PHOTO : old box isolated on white

Hello,

I have a picture that I submitted since October 2012, and that I refused each time for the same reason: "" The execution of isolation contains stray Areas That Are Either too feathered or rough ""


This time the inspector test really help me, since it is the fourth refusal and allow me to resubmit it each time.
So I've obviously made adjustments to each submission.
The content of the photo is an old toy box wood construction from the 1960s isolated on white background.
The problem is that there for me isolation is really good, but the edge of the wooden box and blocks are damaged (not linear) just as I took this picture because it is old.
I believe that the inspector thinks that the isolation on white background is not good, but it comes from the box whose edges are not smooth.
In addition,it is one of the only times the inspector specifies the reason for rejection, what I find really nice

Can you give me your opinion and help me in this situation ? Thank you ...

(Edited on 2013-01-04 04:16:38 by Gregory_DUBUS)

(Edited on 2013-01-04 13:26:06 by donald_gruener)

There is still some tidying up to do with the isolation, such as:

There is a small area of grey background at the left side of the box about 3/4 of the way up the edge.
At the bottom, where there are wooden blocks, the background shows through as small white traingles. These should have sharper corners, not rounded corners with grey background.
In some places the straight lines of the blocks are too sharp. In other places, the edges of the box and blocks look too jagged.

Actual link to full image

Also the obvious, that there is a big piece of copyrighted art on the front.

Thank you for the direct link to the full image !

+ Sorry it's my fault, I forgot to mention that this is an editorial picture, obviously !

I think esp has it covered pretty well. As I understand it, inspectors go on what can actually be seen, not what can be found by single colour selection, or altering the levels etc. although they are ways for contributors to see that the background is "clean" IMO. I can certainly see the area of shadow to the left in front of the box, by the small g in "Gregory" it has a sharp edge probably where you have painted over the shadow along the edge. That front lower edge might need a spot more feather incidentally it looks a bit jaggy to me. Again as esp says, watch out for the corners where objects meet, they need to meet sharply, and not be rounded. Watch out for "undercuts" as well, where the lines leading into the edges have a step in them where two lines intersect. 

(Edited on 2013-01-04 06:13:22 by Difydave)

Is it copyrighted?  Looks pretty old.  The company may be out of business by now.

With a subject with limited appeal, IMO, I have to ask.


How many downloads do you anticipate from this image after all this work if you get it accepted?


Is it worth all this time?

Company being out of business dosn't mean that the copyright is up.

It appears the OP may be submitting this as editorial - is that correct?

I'm having difficulty accessing editorial rejections at the moment; I only see one submission/rejection for this image, back in October, and at that point it was rejected from the main collection for copyright. I'm guessing subsequent submissions were via editorial.

Firstly thank you all for valuable criticisms.

As previously stated, this image is subject to editorial since its first refusal creative, I did not know if it included rights.


Then I saw this picture on another monitor, because when I asked myself the same questions in relation to your remarks. Indeed, there are gray marks on white background.
I will of course correct this.


His first rejection actually dates from October 16, 2012, from the download of 6 October 2012. And his latest rejection dated December 30, 2012. Registry number is the 22694569 (but it changes with each submission)

Note that in addition to any gray marks on the white background, the front edge of the box, the blocks, and where the blocks meet box are all in need of attention. The back and side edges of the box look good.

Absolutely, I will correct that as well.

Like what, even if my monitor is properly calibrated yet, you better look at the rendering on multiple screens calibrated differently ....

^^ I don't understand the above comment.

Looking on a single well calibrated monitor is the way to go.
It's not your job to guess how it may look on every poorly calibrated monitor in the planet.

Obviously, I will not check on all types of monitors, but I think it is necessary to restore as much as possible the way the photo was taken. After that, anyway, the buyer makes what he wants with the photo, be it paper or computer use ...