| Author |
Message |
Eric Boehm
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 4
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:30 pm
|  |
Ok, what the hell? Its telling me that some of them were rejected for poor lighting even though everything in the photo is perfectly visible. Photography is art. It's not like there is one correct approach to lighting.
The same goes for composition complaint.
It sounds very much like these are opinions that shutterstock is imposing on us.
| Description: |
|
Download |
| Filename: |
472403_4003835860753_1397728668_o.jpg |
| Filesize: |
169.03 KB |
| Downloaded: |
227 Time(s) |
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24100
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:57 pm
| |
Photography is art but stock is a different type of art that requires certain technical standards. Just because something is visible does not mean it is exposed properly or the lighting is correct. Far from it.
From looking at your shot I am sorry to say that it looks as if it could be rejected for several reasons including focus (they are checked at 100%) and must be tack sharp in the critical area. The shot also has composition problems. There is also limited commercial value of the shot. Shots like this of drops of water were done to death many years ago.
I would look more toward stock as what it actually is and that is images that will help sell or promote a product, concept or idea.
If you like we will be happy to take a look at your other shots and give you some advice. Please post them properly by making sure the image is no more than 500 mp on the longest side and no larger than 247k. Also a 100% crop is needed to check for noise and focus.
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26321
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:09 pm
| |
Oh heck it is way OOF, and as Dave said everything else is wrong as well.
Don't go Ballistic now.
|
|
Mike Price
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 2920
Location: South Wales
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:21 pm
| |
I am sorry you were rejected but I am not even sure what the photo is of. I can see the water drop but thats about it.
Mike
|
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 7875
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:14 pm
| |
| hhltdave5 wrote: | | Please post them properly by making sure the image is no more than 500 mp on the longest side and no larger than 247k. Also a 100% crop is needed to check for noise and focus. |
I think Dave meant to say no more than 500 pixels on the longest side. LOL
And while you are correct in saying there's not any single approach to lighting, or photography for that matter, for stock photography there are several image restrictions that limit what type of lighting, composition, depth of field, etc. is suitable and acceptable. It's a style of photography that is quite different from most other forms, particularly "artistic" photography.
|
|
Eric Boehm
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 4
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:15 pm
| |
Im As an art form, doesnt that imply a certain amount of creative leg room? The purpose of the dof blur was to emphasize the foreground..
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26321
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:33 pm
| |
| Eric Boehm wrote: | | Im As an art form, doesnt that imply a certain amount of creative leg room? The purpose of the dof blur was to emphasize the foreground.. |
What's in the foreground?
The entire shot is OOF!
DOF doesn't even come into play.
What product, concept or idea will this help to sell or promote?
|
|
mauijon
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4288
Location: Maui, Hawaii
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:15 pm
| |
Even if your water drop was in focus, the drop is cut off at the bottom and the down streamer is slanting--should be vertical, and you are too close or cropped too tight, and the bg, even though blurred, is too cluttered. Try again.
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24100
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:47 pm
| |
| triceratops wrote: | | hhltdave5 wrote: | | Please post them properly by making sure the image is no more than 500 mp on the longest side and no larger than 247k. Also a 100% crop is needed to check for noise and focus. |
I think Dave meant to say no more than 500 pixels on the longest side. LOL
And while you are correct in saying there's not any single approach to lighting, or photography for that matter, for stock photography there are several image restrictions that limit what type of lighting, composition, depth of field, etc. is suitable and acceptable. It's a style of photography that is quite different from most other forms, particularly "artistic" photography. |
Right Russ, been one of those days LOL
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24100
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:57 pm
| |
| Eric Boehm wrote: | | Im As an art form, doesnt that imply a certain amount of creative leg room? The purpose of the dof blur was to emphasize the foreground.. |
Just what in the foreground are you trying to emphasize? You have a drop of water which as Barry pointed out is also out of focus. Depth of field is used in part to draw the eye of the viewer to the main object of the shot. If that is out of focus as well what have you done?
Again as several of us have asked what is the concept and what would this help sell or promote? This is a type of shot that was done so many years ago as simply a way to show stop action. It has long since lost its novelty unless it can be done extremely well and differently.
To do well in stock you have to first separate yourself from doing the artsy stuff and concentrate more on stock. You can put a certain amount of art into a stock shot but it still must show a concept and have commercial value and be done well.
Let's see what else you have so we can better advise you or offer suggestions.
|
|
darla
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 891
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:15 am
| |
This isn't an Art Gallery.
It's a stock site. Submit stock images.
To help you understand what stock is, think of the difference between poetry and prose. You're doing poetry. Stock is prose.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39282
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:50 am
| |
Excuse for being Blunt, This is opposite of stock and as far as artistic? Hmmmm thats pretty subjective my friend.
I think your just bummed out you got rejected, trust me we all are. Distance yourself from your Image and look at it like a reviewer would. I reviewed for 3 years and i would have rejected this in an Instant.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
