pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Image postprocessing - how far should you go  (Read 3328 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2022, 12:23 »
0
there's a big difference between oversaturation  and sky replacement or HDR - esp'ly the latter which an end user cannot change on their own (if they even look at the non-HDR version).  agencies may say they want little processing, but their first search pages are filled with highly processed images

grey skies (unless dramatic per se) just dont sell - replacements do

wirestock has created yet another silly rejection for 'Over Stylized Image: Image is overly stylized, altered, or tinted. ' instead of letting the various agency apply their own conditions - and again, these are usually images that are accepted by the majors - wirestock continues to shoot itself in the foot by catering to some anonymous, lowest common denominator 'agency'.  the main draw of WS was ther ease of submitting, but now with all their nonsense rejections, the need to resubmit to the real agencies makes WS less & less useful


« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2022, 12:30 »
+1
Times a topic, which one moves me for a long time.
If you look at landscape pictures for example, the bestsellers are completely oversaturated by the colors and partly overworked beyond recognition - but they are bestsellers.

I noticed this particularly blatantly during my last shoot. I personally don't like the bestsellers, but they seem to sell.

How do you deal with it. Do you all turn your color saturation knob all the way up for better sales chances?

Ok, my shots and the competition bestsellers:

https://stock.adobe.com/de/search?load_type=search&is_recent_search=&search_type=usertyped&k=dinant+belgium&native_visual_search=&similar_content_id=&asset_id=217426858

In my opinion, less is more when it comes to post processing. At least for Adobe Stock, I recommend you submit the clean, sharp, color version of your file. This gives customers the most flexibility to enhance the image in a way that matches their project exactly. If you get too funky in post, you are severely limiting your potential customer base. I have discussed this extensively with our moderation team and when I asked what was the most common reason for rejection, there was exactly zero hesitation before I received the answer "oversaturation." Again, less is more. I use the vibrance slider almost exclusively in LRC and almost never the saturation slider for this reason. I do like to replace the sky from time to time, but as noted here, it should look like it belongs.

-Mat Hayward

This is how it should be at any agency (80/20 rule). I've had customers contact me in the past asking for the original UNEDITED file.  I do believe some post is needed if you're shooting in RAW, but be subtle.  This is not to say that there aren't styles and approaches that use aggressive post, but by in large don't overdo it.  Honestly, I look at some of my old stuff and shake my head, "what in the world was I thinking?" 

zeljkok

  • Non Linear Existence
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2022, 14:02 »
0


This is how it should be at any agency (80/20 rule). I've had customers contact me in the past asking for the original UNEDITED file.  I do believe some post is needed if you're shooting in RAW, but be subtle.  This is not to say that there aren't styles and approaches that use aggressive post, but by in large don't overdo it.  Honestly, I look at some of my old stuff and shake my head, "what in the world was I thinking?"

That's a good point.  I also had customers contacts inquiring about RAW files.

Re "shake my head", I think this is natural evolution of photographer.  I also look at some of my older stuff I thought was great, and now "oh my".  Simply means skills are getting better and thus criteria higher

Also, related to this great discussion, one other issue.  Not post-processing, but light manipulation.  Polarizers.  Yes, great if/when used properly, but can they ever screw the sky, create uneven gradient and basically render what would otherwise be great photo total crap.   Talking about landscape photography.  I find this specially true when air is polluted, ie closer to urban areas.  On the far side in Himalayas where air is super clean, there won't be gradient, but it will often render sky such dark blue it is again unnatural.  Nowdays I'll use polarizer mostly for waterfalls to increase exposure time, rarely for rich blue skies.

2010 Photo:  Sky totally screwed up.  It's not like Ait Benhaddou is around the corner & you can visit at will


2019 Photo.  No Polarizer, no color enhancement.  No sharpening whatsoever. Clouds made a bit brighter only, perhaps too much
« Last Edit: March 27, 2022, 14:08 by zeljkok »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4542 Views
Last post April 12, 2007, 01:38
by digiology
2 Replies
5363 Views
Last post January 30, 2009, 02:17
by sharply_done
12 Replies
7327 Views
Last post April 11, 2014, 16:12
by ruigsantos
37 Replies
13924 Views
Last post November 25, 2016, 00:06
by yvallee
40 Replies
12800 Views
Last post April 14, 2022, 11:07
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle