Posted Sun Feb 10 11:46AM
This picture http://dl.dropbox.com/u/138773102/P1030538%20copy%20db.jpg was rejected for lighting.
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
I agree the lighting isn't that great. I am new at this and the photo is up for a resubmit. This my first attempt at fixing the lighting from the orginal, I just adjusted the curves slightly by making it a bit darker. Can the photo be saved or time to move on?
Posted Mon Feb 11 1:54PM
I'd say overprocessing is more the problem here actually. All the detail looks mushy and over sharpened. And I think using F5.6 didn't help. The sweet spot of your lens is probably nearer F11 or somewhere like that.
You're using auto white balance and a built in 'landscape mode' on your camera.. you're just not going to get anything that great doing so.
Does your camera have a manual mode, or an Aperture priority mode? If so, for a shot like this, stick it into Aperture mode at, say, F11, and set a manual white balance. Perhaps take a shot before hand (or after) of a plain white piece of paper so you can colour balance later. you can get some cheap grey cards on ebay as well.
Your camera will never get it spot on in camera.
Did you use a sturdy tripod? If not, it could be the reason the image was perhaps a little blurry and you're over sharpened to try and bring back detail that wasn't captured.
As for the lighting.. try adding a 'linear contrast' S curve in Photoshop (I assume elements has it) as it'll give a little more contrast..
Although like I say, lighting isn't your main issue here.
I would cancel your resubmit before you get another rejection and make your acceptance/rejection ratio worse.. something you will want to be better in the future if you want to go exclusive.
If you are taking photography seriously, it may be worth looking at a camera where you can change lenses rather than a bridge camera that is very limiting.
A Canon Eos 600D, for example, with something like the 50mm F1.8 prime lens will not set you back a fortune, but you'll get some amazingly sharp results. And you can build up a collection of lenses, and not have to throw them away if you upgrade through different camera bodies as you get better and yearn for better kit.
Posted Mon Feb 11 5:36PM
Thanks your advice helps a lot. I did just purchase a new camera, actually I choose a Nikon D7000. This photo was taken with a less than ideal camera, I liked it and wanted to see if I could fix it. I think that I will move on and try to get it "right" in the camera.
Posted Tue Feb 12 3:56AM
Yeah, if you get it 95% right in the camera, then you can probably push the other 5% in post processing. but if you can tell it's been processed, it will get rejected. People want to buy images that look like they're right out of the camera.. even if they're not.
This was just too far I'm afraid.
Posted Wed Feb 13 2:07PM
Agree this is waaaaay overprocessed, but also the lighting is quite harsh, directly overhead mid-day sun which will almost always bring a lighting rejection. I generally wouldn't consider this fixable for iStock. There is so much that is blown out and detail-less dominating the foreground.