Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

petergabell · Joined: 30 Jan 2012 Posts: 8

Hi all, I've played with photography for a while with a focus on plants and natural scenery. But this stock caper has hit me with 10 from 10 rejected for "Composition and framing" and two only of them anything I can understand as tangible. Here I've posted three 'rejected' images and am seeking some understanding as to why they were rejected. The remaining two are those presently in my next submission box. Hopefully I have followed the instructions outlined. Thanks P.

petergabell · Joined: 30 Jan 2012 Posts: 8

reject #2, I really thought this would be a good stock candidate? P

petergabell · Joined: 30 Jan 2012 Posts: 8

Reject #3, bay leaves are not in abundance on SS And I figured this one would work? A derivative has been published. P

petergabell · Joined: 30 Jan 2012 Posts: 8

New #1, Australia, Tropics, beach, island...

petergabell · Joined: 30 Jan 2012 Posts: 8

and finally, new #2, Sydney Opera house at night

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 7:00 am

Don't worry about the framing, cropping and or composition because they are OOF with lighting problems and the Opera House is a no no and is copyrighted.

digigandalf · Joined: 11 Jun 2005 Posts: 5412 Location: Twinsburg, OH

What Barry is saying is that they picked one rejection criterion (reviewers have a list of options to click), but there may be more problems with an image. The focus is soft on all of these, especially the bay leaves; they're severely OOF.

The scenic images are nice pictures, but they don't contain anything compelling that stands out to "sell" the location. That's why they got the LCV rejection. It takes a while to develop an eye for stock photography, beyond good photography in general. Spend time looking at ads in magazines, on websites, and try to notice what makes the images "salable." A location shot should make the viewer want to go visit that place. It can't just elict an "oh, that's nice" reaction.

And like Barry said, the Sydney Opera House is on the list of buildings they won't accept because of copyright issues (actually pretty much any modern building--they have to be part of a skyline or general location shot).

rinder99 · Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:10 am

Composition is the last of your worries my friend.

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

In your scenics, there are two major things to watch out for. First, don't put the horizon in or near the center of the image (look up "rule of thirds"). Second, make sure your horizons are straight across. In these images, they're tilted.

There are other issues with these (exposure, focus, time of day, and white balance) as well. Composition and lighting are very important, but you've got to nail the focus and you have to be able to tell by looking if an image is in focus or not. Your 100% crop of the bay leaves is, as already mentioned, VERY out of focus (OOF).

Keep working at it. We all started somewhere.

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

I've noticed several newbies posting images, specifically 100% crops, that are BADLY OOF. What I don't understand is why they don't see that. It's not so much a matter of them not being able to focus the shot correctly (although they may have that issue, too) but they don't even see it when they make the 100% crop! I don't understand this! I can understand if it's a little soft and they're not used to "tack sharp" but when it's VERY obvious, I don't get it.

I even noticed that in "real life", people will have an out of focus picture and they'll have it enlarged and printed (which makes it MORE visible that it's OOF) and they're tickled to death with the print and they don't notice that it's blurry as h...!

Any theories on this? How do people NOT see this?

rinder99 · Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:53 am

Been scratching My head for years about this.I worry about there eyesight.And yes a little borderline soft is fine but just a blur?? Beyond my understanding.

matthi · Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Posts: 483

semmickphoto · Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 11:25 am

I think it just comes down to not understanding what in focus is. How many people I have seen posting here said that when they started they didnt even have a clue of what an in focus photo really looked like.

Only when they come here they start to understand tack sharp.

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

I wonder if it's a vision problem, etc., too. I'm not singling out the poster on this thread and I'm not meaning to be critical of him/her in that respect, I'm just trying to figure out why. I always remember when my daughter got her first pair of glasses and she was amazed at how much better she could see. She said that before, what she saw was "normal". She thought everybody saw things the same way she did.

matthi · Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Posts: 483

....but the ability to see if something is in focus, better yet tack sharp, or totally out of focus has nothing to do with photography, you don´t even have to have pressed the shutter by yourself or own a camera to tell, your grandma can, if she trusts her glasses...