Posted Mon Jan 7, 2013 7:40PM
Any feedback would be appreciated. Shot Nikon D-300 with Elinchrom stobes and softboxes, custom white balance and minimal Photoshop.
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:
-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
(Edited on 2013-01-07 19:47:19 by jrwasserman)
(Edited on 2013-01-07 19:51:05 by jrwasserman)
(Edited on 2013-01-07 19:54:26 by jrwasserman)
(Edited on 2013-01-07 19:55:35 by jrwasserman)
(Edited on 2013-01-08 11:14:44 by donald_gruener)
Posted Mon Jan 7, 2013 9:04PM
Well, since no one else has responded I'll give you my 2c. I think it looks fine, BUT, the inspectors usually all seem to like really bright files. I have had several accepted after just brightening them up (usually to a point that looked TOO bright to me, but if that's what they want....).
You could do this with levels in PS or Elements, or maybe by use of "white" slider in Lightroom. Good luck.
Posted Tue Jan 8, 2013 1:21AM
It's not a question of being bright enough. It's the distribution of light, The hand is the main 'action' in the image and it looks like dead meat. The calculator looks like yesterday's technology, little attempt at image hygiene (screen dirt/scratches and fingernail), paper blown at lower left, too narrow an aperture choice (select a place of interest and focus there eg the finger tip), and CA on edges. To an inspector, this suggests not enough thought has gone into the pic.
Posted Tue Jan 8, 2013 2:39AM
In addintion to Luicentius' comments, the display of the calculator is too dark, it needs to be matched better to the rest of the lighting.
On a different note, the number in the calculator display seems unrelated to any of the numbers on the data sheet - it's over 1000 times larger, so it looks like your subject is pretending to do work for the camera, rather than checking the print out or something.
(Edited on 2013-01-08 06:54:34 by esp_imaging)
Posted Tue Jan 8, 2013 4:25AM
Thank-you all for your comments. Non-of the critiques are valid (although I will point out the calculator came from Staples that day) but none actually match the reasons the photo was rejected with a no re-submitt tag. What I have been finding is that I will have a sereis of several images from a sequence that are inspected in different batches -- some are approved and others not. It appears to depend on who the inspecter is. Others is this sequence were accepted with the same lighting, hand and enhancement.
Posted Tue Jan 8, 2013 4:58AM
The file was rejected for lighting composition and the critiques you have received address the lighting. How are they not valid? I suspect that you have failed to read and understand the rejection note. If you read it again, you will see it does not say that your file has any of the problems listed, it says "Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are..." Nothing about your file having any of those listed issues.
I would say the image looks dark, especially the calculator display and it's shot at a rather awkward angle with everything side on and the very tight crop severely limits usage. Given the common nature of the subject, the fact that it has been done thousands of times before, and better, probably leads to a no resubmit. As for why some files get rejected and other accepted, this is generally what happens when people upload images of borderline quality. Hope that helps.
(Edited on 2013-01-08 05:00:47 by kelvinjay)
Posted Tue Jan 8, 2013 6:24AM
It does help. Thank-you for your comments.
(Edited on 2013-01-08 06:24:27 by jrwasserman)