Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Don't understand this composition rejection

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2723 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

I don't really get many rejections, and not overly worried about this. I thought it would get a lighting rejection for blown highlights. (They're bright, not blown) But on composition, I like the way it slants into the fame, looks toward the negative space where copy could be. Any ideas?

jhuls · Joined: 02 Jan 2012 Posts: 1046

I'm wondering if they just wanted to see more of the giraffe instead of just a head shot.

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2723 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

I guess, but they approved this one. It has a little more neck, but it's basically a very similar shot.

semmickphoto · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:56 am

Just a thought, maybe because the head is in front of the neck. The face almost disappears in the neck background.

jhuls · Joined: 02 Jan 2012 Posts: 1046

Hmmm don't know then. You are right they are very similar shots, maybe they just hit the wrong button. Maybe they just thought they were too similar and only accepted 1.

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:17 am

Perhaps they wanted a bit more space on the left side (looking at it)?

Open a new file a bit larger and then clone in the extra space and see what happens?

greenfield54 · Joined: 21 Jun 2009 Posts: 2616 Location: Philippines

The approved shot looks more balanced with both the eyes in full view though the BG is not that good with the stone wall cutting across the frame.

rinder99 · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:12 pm

Rob, Your helping folks here and giving advice and You ask about composition??? This just doesn't work my friend.This is a amateur shot and exposure has a lot to be desired..Im sorry.Look at your work as you look at others.

nadger · Joined: 13 Sep 2009 Posts: 259 Location: God only knows

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2723 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

copidosoma · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 3770 Location: Canada

My guess is that it is just a bit too tight. Although it is similar to the one that was accepted there is just enough neck in that one that it doesn't seem so cramped. Pretty picky rejection though. As youn mentioned, the hard light would have been a more expected rejection.

Had this been portrait orientation or just a bit wider it probably would have got through IMO.

But then, I don't know what reviewers think.

triceratops · Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 7852 Location: The other Nevada

I think it may be a combination of lighting and orientation. Since the reviewer could only choose one button, he chose the composition one. For composition, he was probably looking for a vertical shot, emphasizing the neck and head height, rather than horizontal. For lighting, it's just too hot and the extra dark BG only emphasizes this. I'd tone down the lighting on the animal and bring back some of the BG. Still pretty hot between the horns, but not a whole lot you can do in that area. If you didn't like the lighter BG, you could play around with that, getting rid of the hot patches and even tone it down a bit more.

pharm · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 9406 Location: Never quite sure

My opinion? Needs more neck.

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2723 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

I tried working on it because I liked the way the neck curved into the frame and looked back at the copy space. Was the only reason I submitted it. But what I like and what's best don't always meet up. The lighting was just too difficult to get to work because she was just a little too far to get enough flash on and the sun was high by this time (like 10:30 or 11:00 in the morning).

Thanks for the input. I really do appreciate it. Sometimes you just don't see things that others see. I wish there were a place I could submit stuff for regular, more advanced feedback because this forum is more for people trying to get in. It never hurts to have others look over your work to help you make it better.

jeffbanke · Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:03 pm