|
|
Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log in
| Author |
Message |
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 10884
Location: Our stock and food photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:18 am
|  |
| bichon wrote: | brilliant. it's so obvious, but i never think of looking at the big-thing-which-attracts-attention-to-the-eye-first regarding the importance of being in focus ! if you have a food-product shot section in the book, don't forget to mention this.
thanks dave !
a fan of yours forever (i need one.. its hot here)
steve
| hhltdave5 wrote: |
The bigger piece on the right brings your eye to that because the piece of melon seem bigger and the front of that is OOF. I think the problems with this is because of the DOF. With food work a shallow DOF is fine but you need to have a specific spot that needs to be first big enough to bring the eye to it and that spot then needs to be razor sharp.
! |
|
Thanks Steve. Sometimes the obvious gets overlooked because it is just to simple. I try not to overthink things and just stick to the basics. Why make things more complicated than they really are? Life is complicated enough LOL
As far as this going in the book I didn't cover this specifically but the idea behind it is in there. It will be covered in the workshop though if we get that up and running.
Back to the kitchen for me. Trying to find an easy way to make ice cream float. |
|
thyrymn
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 303
Location: La Crosse, WI
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:51 am
| |
Can somone help me more with #3 and #4?
The only think I can think of is that it is kinda a jagged edging. But the white balance/lighting thing seems kinda funny. |
|
bichon
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 7358
Location: montreal
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:34 am
| |
| thyrymn wrote: | Can somone help me more with #3 and #4?
The only think I can think of is that it is kinda a jagged edging. But the white balance/lighting thing seems kinda funny. |
I hate to say this and i hope i am wrong ....
I understand the lighting issues with #1 and #2, but to me.. #3.#4 lighting looks pretty even and well exposed. edges look good too... but i have heard people who are suspicious of reviewers who rate the first few pictures with a particular problem and then just reject the rest, carrying on the reason from the first rejected ones. An admin person did mention that EACH picture is looked at individually on its own merits, but lets face it .. we are all human, and i wouldnt be surprised if some reviewer who has just looked at 1000 shots, and it;s 10 minutes before quitt'en time and their kid is waiting at the daycare... well,, you know where i'm heading..... These things happen in every company .. and it could happen here... I would reconsider re-submitting if this particular pattern occured.
If you dont believe me about this, Michael Moore just called me yesterday wanting me to help him with this next documentary film regarding the corrupt review process at SS:"Shutterstock ... or ShutterShlock ?"
*for those not conversant with yiddish. from Merriam Webster:Main Entry: schlock
Pronunciation: 'shläk
Variant(s): or schlocky /'shlä-kE /; also shlock or shlocky
Function: adjective
Etymology: perhaps from Yiddish shlak evil, nuisance, literally, blow
: of low quality or value
- schlock noun |
|
mikeledray
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 9226
Location: Southern California
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:10 pm
| |
| bichon wrote: | | thyrymn wrote: | Can somone help me more with #3 and #4?
The only think I can think of is that it is kinda a jagged edging. But the white balance/lighting thing seems kinda funny. |
I hate to say this and i hope i am wrong ....
I understand the lighting issues with #1 and #2, but to me.. #3.#4 lighting looks pretty even and well exposed. edges look good too... but i have heard people who are suspicious of reviewers who rate the first few pictures with a particular problem and then just reject the rest, carrying on the reason from the first rejected ones. An admin person did mention that EACH picture is looked at individually on its own merits, but lets face it .. we are all human, and i wouldnt be surprised if some reviewer who has just looked at 1000 shots, and it;s 10 minutes before quitt'en time and their kid is waiting at the daycare... well,, you know where i'm heading..... These things happen in every company .. and it could happen here... I would reconsider re-submitting if this particular pattern occured.
If you dont believe me about this, Michael Moore just called me yesterday wanting me to help him with this next documentary film regarding the corrupt review process at SS:"[b]Shutterstock ... or ShutterShlock ?"[/b]
*for those not conversant with yiddish. from Merriam Webster:Main Entry: schlock
Pronunciation: 'shläk
Variant(s): or schlocky /'shlä-kE /; also shlock or shlocky
Function: adjective
Etymology: perhaps from Yiddish shlak evil, nuisance, literally, blow
: of low quality or value
- schlock noun |
haha
very funny |
|
| |
|
  |
Page 2 of 2
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page Previous 1, 2
|
Shutterstock Forum for Submitters
|
