| Author |
Message |
Karin Babin
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:45 pm
|  |
Hi folks! I'm looking for some constructive feedback on the composition of these photos which were rejected for composition. I know it's different in stock photography, but I'm just having a hard time getting my head around it. Photos are resized and now the beautiful details look craptacular :( but the composition is why they were rejected (HOWEVER, if you have any other critique or suggestions, I'm all ears!)
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
206 KB |
| Viewed: |
1365 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
146.86 KB |
| Viewed: |
1365 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
112.25 KB |
| Viewed: |
1365 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Karin Babin
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Calgary, AB
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:47 pm
| |
And also these 3, not to over do it with the photos, but the more feedback the better. Thanks!
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
114.06 KB |
| Viewed: |
1361 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
126.23 KB |
| Viewed: |
1361 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
urchin_rz.jpg |
| Filesize: |
244.02 KB |
| Downloaded: |
61 Time(s) |
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26315
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:13 pm
| |
First we need the 100% crops but after looking at all of them the DOF is too shallow so i would bet they are all OOF.
099rz.jpg- Is copyrighted and has too many distractions therefore composition.
071rz.jpg- Fire is tricky and needs to be well done and the Gummy Bear is copyrighted.
003rz.jpg- Cattail has to many distractions so composition also a tad underexposed.
wasp_rz.jpg- Too small in the frame and of course the big OOF plant in the forefront kills it.
140rz.jpg- Damselfly is flat out OOF.
urchin_rz.jpg- Lighting and composition is placed in the middle.
Reviewers only pick one rejection reason even if there are more then one reasons.
None of these will do.
|
|
Karin Babin
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Calgary, AB
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:21 pm
| |
Does OOF stand for out of focus? I'm new to this forum thing :s Valuable comments, thank you.
|
|
mauijon
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4287
Location: Maui, Hawaii
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:27 pm
| |
I think mainly, you are not close enough. There is a lot of clutter in each pic needs cropping out. I would just toss numbers 71 and 99 as too cluttered and a big black area on right side. imho.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
60.02 KB |
| Viewed: |
1338 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
71.91 KB |
| Viewed: |
1338 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
86.68 KB |
| Viewed: |
1338 Time(s) |
|
|
|
markrhiggins
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 2011
Location: Australia
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:37 pm
| |
agree with whats been said.Plus must attempt to be commercial (none of us know what sells). Who will buy it? Insects need special skill/equipment and must be dead sharp. Stay away from shallow depth of field for the most part for your first ten. Get your iso down to as low as possible to reduce noise and stay in the sweet spot for aperture.
|
|
Karin Babin
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Calgary, AB
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:48 pm
| |
Awesome, thanks all. The originals are actually super sharp, shot with a 100mm macro 2.8 manual lens, they just look flat and out of focus being shrunk so itty bitty and with the shallow DOF. I don't even know if I posted them correctly. But I'm starting to understand the difference in stock photography vs. not stock photography. This is all very helpful. I'm going to take the next 30 days to work on it. I was confused because the ones that would have been accepted I thought were similar in composition, but now especially with the visual help from mauijon, I totally see what I need to be doing.
Also, I'm learning all sorts of forum things, like I googled "imho" and I'm OOF. :)
Can anyone shed some light on the gummy bear being copyrighted? There are a million photos of them, why would it be an issue?
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26315
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Karin Babin
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Calgary, AB
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:15 pm
| |
I must have downsized them because they look like crap, like I zoomed in 10x on my cell phone and then copied them off facebook. I thought I followed directions. Ugh I may recruit my teenagers to help me with this posting stuff. Anyhoo, I digress, I'm off to see the links, next time I will post my photos better! Many thanks, appreciate it.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39273
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:57 pm
| |
My Last accepted bug Image. Is yours this sharp?. And if you need to ask your kids maybe your not ready for the extreme competition here. Just saying.This is not about snapshots my friend, This is about work at the pro level and pro processing level also.Take a look at what's here before you submit. Theres some very, VERY good shooters here.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
89.21 KB |
| Viewed: |
1288 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Karin Babin
Joined: 16 Jul 2012
Posts: 20
Location: Calgary, AB
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:21 am
| |
Awesome photo. Yes, mine are that sharp, but only the bug in the photo (I had 2 other bug photos that didn't get rejected but that weren't so narrowly focused) - I'm seeing I'm using too shallow of a depth of field for what I'm trying to accomplish. I meant I have to ask my kids to help me post on this forum thing. I find it more complicated than any camera, lens or post production for some reason.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6544
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:44 am
| |
Why does she need to post 100% crops if all she is asking about is composition? Reading the question instead of posting a list of problems like its an rejection email from FT is not efficient and is not addressing the problem the OP is asking about. But this is just my humble opinion :) Carry on.
|
|
markrhiggins
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 2011
Location: Australia
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:19 am
| |
you have to post crops because composition may not be the only issue. The one that is listed is composition but other issues may exist. To get acepted they will all have to be addressed.
|
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 6079
Location: Masterton,Wairarapa, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:56 am
| |
| markrhiggins wrote: | | you have to post crops because composition may not be the only issue. The one that is listed is composition but other issues may exist. To get acepted they will all have to be addressed. |
N0! The request was concerning composition,(the reason for rejection ) - all else is irrelevant,unless original poster wanted an overall critique-which she obviously did not.
|
|
mattgibson
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 601
Location: London
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:11 am
| |
Jeez, why do people not read the posts!!!!
| Quote: | Hi folks! I'm looking for some constructive feedback on the composition of these photos which were rejected for composition. I know it's different in stock photography, but I'm just having a hard time getting my head around it. Photos are resized and now the beautiful details look craptacular :( but the composition is why they were rejected | Quote: | | (HOWEVER, if you have any other critique or suggestions, I'm all ears!) |
|
|
|
| |
|
Log in
