Posted Wed Jan 30 7:58PM
This is my first critique request. I have read the rules and hope I have executed everything correctly. If not, please feel free to correct me. I know I'm supposed to be detached, but I honestly felt this was a good picture.
I have recently been rejected on a 10 photo batch with basicly the same reason: overprocessing. Honestly, I thought I had not exagerated, but apparently I have. I would apreciatte some comments on what looks wrong. I basictly forced the whole scene to be a bit warmer, corrected the histogram with Lightroom, and used a mask to turn the silhouette figure a bit darker.
Would it be any help if I sent the original, 100% unprocessed image?
Thanks in advance!
The rejection notice is:
"This image appears to be over-filtered/over-processed which has affected the image quality. This may include Photoshop filters & effects (over-sharpening, excessive adjustments to levels, curves, contrast, hues, gaussian blurs, saturation, added textures, noise reduction...) or other manipulations. We feel the image would have more value to designers with minimal or no post processing effects so that the designers could add their own post-processing effects. Some images can benefit from minor touch-ups to grab the viewer?s attention and there is no definitive line to what editing makes or breaks a great image but the end result should be a single image that can still be molded into a design. Inspectors judge images based on quality, composition and usability. If you require further explanation regarding this rejection, please submit a ticket to Scout (http://www.istockphoto.com/contact_ticket.php)"
Posted Wed Jan 30 8:44PM
I have to agree that the image is over-processed... (even though it is very nice 'art' photo...)
1. There is NO detail in the silhouettes - (IStock likes to see SOME detail in the shadow areas)
2. There is artifacting in the shadow areas - e.g. look at the silhouette areas - the tone is not continuous (it should be) - it has speckling - maybe noise, maybe sharpened noise, maybe other port-processing.
3. The windsurfers are not attached to their kites (cannot see the strings)
It is a strong graphic image but stock images need clean unprocessed pictures, so that designers can apply various post-processing techniques, to emulate the effect you provide, but also other effects too...
Posted Wed Jan 30 8:58PM
Thanks for you comments. Let me address them:
1 - I actually removed the details. I was afraid that with details they would request a model release. So you think I should leave the details? Do you think this is why they rejected the photo?
2 - I can realluy see some sort of noise. But the ISO was 125. I think that shadows of silhouettes really look like this, dont they? Any ideas on how to fix that in post?
3 - I just looked at the original image and they dont appear either... Guess i won't be able to get that back..
Thanks again for the comments. Oh, and I'm not trying to defend the photo. I am genuinely trying to see what i did wrong: be it in the photo or in posto.
Any other suggestion/criticisms will be very welcome!
Posted Wed Jan 30 9:36PM
Over processing probably refers to awkward color balance (yellow tint) that doesn't look natural nor particularly appealing. Image looks washed out, not enough contrast. I can see artifacts in silhouette of the first person. Zoom in 200% to get a better look, than you will notice it at 100% as well.
Posted Thu Jan 31 5:58AM
I always ask myself the question what if I was standing on the place of the photographer in real life, would it look like this? In my opinion -for istock- it's too yellow.
Posted Thu Jan 31 6:44AM
With the appropriate Photoshop skills, this could be an excellent image. I would make a selection of the larger person and make him darker. This reduces the color noise. I don't find the lack of rope on the flying things is an issue since I can see them (slightly) on the right hand one.
Nice composition. I would set it aside and come back to it in a year's time when your photoshop skills better.
Posted Thu Jan 31 11:30AM
Thanks for the suggestions. Here is the unprocessed version:
The yellow tint was actually there when I took the photo. I am sending the original, umprocessed image. I did look at the 200% image and compared the non-processed vs processed image and I can really see I intensified the noise by my modifications. Is there any tool I could use to darken him without bringing out so much noise?
It kinda was that way on that date. Though I could try to bring it down to a little more normal colour. Do you suggest I just bring the temperature down? Or any other suggestions?
Thanks for the blunt and honest comment about my photoshop skills. I will try to improve them. Currently, I use 100% lightroom. What tool would you suggest to bring the person darker in PS? Dodge&Burn?
Thanks again for all you help.
Posted Thu Jan 31 11:42AM
Properly feathered selection around the figure. New layer via copy. Levels slider. Don't make the figure too dark, just enough to lose the color noise.
Posted Thu Jan 31 11:59AM
Posted Thu Jan 31 2:43PM
I can't see the image because it'e not a live link for me, but as just a general help for lightroom--playing with the blacks slider will often help with making darks more black. Hope it helps a little.