PHOTO: Rejected litter

Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 matches.
Istimages
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:40AM
Hi fellow iStockers,

This is my first critique request. Here is the photo:

http://www.istimages.com/images/istock-critique-requests/_DSC8839_cr.jpg

This was rejected with no resubmit opportunity.

Rejection Notice:
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

I would find it extremly useful if the inspector could be a bit more precise, even if they just put a ++ sign on the list to the relevant points.

I've shot this image in RAW format so I would be able to make corrections to it if I'd know what direction to go. I've shot this image with a 50mm prime lens and purposly have a shallow depth of field on the subject.

Look forward to your opinions and let me know if you have any questions about this image.

Cheers,
Isti
frankwright
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:14AM
Hi, personally I do not have a problem with the lighting. I suspect it may be a mis-click rejection from the inspector as the composition could be improved quite a lot.

May I suggest trying cropping out the cars at the top and the dandelion on the left and looking to see how much stronger the image appears compositionally with just the grass, the rubbish and the road surface - definitely better as a "stock image" with the cropping IMHO.

Maybe a reshoot perhaps?

(There is also a possible copyright problem regarding the design on the packaging.)
Istimages
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:37AM
Hi Frank, thank you for the quick feedback. Cropping the image may be the go. I'll wait for a few other opinions and I'll go from there. I realise that this is not an award winning image, I'm just curious what are the technical aspects exactly of this "no-resubmit" rejection. Cheers again, Isti.
frankwright
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:58AM
If the inspector did mean to reject for composition rather than the lighting, which I suspect. then that usually comes with a "no resubmit" as standard as in most of these cases the image is not salvageable.
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 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:39AM

fries


I don't like lighting. Image looks washed off. It looks like it was shot through darkened car window.
Also, composition itself is not good. What's that on the left side of the image?
Here's my hint for the overall look of the image


fries%2520copy
RobertsGalleries
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:07PM

How about this one?


fries copy.jpg


 


 
alanphillips
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:56PM
For what its worth I'd go along with Slobo's re-work of this. The original is flat, boring and sort of washed out, the Slobo version is far more vibrant and interesting (if a discarded bag of potato chips at the side of a road can ever be regarded as interesting ).

Just one more comment, the job of an inspector is to determine if an image reaches the required technical standard, their job is not to help the contributor and so they have no commitment to go beyond giving the boilerplate reason for rejection. That said, inspectors sometimes will be very kind and point out exactly what is the problem and may even give an indication on how to correct the problem. This happens far more often than we could possibly expect and should be appreciated when it happens.
Istimages
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:06PM
Hey folks, Thanks very much for your input on this one. I decided that I won't submit this to scout. Your ideas of composition and colour vibrance are valuable to me for my future progress. Thanks again for all of you, Isti
lucato
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 Flash downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a Design Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:48PM
Besides all that IMHO there is the issue with the images/design on the package (Copyright).
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 9 of 9 matches.
Not a member?Join