Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:47AM
Can someone please review this image and try to find out what the scout said? It was rejected because:
Scout: "I also told you that the colors are over-saturated. They still are and there is still a halo around the bird. A think dark line underneath him. You need to reduce the saturation so the colors look slightly more natural. "
I cannot see distracting halos nor oversaturated colors. Boosted colors, yes, but not clipping. I stated in the image that it was split-toned with vintage colors. However, the main issue was the dark halo.
(Edited on 2013-01-15 11:53:48 by IvanJekic)
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:02PM
I do see halo around the bird, it is more obvious around his beak, feet and left wing ( bird's left wing ) As far the colours I cannot help you much with that but IMHO the vintage look doesn't really coresponds well with 21st century blue colour of the sky so maybe the Scout was referring to the sky saturation not the bird itself.
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:15PM
"I cannot see distracting halos nor oversaturated colors."
I can. Oversaturated can just mean unnatural, not necessarily clipped. I can't see an obviosu reason why a wierd - toned seagull would be very saleable, and it's very easy to do toning like this, so I'd have thought staying with natural colours makes more sense.
It doesn't look amazingly sharp, the halos may have come from any sharpening you may have done.
(Edited on 2013-01-15 12:16:13 by esp_imaging)
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:42PM
It is not terrible but I also think it is over filtered a bit. Cut down on saturation/vibrance and sharpenning.
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:42PM
There is a subtle reddish haze that surrounds the seagull, most visibly along the bottom edge. And I agree with esp ^ that the color of the gull looks wrong.
Just about impossible to comment on sharpening halos at this size, we'd need to see the 100% file (or is this a crop of a larger composition?)
(Edited on 2013-01-15 12:43:35 by donald_gruener)
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:47PM
Whenever obvious filters are employed to change an image, I believe they have to enhance it and work in sympathy with the subject. If for example, you had a shot of a gull on a 1950s looking pier, then maybe a retro filter would make more sense, but this just looks like gratuitous use of filters simply because you can add filters.
Gulls themsleves are a common subject, they're one of the first things people seem to shoot when they get into photography, and because of that, the supply of good quality shots of them is abundant. To get it accepted, I'd strip back the processing and go for a more straight looking shot. But even then, it won't sell, it's just another gull shot. Indifferent lighting and lack of any compositional interest also don't help.
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:59PM
Thanks guys for honest and valid feedback! I can see your point and appreciate it. I didn't sharpen it, except using 35 amount in LR raw sharpening with other default values.
This is the full image, I thought adding slightly warmish tone would make it more useful for online stuff, blogs, etc. I didn't expect anything more, it's just a typical sky and a bird image. But I was curious to hear from you why it was rejected in the first place, because I couldn't see the reason.
Posted Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:04PM
Thanks Kelvin, I didn't see your post prior writing this above ^^^ . And I agree, too common to mess with it any longer.