24
by Dodie

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle