Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:25AM
Ok, here is a link to the full size image I am trying to get past the inspectors…
This is the verbiage that was included in the last rejection:
Please remove the additional borders or strokes from this file.
For more information about iStock Standards, please visit:
+++ Bottom of the image +++
I CAN’T SEE IT! (Have looked at it in a couple of graphic programs *including PS)
Please help me out and tell me what they want done here!?
Sorry, it is not letting me activate the link... must be my ol' PC... time to reboot...[/size][/font]
(Edited on 2012-12-10 02:26:37 by heartbar)
(Edited on 2012-12-10 02:28:56 by heartbar)
KJ - Fixed links, title & formatting.
(Edited on 2012-12-10 08:23:36 by kelvinjay)
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:30AM
It's a bit hard to tell on-screen, but is there just the faintest thin white line across the bottom, which just needs cropping out?
(Edited on 2012-12-10 02:33:02 by Whiteway)
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:46AM
I wondered about that (not that I can see it, but just got a tablet and know as I got used to it some strange things were going on while I edited the pic)... And, I don't wont to resubmit it until I KNOW I have it right...
Thanks for the input!
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 2:54AM
There is definitely a one-or-two-pixel white line running across the bottom.
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:04AM
Whiteway... thanks... I had to zoom in to 700 % to see it... not sure what is getting older... my PC or my eyes!
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:04AM
Don't know about your eyes, but when you are photo-editing definitely give the tablet a miss.
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:42AM
Yes I had a job to see it on a good quality 24" screen at 100%. No hope with a tablet I'd have thought.
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:15AM
Forgive me for saying, because this apparently wasn't the rejection reason, but the isolation seems too sharp in my opinion. Around the arm, gun, and back of neck especially. Unnaturally so. I also found the grayness on the fingers distracting. I'm guessing the fingers were a little too bright so you burned them a bit, but too much I think.
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:30AM
I'm pretty sure this'll get a rejection for isolation whenyou re-submit - it's just too 'scissorish'.
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:05AM
The inspector had faulted my previous version for the isolation not beng sharp enough...
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:16AM
My issue with this image is the focus. First thing you do when you look at a person is to look at their eyes. In this shot, the eyes are not in focus, but the focus does not seem to be at the tip of the barrel either - it seems to be somewhere randomly half way down the gun. The combination of soft focus on the face and a sharp cut out creates an even more jarring effect too.
(Edited on 2012-12-10 17:14:48 by kelvinjay)
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:54AM
I agree with Mike, vandervelden and kelvinjay here. 3 more reasons for it to be rejected.
It has no chance whatsoever with this isolation, I fear.
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:06PM
yes, more feathering on isolation is needed. Focus is wrong, as Kelvin said, it should be tip of the barrel or eyes. Trying to fix (dodge tool) overexposed hand is obvious and unnatural. Otherwise, not a bad image.
Posted Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:12PM
Agreed, this is a guaranteed isolation rejection.