| Author |
Message |
mattgibson
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 601
Location: London
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:24 am
|  |
LOL, that made me smile Ron - at least Barry can't say it's OOF
|
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24097
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:10 am
| |
| MPFphotography wrote: | | What about this one for next 10? I uploaded this to other sites and some accepts but one rejected for visible branding/logo. Is it possible that SS also would reject for that reason? Original size is around 15 mpxls if it any maters. |
Shutterstock would probably reject it for copyright as well because it looks like a MAC. Keep in mind that all stock sites are different and what they accept is different as well. Stock is not universal in the rules and guidelines of each stock site.
When it comes to the focus comments yes this is a bit on the soft side. Some stock sites will take slightly OOF images without a problem. Shutterstock does tend to want thing razor sharp in the critical areas. A combination of good equipment and technique will allow you to get those tack sharp images.
I would have to see different crops from different areas (BTW I did get a good laugh out of Ron's post about the crop location) because the area you showed may be OOF due to depth of field. You may have taken a crop from an area that was not sharp just because of that.
When you look at your images do it at 100% which is the way the reviewers do. Make sure that it is sharp and crisp where it should be. If it looks a bit fuzzy without those sharp lines then you need to find out the reason why and fix it.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6544
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:44 am
| |
In addition to what Dave says about copyright, I always clone out features or change features on a device so that it looks less like the original. I for example would clone out these parts to change the look of the laptop
I also noticed you called it isolation on white, but its either an isolation (no shadows) or on white (with shadows)
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
37.69 KB |
| Viewed: |
617 Time(s) |
|
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26313
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:49 am
| |
| mattgibson wrote: | | LOL, that made me smile Ron - at least Barry can't say it's OOF |
| semmickphoto wrote: | | A crop of the middle would look like this |
Oh yes i can because if they crop the middle and show the key's i can say it and will say it because it is OOF
|
|
MPFphotography
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 15
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:30 pm
| |
Thank you for your comments and good se you people laughing :D
Here's 100 middle crop and dodged new version of the laptop. Thanks for the advice Semmi!
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
110.13 KB |
| Viewed: |
567 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
49.73 KB |
| Viewed: |
567 Time(s) |
|
|
|
MPFphotography
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 15
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:32 pm
| |
How about this cliche buster? Good for next 10?
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
80.24 KB |
| Viewed: |
560 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
135.6 KB |
| Viewed: |
560 Time(s) |
|
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6544
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:10 pm
| |
To me the laptop crop you posted looks acceptable. The puzzle pieces are soft. But wait for someone else to chime in. When focus is borderline I still have difficulties calling it if they will accept it for the first 10.
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26313
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:20 pm
| |
Lighting on the puzzle pieces and OOF as well as the laptop is OOF but would really like to see a crop of some of the keys in the area below.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
24.69 KB |
| Viewed: |
541 Time(s) |
|
|
|
liongate
Joined: 18 May 2011
Posts: 85
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:08 pm
| |
So, my question is, when shooting a still shot, from a tripod, on a background you're blowing out, where there's no bokeh, etc., why would you not use a small enough aperture to get you a maximum depth of field? You need to think about your DOF as an important part of your composition. The shot of the shoes wasn't a bad idea, although I'd personally arrange them a little differently. You could repeat that with some fill flash and it might look good.
|
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 7875
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:28 pm
| |
| liongate wrote: | | So, my question is, when shooting a still shot, from a tripod, on a background you're blowing out, where there's no bokeh, etc., why would you not use a small enough aperture to get you a maximum depth of field? |
Because once you get past the len's sweet-spot (usually somewhere around f8-f11) you start to get diffraction blur. And the more you stop down, the more blur you get. Automatic OOF.
|
|
liongate
Joined: 18 May 2011
Posts: 85
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:41 pm
| |
| triceratops wrote: | | liongate wrote: | | So, my question is, when shooting a still shot, from a tripod, on a background you're blowing out, where there's no bokeh, etc., why would you not use a small enough aperture to get you a maximum depth of field? |
Because once you get past the len's sweet-spot (usually somewhere around f8-f11) you start to get diffraction blur. And the more you stop down, the more blur you get. Automatic OOF. |
So, either way you're out OOF. I don't think you'd have to go past F13-F16 on a shot like this to get enough depth DOF to keep the entire object pretty clear, don't you agree?
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17468
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:28 pm
| |
Puzzles pieces the edges of the fingers are blown out, I.E. too much light from behind, or more particularly the hand was too close to the background light source
|
|
triceratops
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 7875
Location: The other Nevada
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:10 pm
| |
| liongate wrote: | | triceratops wrote: | | liongate wrote: | | So, my question is, when shooting a still shot, from a tripod, on a background you're blowing out, where there's no bokeh, etc., why would you not use a small enough aperture to get you a maximum depth of field? |
Because once you get past the len's sweet-spot (usually somewhere around f8-f11) you start to get diffraction blur. And the more you stop down, the more blur you get. Automatic OOF. |
So, either way you're out OOF. I don't think you'd have to go past F13-F16 on a shot like this to get enough depth DOF to keep the entire object pretty clear, don't you agree? |
I can't really tell as there are too many other variables that enter into it. There are various DOF charts published on the internet where you can plug in your settings and they will tell you what DOF to expect. You should be able to run a quick search and locate some. Personally I rarely ever shoot stopped down beyond f11. There are exceptions, of course, but it's all situational. That's why I shoot with a 5DII. I've enough pixels that I can back up with less of the primary image on the sensor. Then crop the image which will have a greater DOF and still be large enough for my purposes.
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39266
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:07 pm
| |
Correct f11, then Back up if you need more DOF. rather simple really.The distance to subject and focal length used is a critical step in understanding DOF.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
