Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 387 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Hi all,

14 out of 15 rejected again. Attila's goin' strong these days... The one accepted was a seal pup, shot on a very grey and dull day. It's quite a dark image, and I was surprised for it to be accepted.

Anyway... What about this one? I got this nice little cat from a nice angle with a cheap telephoto lens and then isolated it on white. The rejection reason is "Poor Lighting". Of course, I wasn't able to use a flash. Was it just useless to shoot when the sun's not in the perfect position? And what exactly did I get "Poor Lighting" for? The slightly darker area under the chin/around the neck? I still find this quite a nice image and never suspected lighting to be a problem (rather focus, I thought, because of the cheap glass - this is about the maximum you get out of this at 250 mm).

Any hints on how to improve my technique in that respect?

Best regards,

Christian

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:21 am

Looks flat and colorless with compression artifacts around it.

smileus · Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 587

I don't think it's so badly lit. It's just a bit dull and they want it to pop more. Carefully add some contrast and saturation, dodge the eye (that's important, because the eye is really flat and dark) and you can resubmit with a note that you have improved it. Something like this:

If you want you can do more dodging and burning, I just did the basics.

antoine2000 · Joined: 17 Sep 2009 Posts: 225 Location: London

i think when you isolate an outdoors shot you are always going to have a certain level of imbalance in terms of light - after all you're not in control of the light unless you use reflectors, fill flash etc.

it does look very unnatural when you cut out the subject and place onto a white background - i reckon if you left in the background it would probably have been accepted.

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 387 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:31 am

smileus · Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 587

No idea what Barry means, but I think you misunderstood: his version isn't meant as an improvement, but to make imperfections visible by using levels.

Edit: okay, I posted before Barry's second post.

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 387 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Thanks again, guys! So the eye needs some extra care with its own mask and layer? Gonna try this, I'm not that much into Photoshop (or rather PhotoLine in my case).

The background had to go because it was a dull grey, almost white sky with the bars of the cage visible in the background.

If you look at my port, you'll find a vertical version that I like better for its composition and the way he looks, but it's even darker and got accepted at once. Really strange reviewer behavior these days.

So I'll try to let it pop some more, and get the eye right.

Best,

Christian

chbaum · Joined: 19 Sep 2010 Posts: 387 Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

digigandalf · Joined: 11 Jun 2005 Posts: 5418 Location: Twinsburg, OH

I think if you fix the lighting (Barry's quick fix was just a hint at what direction to go--don't go quite that far!), you may indeed get a focus rejection. Probably best to let it go, even though it represented a substantial amount of work.

cpaulfell · Joined: 07 Dec 2011 Posts: 2441

smileus · Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 587

I think I was the one who misunderstood Barry, lol! anyway, he's right about the JPEG artifacts, but that could have happened when you saved the resized version for the forum. Your crop looks okay as far as artifacts are concerned.

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:39 am

smileus · Joined: 07 Oct 2008 Posts: 587

ruxpriencdiam · Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:51 am