| Author |
Message |
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 83
Location: too many
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:46 pm
|  |
Hi
Can i include these in the first 10? Please ignore the spelling errors in the file names.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
180.68 KB |
| Viewed: |
992 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
199.01 KB |
| Viewed: |
992 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
163.13 KB |
| Viewed: |
992 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 83
Location: too many
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:48 pm
| |
Tree Full Image
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
244.4 KB |
| Viewed: |
989 Time(s) |
|
|
|
jhuls
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
Posts: 1046
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:53 pm
| |
The tree will get rejected for LCV what idea or product does it promote? And forget the idea that someone could use it as a background they already have too many of those and they rarely accept shots that are textures or backgrounds.
The river seems to be soft. And the composition could use some work.
|
|
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 83
Location: too many
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:07 pm
| |
| jhuls wrote: | The tree will get rejected for LCV what idea or product does it promote? And forget the idea that someone could use it as a background they already have too many of those and they rarely accept shots that are textures or backgrounds.
The river seems to be soft. And the composition could use some work. |
agree with you on the LCV of tree, but does it meet the other requirements. The river was a gr8 location, but i only had my Kodak point & shoot.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39224
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:38 pm
| |
I would pass on both for first 10.
|
|
cpaulfell
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 2431
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:57 pm
| |
| wrote: |
agree with you on the LCV of tree, but does it meet the other requirements. |
Being a n00b I am not qualified to critique but, seeing as most often the critics do not answer the question asked I will hazard a go a it...
The focus is very soft and your DOF is too shallow. It would appear you did not use a good steady tripod as the focus issue looks like motion.
Just my opinion.
|
|
copidosoma
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 3789
Location: Canada
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 5:21 pm
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | wrote: |
agree with you on the LCV of tree, but does it meet the other requirements. |
Being a n00b I am not qualified to critique but, seeing as most often the critics do not answer the question asked I will hazard a go a it...
The focus is very soft and your DOF is too shallow. It would appear you did not use a good steady tripod as the focus issue looks like motion.
Just my opinion. |
I think it might have more to do with post processing (or in camera image processing I suppose). Looksa like alot of noise reduction was applied washing out alot of the detail in the surfaces. The wood seems pretty sharp (although maybe oversharpened, again excessive post processing) as you can see the spider webs and there doesn't seem to be motion blur on them. But so much of that detail is lost from overfiltering.
As above, neither of these have any commercial value and so would be rejected for that. Let alone technical quality. Textures and general lanscapes just don't get in very easily these days. Certainly not something to include in the first 10.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39224
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:11 pm
| |
| cpaulfell wrote: | | wrote: |
agree with you on the LCV of tree, but does it meet the other requirements. |
Being a n00b I am not qualified to critique but, seeing as most often the critics do not answer the question asked I will hazard a go a it...
The focus is very soft and your DOF is too shallow. It would appear you did not use a good steady tripod as the focus issue looks like motion.
Just my opinion. |
The question was.."Can i include these in the first 10?"
I gave my answer to that specific question.
|
|
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 83
Location: too many
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 11:07 pm
| |
| copidosoma wrote: | | cpaulfell wrote: | | wrote: |
agree with you on the LCV of tree, but does it meet the other requirements. |
Being a n00b I am not qualified to critique but, seeing as most often the critics do not answer the question asked I will hazard a go a it...
The focus is very soft and your DOF is too shallow. It would appear you did not use a good steady tripod as the focus issue looks like motion.
Just my opinion. |
I think it might have more to do with post processing (or in camera image processing I suppose). Looksa like alot of noise reduction was applied washing out alot of the detail in the surfaces. The wood seems pretty sharp (although maybe oversharpened, again excessive post processing) as you can see the spider webs and there doesn't seem to be motion blur on them. But so much of that detail is lost from overfiltering.
As above, neither of these have any commercial value and so would be rejected for that. Let alone technical quality. Textures and general lanscapes just don't get in very easily these days. Certainly not something to include in the first 10. |
Thx.for the feedback. I havn't done any post processing on the wood.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6505
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 3:32 am
| |
Doesnt seem to be 100% crops.
And I think Lauring answered the question that was asked.
|
|
figalip
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 45
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:09 am
| |
The river is nice I would process the picture definitely, for wood not so sure, but you can try and see what happens.
|
|
tverkhovynets
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 749
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:38 am
| |
I wouldn't submit both. The first is extreme lcv, the second is soft, composed incorrectly (cropped too tight/incorrectly), dull colors, lighting can be better.
Taras
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24083
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:45 am
| |
About the river shot. When I look at it I think of three things. First, the day you shot it looks to be an overcast day which in turn makes the water look dull and gives a general overall kind of depressing look to it. It looks like a gray almost rainy day. If this is what you were going for that's great but when you look at it with respect for possible sales it cuts that potential down.
One issue that comes up quite often is when people are presented with a scene they concentrate on a certain part of that scene. Here I have a feeling you were really looking at the main rock in the river. The rest of the scene including the sky and overall feeling of the shot took a back seat.
The whole image is important so when doing a shot look at everything in the shot to make sure it all works. If the lighting or conditions are wrong you may want to take a shot to remember you were there but to do it for stock may not be the best thing to do.
The second thing I see is that this could be a river just about anywhere and it lacks that recognizability and that "I want to go to that place" feel.
Finally, it seems just too square and tight. This is compressing the composition and you kind of loose the impact of the flowing water.
|
|
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 83
Location: too many
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:21 am
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: | About the river shot. When I look at it I think of three things. First, the day you shot it looks to be an overcast day which in turn makes the water look dull and gives a general overall kind of depressing look to it. It looks like a gray almost rainy day. If this is what you were going for that's great but when you look at it with respect for possible sales it cuts that potential down.
One issue that comes up quite often is when people are presented with a scene they concentrate on a certain part of that scene. Here I have a feeling you were really looking at the main rock in the river. The rest of the scene including the sky and overall feeling of the shot took a back seat.
The whole image is important so when doing a shot look at everything in the shot to make sure it all works. If the lighting or conditions are wrong you may want to take a shot to remember you were there but to do it for stock may not be the best thing to do.
The second thing I see is that this could be a river just about anywhere and it lacks that recognizability and that "I want to go to that place" feel.
Finally, it seems just too square and tight. This is compressing the composition and you kind of loose the impact of the flowing water. |
Thx. Thats a quite a detailed observation, i wanted to take the shot from the middle of the river to give a nice feel. so struggled my way to a big rock in the middle of the river , and ther this big rock is bang in fornt of me. also, there were people washing clothes, taking bath etc. on the sides, so i have to crop them out. :-). This was taken long ago and i dont think i can get model release for those people.
|
|
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 83
Location: too many
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:22 am
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | Doesnt seem to be 100% crops.
And I think Lauring answered the question that was asked. |
It is 100% crop.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
