Atención: Estos foros ya no están activos. Los foros de colaboradores de iStock se han trasladado al sitio de la comunidad de colaboradores.

PHOTO: Mute swan rejection

Mostrando 1 a 5 de 5 resultados.
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Comentado Wed May 9, 2012 8:52PM

This was rejected for a keyword that inspector said didn't apply..."nature"

Also the lighting..."dull flat colors, etc., etc........."

I don't understand nature not applying, but, whatever. Can someone point out what part of the lighting I need to work on? Thanks.
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Comentado Thu May 10, 2012 5:20AM
lighting is flat and dull like inspector has mentioned. also composition is not the best one (fro example, tail is cutted off). so even if you boost colors, I don't know if it's worth of resubmit...
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveVideógrafo exclusivo de iStockphoto
Comentado Thu May 10, 2012 6:25AM
'Nature' certainly applies.

But regardless of that, the image is rejected for lighting. To my eyes, on my screen, that does not apply. But then, that's why I get so many rejections for 'lighting'.

Maybe the composition point made by kirillica is also a factor. Mute swans are a common subject, which means that they have to have something above average in order to be accepted.
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveModerador del foro
Comentado Thu May 10, 2012 8:03AM
The light is pretty harsh looking. There are areas that are blown out while the background is very dark & dull. Not the worst ever but borderline for sure. The crop is awkward with the tail clipped off. This lighting might have been acceptable were everything else spot on, but this looks a little too much like a not-very-well-planned snapshot down at the park. (sorry )

Technically, the keyword probably could have stayed, although I understand why the Inspector may have removed it. The keyword "nature" loses any value as a search term when it is applied to every single thing that occurs in the natural world (as, unfortunately, most contributors use it). My interpretation of "nature" as a keyword is from my perspective as a designer/buyer: I would use this term if I was searching for an image of Nature, capital N...a scene that is entirely devoid of anything man-made that somehow send a message of "this is the natural world." And while bodies of water & swans are certainly not man-made, when do we most often see scenes like this? In parks and man-made ponds, with swans that have been placed there. Again, that keyword isn't technically wrong, however from a buyer's perspective it isn't really helpful. If I'm searching on "nature," I'm probably not looking for a swan in a pond. You could certainly take it up in the Keywords forum, which would be a more appropriate place for that discussion.
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Comentado Thu May 10, 2012 4:14PM

OK, thanks for the input. I kind of agree with some of what each of you have said. As for cutting off the tail I really didn't notice that and I should have. I was trying to keep the feathers from blowing out. and although some are VERY close, I don't think they are. But maybe that's just the way my monitor displays them. The one thing I did wonder about when I sent this in was the difference between the dark background and white swan. I have found, as a general rule, Istock just doesn't especially like "dramatic" lighting. It really does have to be a special shot, which admittedly, this isn't.

Although it is nature, Donald makes a good point about its use. That really is a grey area there.

Even though I can resubmit, I don't think I will. Thanks again all.
El hilo ha sido bloqueado.
Mostrando 1 a 5 de 5 resultados.
¿Todavía no eres miembro?Registrarse