Posted Wed Apr 17 10:35AM
Can someone please tell me why this would be rejected with no resubmit? This is all they told me:
-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 think it's a nice, dreamy photo with nice bokeh, but obviously they don't agree.
(Edited on 2013-04-17 10:38:32 by rsmseymour)
Posted Wed Apr 17 10:59AM
Flowers are a common subject, especially at this time of year. This was taken in bright sunlight, with highlights and shadow areas that would be difficult to do anything about. It looks as if you've sharpened it, and then used noise reduction. Also IMO the composition is rather "busy".
Common subjects have to be just right as submitted. They rarely get a resubmit.
Posted Wed Apr 17 11:34AM
I did do slight sharpen and noise reduction. I used a polarizer and with the backlit flower petals, it makes the petals look like heavy noise reduction was applied but they looked pretty much like this before my minor NR which I needed to clean up the shadows a little. Would you recommend no sharpening or NR?
You said it looks a bit busy. Now that I look at it, I think it is more fine art than stock quality. Thanks for your input!
Posted Wed Apr 17 12:16PM
I rarely (if ever) use a polariser for this sort of shot because of the oversaturation it tends to give. It does make the colours look very blocky here,and as you say looks like too much NR, particulalry with the sharpening. Again I rarely use any sharpening, and if I do I use it selectively and a minimum amount. The general feeling is that sharpening for stock is best left to the end user. Similarly with NR. Less is better. It was said recently that more images are rejected for too much NR than are rejected for noise.
Posted Wed Apr 17 2:36PM
It's not a terrible photo, but as with your other shot, you have a dime-a-dozen subject here. The light is probably borderline accept/reject...it is on the harsh side.
Also weakening this image (and indirectly pushing the Inspector towards the reject side of the line) is the fact that you have a large eye-catching flower right at a nearly perfect rule-of-thirds focal point, however it is out of focus, and the smaller flower dead-center is what's in focus.
As mentioned above, it's a bit over-processed looking. You might try going with no NR at all for a while, I think you'll be surprised at how infrequently we reject for noise (assuming all else is good). Under lighting conditions such as these, you shouldn't need NR at all. On those occasions where you feel it's indispensable, consider applying it selectively rather than to the whole image. Same thing with sharpening. It's generally not really necessary at all and is a massive contributor to many many artifacting & overfiltering rejections here, but in those cases where you feel a touch of sharpening is needed, do it selectively only where the image is already in focus, so you're not generating sharpening artifacts in out of focus areas that will never be sharp anyway.
Posted Wed Apr 17 3:24PM
I was thinking a polarizer would be a benefit in flower photos. I had no idea that it could be a detriment. I'll try it without next time.
Very good information to keep in the back of my head for next time! I appreciate all the feedback!
Posted Wed Apr 17 9:26PM
I love the flowers. I don't like the bokeh, I find it distracting and its the wrong colour, doesn't fit in with the other colours (pale steel blue on my screen). If it was cool, hexagon shaped, less standout and amongst greenery or shrubs, it might fit better.
Flowers are very common here. They have to be spectacular to get accepted and to sell. I have some fine examples of bad flower shots in my port that don't sell, haha! Your's are much nicer!
(Edited on 2013-04-17 21:27:07 by Beano5)
Posted Thu Apr 18 1:24AM
rsmseymour, I did a test sometime ago comparing a shot with and without a polarising filter to see the difference. I was shocked to find that the (cheap) polariser I had introduced all sorts of unpleasent artifacting, which would of then required NR. Unless there is a lot of reflections then most of the time you really don't need a polarising filter.
Posted Fri Apr 19 5:36PM
Thanks, everyone for the input! It helps!