MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Peter on June 25, 2008, 14:18
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
accepted:
(http://i31.tinypic.com/10msbuo.jpg)
100% crop:
(http://i30.tinypic.com/2v0k28m.jpg)
hehehee
-
I think it's a good example of where noise take part of the composition. I always asked me why there was the keyword "noise" as a composition element at Istock
-
Maybe what SS likes is good lighting ? And with good lighting there is little noise to start with. Bumping up exposure in RAW (when the original shot is underexposed) produces noise (or makes it more visible if you prefer, or simply the signal-to-noise ratio is bad).
So, when SS rejects something for noise - in reality they may be rejecting the pic for poor lighting (artificially "saved" in conversion).
-
This is not noise but grain and there is a huge difference!
Noise is an unwanted digital artifact caused by electronic... noise while grain is used during post-processing on purpose to add some style to a photo.
One can like or not grain (I do like it), but it is an artistic choice from the photographer and should not be seen as noise IMHO.
In this case, the grain is used to give an aged look to the photo along with the sepia toning. This is not the prettiest grain I've seen however ;)
Have a look at any old B&W photography or even at many movies (did you see 300 recently?) and you will see a lot of grain and this is often just beautiful while noise is just awful.
-
oh quit making all that NOISE about noise ;D
it all depends on who you know at SS.
some get away, some don't. :-*
-
Fotolia rejected this as "Type of photo", why am I not surprised.... ;D