Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:19AM
I have just had this rejected for composition
Link to full size
I would be really interested in others comments here as I felt two happy babies in a play environment would be a strong stock image. Did the inspector misclick the rejection reason as the link I was give explaind the rule of thirds, which the babies are sitting on (more luck than judgement now that these two both crawl). Do you think I should scout the image?
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:36AM
Looks good to me.
It's on the top third and the 2 side thirds.
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:53AM
Maybe the inspector meant to click on the Rule of don't chop peoples feet off.
The dark door on the top right upsets the balance too.
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:17AM
I think the crop at the ankles looks awkward - higher up across the trousers would work or lower to include cute tootsies but at the moment there's one partial foot and bits of cropped ankle. Great expressions though and they look like they're cheering on
If you don't have an alternative shot, and you do have a resubmit, I'd crop or clone out the foot and skin bits, ideally the door as well, then send again.
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:38AM
The file was a no-resubmit, so I haven't been given the oppertunity to crop the photo differently.
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:40AM
The wooden door and toys cluttering the background suggests it's a family album shot rather than a clean and useful stock shot a designer can make use of.
I would shoot it again with the two cute babies sitting in front of a clean full wall.
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:44AM
^ Er, it was actually a staged shot, but thanks for your imput.
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:39AM
The problem is in the cropped feet and the background getting too much attention. Try to put the whole feet in the frame or crop like that, that no part of the feet is visible. One rule of composition is to make sure no poles/trees or something similar is "growing" out of the people's head. If the background was clean, the designer would also have some space for copy.
Posted Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:04AM
I agree - the crop is very awkward with the feet being almost but not quite totally cut off; with the amount of background above them it looks odd to chop off part of the the main focus of the image- there's no reason for you not to have been just aiming the camera a touch lower and including the toosies as all that would have been omitted was blank wall. It only makes sense to cut off part of the kids (in my view) if there is an obvious compositional reason for it - to get the focus on a particular part of the subject, for example, by using an extreme closeup shot.
The background is full of Fisher Price clutter (or whatever the brand is - my kids are too big for me to be so familiar with the brands now!) which is brightly coloured and again draws the eye away from the key feature of the images - especially as you have that odd gap between the babies on the carpet and the bright stuff in the background - they aren't interacting with it so including it on purpose doesn't make much sense to me. The dark door in the background isn't pretty either. The total effect of the crop plus the clutter just makes it look like a grab shot, even if it wasn't.