MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: isolated images being rejected for compostion?  (Read 4996 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 04, 2014, 05:53 »
0
This has happened with isolated images in my past two submissions.  I've been cropping them pretty tight with the understanding that customer don't want to pay for a lot of null space.  It's a simple thing to add some back and even compose them in accordance with the "Rule of Thirds", if that's what they really want, but it seems a bit silly to do that with images designed to be raw material cut outs for someone else.   Has anyone else been getting rejections like these lately?



« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2014, 05:58 »
+1
This has happened with isolated images in my past two submissions.  I've been cropping them pretty tight with the understanding that customer don't want to pay for a lot of null space.  It's a simple thing to add some back and even compose them in accordance with the "Rule of Thirds", if that's what they really want, but it seems a bit silly to do that with images designed to be raw material cut outs for someone else.   Has anyone else been getting rejections like these lately?

I wonder if you could show us a sample image. Otherwise it would be hard to make any meaningful statement why they might have given you that reason. It's most likely not because they want you to add more white around the actual image.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2014, 07:45 »
+1
This has happened with isolated images in my past two submissions.  I've been cropping them pretty tight with the understanding that customer don't want to pay for a lot of null space. 
Irrelevant on SS anyway, as files are (mostly?) the same price no matter what size you download.
But Michael is right - probably the 'composition' rejection is a catch-all and really means something else.  ::)

« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2014, 08:09 »
+1
I bet the reviewer was thrown by the tight crop. I say go ahead with your rule of thirds idea, and leave some space around the image. Resubmit with a note saying that you corrected the composition.

Remember that Shutterstock frames your isolated image with a pen line. So you have to take that into consideration of how it is presented.


ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2014, 08:51 »
+1
It has happened many times before.

It has no shadows right????

If you have cropped off all of the white space then it should have been accepted if all else is well with the image such as WB/lighting and focus.

Resubmit with a note to the reviewer explaining that it is ISOLATED (meaning no shadows) and that it can be easily lifted and used in any composition by a designer in need of an isolated shot because composition plays no role in an isolation because the designer can choose any composition that they want.

Has happened to me many time and is irritating because of the crap you have to go through to re submit it and start all over.

« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2014, 09:13 »
+1
   I would suggest that my approach is less confrontational. I don't think you want to "school" the reviewer. (even if you think they need it)

« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2014, 09:25 »
+1
I suggest you post a rejected image here, so we can take a look at it.

Even if the image is an object isolated on white, it can have a bad composition. If it's more than one object, the objects may be laid out in an unappealing way. Also the choice of focal length and image angle matters.

When I'm cropping my isolated images I don't crop all the white space, I leave some white space, the image looks more pleasing that way.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 09:28 by Perry »

« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2014, 09:29 »
0
Thanks Michael, Sue, Rimglow, and Perry. 

For the most part, I'm thinking the tight crop too.  Rimglow's point about the pen-line makes a lot of sense in that regard, not something I've considered.   Thanks for that.  I'll pull the crop back a little and try again with a note.

Below an isolation that was rejected for composition but is a bit different than the others.   I'm not sure what to do with it now.  I really don't want to add more white space.  I struggle with this one because everything about it was deliberate and calculated.  It's an experiment in scale mixing miniature and normal size objects (without being too obvious) as a visual commentary on over indulgence on holiday sweets.  As you can see, aside from the intentional faint shadows the background is pure white, and there is a clear clipping path so designers can adjust move/remove, alter the perspective, change the scale, and extract any or all objects as they see fit quite easily (note the dark Gray area is the desktop BG and not part of the image).

I have another version that was done an a variegated pastel pink background that isn't isolated, but it was also rejected for composition - which to me hints at not enough copy space being the reason, but that doesn't make a lot of  sense to me on this one.  Being holiday related, I've already lost a lot of time, but am happy to take it as a learning experience instead, so I can help avoid similar rejections in the future.


EDIT:  I added the visible clipping path to the example, it of course was not on the submitted version.

« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2014, 09:37 »
0
Image quality of the screen shot is horrible.  I'll try a saved version from the original file:

Edit:  Still not great, but better.  Must be some file compression going on. 

Ron

« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2014, 10:23 »
+1
I agree with the reviewer there. I have had rejections too, composition on isolations. If the object itself is not composed correctly or in a weird angle, it gets a composition rejection.

« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2014, 10:26 »
0
I agree with the reviewer there. I have had rejections too, composition on isolations. If the object itself is not composed correctly or in a weird angle, it gets a composition rejection.


What do you suggest I change about the compositon? 

« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2014, 10:29 »
+4
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:06 by tickstock »

Ron

« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2014, 10:31 »
0
I agree with the reviewer there. I have had rejections too, composition on isolations. If the object itself is not composed correctly or in a weird angle, it gets a composition rejection.


What do you suggest I change about the compositon?
The massive chocolate rabbit doesnt make a lot of sense on the small plate. Even if this was a normal image, with that kind of table setting, would probably get a rejection.

« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2014, 10:38 »
0
 
Quote
The massive chocolate rabbit doesnt make a lot of sense on the small plate. Even if this was a normal image, with that kind of table setting, would probably get a rejection.

The massive chocolate rabbit on the small plate is the whole point of the image.  I'd used miniature items to achieve that look.  That said, your point is well taken.  Evidently I failed to properly communicate the concept in the final image.  I do appreciate the feedback.   

« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2014, 10:47 »
0
I agree with the reviewer there. I have had rejections too, composition on isolations. If the object itself is not composed correctly or in a weird angle, it gets a composition rejection.


What do you suggest I change about the composition?
Each element should be it's own image.  It doesn't make sense to me to put them all together, but the lighting looks like the biggest problem.

I appreciate the feedback.   What about the lighting do you find displeasing? - Knowing this would be helpful if I'm to improve.  Thanks in advance. 

Ron

« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2014, 10:49 »
+1
What is the story you try to tell? What message does a giant rabbit on a small plate convey?

« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2014, 10:50 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:06 by tickstock »


« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2014, 10:54 »
+1
Quote
The massive chocolate rabbit doesnt make a lot of sense on the small plate. Even if this was a normal image, with that kind of table setting, would probably get a rejection.

The massive chocolate rabbit on the small plate is the whole point of the image.  I'd used miniature items to achieve that look.  That said, your point is well taken.  Evidently I failed to properly communicate the concept in the final image.  I do appreciate the feedback.

Yes, I agree, the image looks "odd" like it's badly composed from different images. If you had shot that not isolated but on a table, it might have been accepted. But "floating in space" it just looks like the elements do not really match.

Good luck.

« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2014, 11:08 »
+1
Weak concept - poor execution  - time to move on.

« Reply #19 on: April 04, 2014, 11:25 »
0
Weak concept - poor execution  - time to move on.

Thanks.  With the valuable feedback above, that is my conclusion as well.  I consider the shoot worthwhile overall, just from what I've learned here.  Far more valuable than if it were accepted, I'm sure. 


Edit:  I've +1 hearted everyone's comments here.  Thanks for the feedback!

calcaneus10

« Reply #20 on: April 04, 2014, 11:58 »
+2
Actually, I think it's a pretty interesting concept and worthwhile submitting.  The only composition problem that I see is the napkin.  If you remove the napkin (just white it out) and then crop so that the chocolate bunny (the focus of your idea) is centered, I'm sure they'll accept it.

Goofy

« Reply #21 on: April 04, 2014, 12:03 »
0
I agree with the reviewer there. I have had rejections too, composition on isolations. If the object itself is not composed correctly or in a weird angle, it gets a composition rejection.


What do you suggest I change about the compositon?
Each element should be it's own image.  It doesn't make sense to me to put them all together, but the lighting looks like the biggest problem.

ditto

« Reply #22 on: April 04, 2014, 12:13 »
+1
btw - reviewers on ss  have  improved in last few month - I think - they are strict but consistent - at last...

« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2014, 13:20 »
0
Quote from: Muskoka Imagery link=topic=22341.msg373706#msg373706
I appreciate the feedback.   What about the lighting do you find displeasing?

First thing that annoyed me about the lighting was the "black" knife and fork. Get some nice grey reflections there!

My advice how to make this better: Use rabbit, plate, fork and knife. Throw out the rest. Shoot from (exactly) straight above. A White plate may work better, and maybe some other background than white.

Overall I don't understand the concept. I think I get what you are trying to achieve, but I cannot find any possible uses for the image.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2014, 13:24 by Perry »

« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2014, 17:22 »
+2
Folks always interpret "composition" as meaning rules that have to be followed when, really, it's about whether something is aesthetically pleasing.  So, it might be simply be that the reviewer didn't like the picture.  Making no judgement about the work here which I haven't seen, just suggesting an a possible explanation of why an isolation might get a comp rejection.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2282 Views
Last post December 15, 2008, 00:15
by RH
3 Replies
4320 Views
Last post March 01, 2011, 09:52
by Blufish
9 Replies
4324 Views
Last post November 10, 2011, 03:48
by gemmy12
5 Replies
1999 Views
Last post June 02, 2013, 13:06
by cathyslife
3 Replies
1492 Views
Last post July 27, 2016, 22:16
by sgoodwin4813

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle