Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

PHOTO: Man with Tomatoes

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 22 matches.
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:02PM

Hello, would this photo have a chance?  Feedback appreciated. Thanks, Mark.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/86542440/_DSC0278.JPG
kbwills
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:46PM

nice composition - I would say definite stock-type image (but what do I know )


Possible areas for attention/...


I dont know what is causing the green fringe to the subject though? 
Might be a little too much sharpened?
Eyes might be a little soft (compared to moustache)
Teeth could be brightened (in PS)  a bit...


REGARDS
gladassfanny
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:28PM
The crop is a too severe at the bottom of the photograph.  I would like to see all of his hands.  This would more obviously say, "Here are my tomatoes which I grew.", and make the point of the photograph very definite.


The green fringe can be removed as follows:  Make duplicate layer and Gaussian blur at about 20 px.  Change blending to colour and put an opaque mask on the layer.  Paint white on the mask with a small brush where the green occurs.


Brighten the face somewhat.  Use curves to add a bit of contrast.


Add a bit of yellow photo filter to warm it up - about 10%  


Reduce the noise in the background.


As KB mentions, whiten the teeth.


Result somewhat like THIS .


Good luck.


Bob


 

(Edited on 2012-08-26 17:37:18 by gladassfanny)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:17PM

Posted By gladassfanny:
The crop is a too severe at the bottom of the photograph.


Agreed.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:39PM
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:49AM
kbwills - Thank you, I agree with all of your suggestions. One question though, you suggest that if might be too sharpened.  How might this happen, in camera? I did not add anything in post.  Thanks again.


gladassfanny - Wow, your version looks much better.  Thanks for the invaluable technique on removing the fringe.  How it works is a mystery to me but it works like a charm.  Yes, the crop is too severe, what was I thinking?


slobo - Thanks, how did you do that?

(Edited on 2012-08-27 08:50:27 by RoosterHD)
kbwills
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:21AM

>>  One question though, you suggest that if might be too sharpened.  How might this happen, in camera? I did not add anything in post.


It might just be my eyesight (and it was late when I was looking at the image ) !!


I don't think the effect is huge, but I noticed that in the out-of-focus areas (e.g. bottom left at 100%), the pixels look to have small patterns developing, rather than smooth gradients - gives a slightly speckled look to the image.  I associate this effect with sharpening, where the software tries to strengthen edges which aren't there, but it could be noise, other proccessing, or just my imagination/tired eyes!


I don't use Nikon, so I can't compare with my own images, on a like-for-like basis, nor do I know whether your camera or Post-processing software has sharpening defaults - ( I do remember that my Canon did come with a 'standard' profile [including sharpening] applied to all images by default and Lightroom also seems to have a default level of sharpening).


I can't say whether such defaults would impact the inspection process much - its just that I prefer to choose when and what areas to sharpen on each individual image.


One other point - f1.6 will give a very small depth of field - at 1/1600 second, you probably had room to go slower and make the focus point not as critical?


REGARDS
cmannphoto
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:05AM

I just took a quik look with Nikon ViewNX2 and it seems that sharpening is set to "3" in the camera


tomato


 
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:14AM
cmanphoto - Ahh, that explaiins it.  Thanks.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveForum Moderator
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2012 3:52PM
Lots of good critiques here, just wanted to add that in spite of the flaws that were found, this is a solid, useful image of a timely, in-demand subject...definitely upload it!
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:14PM
^^ Thanks Donald, I'll submit the file and see what happens. -m
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:38AM
The "Man with Tomatoes" was accepted into the collection. Thanks for the help.


At the same time I took another photo that was rejected for the following reasons:


We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:

-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance


Can somebody take a look at the photo and help me identify the following:


Issue #2 - I did not use a flash, and is the background dark?


Issue #3 - I can't find the aformentioned "lens flares"


Issue #4 - White balence looks ok to me but my monitor might be out of calibration.


Thanks in advance.


Here's the link:


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/86542440/PhilPortrait.jpg

(Edited on 2012-09-10 08:39:45 by RoosterHD)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:53AM
We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:


The important part is "the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved".

It's not bad, but some more contrast between the high and low lights would help. Also, if it were more interesting, it might have passed.
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:10PM

sjlocke - You're right.  Thanks for the input   Did you see any lens flares?
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerForum Moderator
Posted Wed Sep 12, 2012 3:27AM

Posted By RoosterHD:

sjlocke - You're right.  Thanks for the input   Did you see any lens flares?


Please re read the rejection notice. It doesn't say anything about your file having lens flare, flash or white balance issues. It simply says "Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file" and then goes onto to list common problems, nowhere does it say that your specific file actually had any or all of those listed issues.

(Edited on 2012-09-12 03:27:41 by kelvinjay)
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Sep 12, 2012 5:29AM
Kelvinjay - got it.  Thanks.
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerForum Moderator
Posted Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:06AM
Regarding the portrait lighting, it looks fine to me. If I was being really fussy, then it's lacks just a tiny bit of contrast. There is something weird on the right side of the frame, a vertical line (out of focus string?) that is a little distracting, but the image looks perfectly usable to me, I'd Scout or make a very slight contrast adjustment if you can resubmit.

(Edited on 2012-09-12 06:08:14 by kelvinjay)
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:11AM
Kelvinjay - Thanks for the advice.  This was a "no resubmit" so I'll use this as a learning opportunity for next time.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveForum Moderator
Posted Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:06AM

Posted By kelvinjay:
Regarding the portrait lighting, it looks fine to me. If I was being really fussy, then it's lacks just a tiny bit of contrast. There is something weird on the right side of the frame, a vertical line (out of focus string?) that is a little distracting, but the image looks perfectly usable to me, I'd Scout or make a very slight contrast adjustment if you can resubmit.

(Edited on 2012-09-12 06:08:14 by kelvinjay)



Agreed; I'd also suggest a tweak to the color balance which could be a bit warmer, but otherwise the quality of light is reasonable and the composition is useful with nice copyspace. I've reset the rejection to Can Resubmit for you, feel free to put it back through after some adjustment.
RoosterHD
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:28PM

donald_gruener - thanks for giving me the chance to resubmit the image.  I took your and Kelvin's suggestions and did the the following:


- increased contrast by 5;


- added a 10% yellow photo filter;


- boosted the curves a wee bit;


- added a soft vinette.


Here are the results:


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/86542440/PhilPortrait2.jpg
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 22 matches.
Not a member?Join