Subscribe and save with our all-new image subscriptions.

Learn more
Close

PHOTO: Chevron Headquarters

Displaying 1 to 8 of 8 matches.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:38PM
This image was rejected.

"We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved" followed by the standard lighting language.

Any pointers what could be improved/what the issue may be? Photo was taken late mid day so that the Chevron sign would not be reflecting the sun. Thanks!
shank_ali
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contest
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:24PM
Posted By ChenRobert:
This image was rejected.

"We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved" followed by the standard lighting language.

Any pointers what could be improved/what the issue may be? Photo was taken late mid day so that the Chevron sign would not be reflecting the sun. Thanks!



The shadow in front of the sign don't look too good to me.I would reshoot in less sunshine.Also the D800 has alot of resolution.I would use it


 
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:24PM

As far as lighting goes, there are blown out highlight on those white flowers and (distracting) plastic bag in a flower bed. Also, contrast between bright (sun lit areas) and mostly shaded parts is not particular pleasant.


Overall composition is questionable which is likely why is inspector so picky about lighting issue. You have small Chevron sign and bunch of trees.


Image is likely taken from a private property (I see parking behind you reflecting on the sign). For that you need PR, even for the editorial.
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:32PM
I think for this sort of editorial you have to try a bit harder. Try to isolate the Chevron sign against the trees, slanting upwards from a low angle using a shallow DoF to make the sign stand out and give a potential buyer some out of focus copyspace to work with. As it stands it has very limited commercial use hence the rejection.
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:35PM

Posted By ChenRobert:

Any pointers what could be improved/what the issue may be? Photo was taken late mid day so that the Chevron sign would not be reflecting the sun. Thanks!


You won't be able to improve this file enough with post processing to get it accepted. The light is simply too harsh, there is too much that is blown out and missing color information.

Shooting the sunlit side of the sign may have actually worked better. Or else moving close enough to the sign to eliminate the bulk of the sunlit areas.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:49PM
Thanks for the comments (x4). I should have stated that it was submitted as Editorial.

If the (photo's) composition or it's limited commercial use was subpar, then it should be rejected for that (and not rejected for lighting composition).

I suspect if I photographed it on a cloudy day, it would have been rejected similarly (but for dull lighting).

The sign is highly reflective and thus, I shot it with sun behind the sign, and the intent was to capture the company sign and the entry to the corporate campus (not just an isolation of the sign).

Image was taken from a public street. The reflection in the sign are of cars at a stop light.

(Edited on 2013-03-20 14:55:13 by ChenRobert)
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:30PM
The lighting is the primary issue here, thus the rejection for it.

A different composition may have mitigated the difficult lighting; and/or a particularly strong composition may on occasion result in the Inspector being less picky about the lighting; thus the composition comments you received above.

A cloudy day, with proper white balance and a minor, allowable levels adjustment to enhance contrast, could indeed work just fine here.

The intent is moot if the conditions don't permit what you're aiming for. It's our job to find our way around the limitations we encounter. Sometimes that means finding a different approach to achieve what you intended; sometimes that means coming back at a different time or day; sometimes that means letting go of that intention entirely and just finding what CAN work under a given set of circumstances.

In any case, when approaching any subject, it's always good to go at it from different angles (both literally and conceptually) in order to ensure you come home with at least something usable, even if it doesn't match what you had in mind when you set out.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:06PM
Thanks Donald for your comment. I understand what you are saying, believe me I do.

It's difficult to gauge what is acceptable, or not, when you look at the various image quality for approved files.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 8 of 8 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)