PHOTO: Bird: Strange rejection. (artifacting, lighting)

Hey!


I got the rejection message "This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size.", and that I should use lower iso, better quality and all that stuff. But I'm courious how to fix this since the photo was taken with ISO 200, with a Nikon D300 in the highest quality and safe from RAW to the highest JPG quality. 


If this is the way its gonna be then none of my photos will be good enough...





And then I got the:
-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'm not sure if I agree... Did they even see the photo?


Can it be more colorful colors? No flash was used, only sunlight. Lack of details? Its impossible to have more detail on the bird. What lens flare?


Well, Im very glad for any answers


Best regards // Oscar 

(Edited on 2013-01-30 11:08:47 by donald_gruener)

Hi, Oscar - you are obviously very attached to this photo. You should read the instructions at the top of this forum about making your work available at full size when asking for criticism.

I can see the inspector's problem with this image. No matter how well-exposed and sharp the bird is, your background is largely blown. A darker subject with a bright, distracting background can be hard to view.

The rejection you received was a generic one, and not every point applies. Unless the inspector added specific remarks, then you have to pick and choose from the suggestions, and decide for yourself what is wrong. Or ask here, of course.

Hi Oscar - I agree with Roger's comments.  A dark object on a very bright background is a recipe for a lighting rejection. Don't get dejected ... just work on a different background. Hope this helps.

Ok, thanks guys, that helped


But about this quality stuff, they dont want any noise. I believe that I have saved the photo in the highest possible quality, and used lowest ISO. How do I improve that?

(Edited on 2013-01-30 02:57:01 by OscarJettman)

Keep shooting in nice low ISO as you have in the example above. Even lighting is best ... if you are shooting outdoors, pick an overcast day for soft, even lighting. That should do the trick. I'll see if I can find an example in my port and sitemail you. All the best. Craig.

Thanks Craig


I have this photo pending aswell... lets wait and see if this will be approved. I dont think it has the same flaws as the first one... do you? 

Very different background - I would be more confident here. Let us know how you go.


As per Roger's earlier suggestion if you look at the instructions at the top of the forum it shows you how to post a full size image. If you do that ... you'll have some real experts here give you feedback. 


I sitemailed you some examples.


Craig

On the subject of noise, low ISO doesn't eliminate noise it just reduces it. During post-processing, Photoshop will invite you to add artifacts with ease. Totally eliminating noise in pp usually also gets a rejection due to its effect on the good bits.


Stock photography isn't the same as other types. It has its own rules. Reject them and you'll remain frustrated.

The white balance looks too blue to me. Also, bird images are not rare around here, and this just looks like an average grab shot of some bird on ... something.

And, as mentioned, you need to post full size, not thumbs.

Please post the full size file for us to view, as requested in the Read This First thread. That will enable us to see what the Inspector saw. There are many sources of artifacting and in seeing the 100% file we can often diagnose this and help you avoid the same mistake.

Based on the thumbnail, the Inspector has correctly applied the lighting standards they have been instructed to follow.

The second image you posted will likely receive a lighting rejection as well. The white balance is significantly off. We can't speak to the image quality/noise/artifacts without seeing the actual file.

Thanks!

For your convenience, here is a link to the Read This First thread that sits at the top of the Critique Request forum:

Please take 5 minutes to read this first