| Author |
Message |
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:13 am
|  |
Hi guys, loads of work, loads of fun. I am proud of myself. This worked out really well. I think its sharp too. Let it rip. Thanks again for all your time and effort to help us out.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
84.86 KB |
| Viewed: |
1177 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
46.68 KB |
| Viewed: |
1177 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
57.24 KB |
| Viewed: |
1177 Time(s) |
|
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26840
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17518
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:26 am
| |
Great concept!
The key elements are sharp, but one thing that makes it seem a bit strange, you have the front of the lens in focus, and the surface of the eye in focus, but the area in between is OOF, the eye lashes are OOF, due to the extremely shallow DOF used on the eye.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:32 am
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: | Great concept!
The key elements are sharp, but one thing that makes it seem a bit strange, you have the front of the lens in focus, and the surface of the eye in focus, but the area in between is OOF, the eye lashes are OOF, due to the extremely shallow DOF used on the eye. |
I used f/13 on the camera and f/8 on the eye. So there might be a bit of difference there.
This was a half day of work, all for nothing then :) Well, its a nice to have photo, but useless for shutterstock so it seems.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:35 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: |
Also forget anything to do with cameras they will automatically rejected for copyright.
|
Hmmm, even with the logos removed? I have also removed EF from the lens now. How strict are they?
Here is a camera they accepted
Here is another one
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26840
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:42 am
| |
What they accepted before and what they accept now are two different things there is another thread where people were talking about cameras being removed from their ports so just cause these are still here it doesn't mean they would still get accepted.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:48 am
| |
| ruxpriencdiam wrote: | | What they accepted before and what they accept now are two different things there is another thread where people were talking about cameras being removed from their ports so just cause these are still here it doesn't mean they would still get accepted. |
They seem to be added recently
http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?gallery_id=575287&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=1
I am going to replace the eye and give it a shot. I mean, there are loads of cameras on shutterstock, recently added.
I am not saying you are wrong and I appreciate all the help, so thanks again.
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17518
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:23 pm
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | | jeffbanke wrote: | Great concept!
The key elements are sharp, but one thing that makes it seem a bit strange, you have the front of the lens in focus, and the surface of the eye in focus, but the area in between is OOF, the eye lashes are OOF, due to the extremely shallow DOF used on the eye. |
I used f/13 on the camera and f/8 on the eye. So there might be a bit of difference there.
This was a half day of work, all for nothing then :) Well, its a nice to have photo, but useless for shutterstock so it seems. |
NO, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying it was all for nought. It is possible that a reviewer could turn a blind eye to that, simply because the concept is so strong, and because the key elements are in focus. I am simply advising that since you came up with this good idea, just a little more DOF on the eye to include the eyelashes, would improve it tremendously.
As far as the acceptance of the camera, who knows, go for, the worsdt that happens is it gets rejected here but may be useable elsewhere, and if nothing else it demonstrates your creativity.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:34 pm
| |
| jeffbanke wrote: |
NO, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying it was all for nought. It is possible that a reviewer could turn a blind eye to that, simply because the concept is so strong, and because the key elements are in focus. I am simply advising that since you came up with this good idea, just a little more DOF on the eye to include the eyelashes, would improve it tremendously.
As far as the acceptance of the camera, who knows, go for, the worsdt that happens is it gets rejected here but may be useable elsewhere, and if nothing else it demonstrates your creativity. |
Gotcha Jeff. Already been busy ;-)
Here is the result.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
86.9 KB |
| Viewed: |
1118 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
66.61 KB |
| Viewed: |
1118 Time(s) |
|
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17518
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:49 pm
| |
Bingo!
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:52 pm
| |
LOL
So thats about 5 hours of work for this one. Pffff. But I like it a lot.
I am now down to 8 photos. 2 to go. Have a few more ideas I need to figure out how to get them on 'film'
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39667
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:44 pm
| |
great. My only issue is this is your first 10. The design of that camera might trigger a rejection. Better safe than sorry. Also before you submit post your whole lot of 10.The ones you posted are a half of camera [Leica] and the other a P&S.Good concept...Done well.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:12 pm
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | great. My only issue is this is your first 10. The design of that camera might trigger a rejection. Better safe than sorry. Also before you submit post your whole lot of 10.The ones you posted are a half of camera [Leica] and the other a P&S.Good concept...Done well. |
Cool Laurin. I was going to post all 10 before submitting. And I will keep this one for after being accepted. 3 more then. No worries ;-)
|
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17518
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 9:32 pm
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | LOL
So thats about 5 hours of work for this one. Pffff. But I like it a lot.
I am now down to 8 photos. 2 to go. Have a few more ideas I need to figure out how to get them on 'film' |
I am curious why 5 hours?
I mean replacing the eye is just a few seconds of work once you have the camera and eye as seperate images
I would suggest that you remove some of the words on the front of the lens which would make it so identifieable, zoom lens is probably OK, the numbers might be better removed though.
|
|
mattgibson
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Posts: 607
Location: London
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:04 am
| |
Although I agree with the concept being good, as I was looking at this yesterday, my 15 year old son walked past and saw it and said...
"Is that your picture Dad, it looks freaky?"
Just an alternative observation from a non-photographer!
|
|
| |
|
Log in
