User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: what am I doing wrong?

  1. #1
    Member geordie's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    what am I doing wrong?

    Hi, i have been sending pictures in to a stock site for a couple of years, getting some rejections for different faults but generally getting lots accepted.
    the last three batches I have sent have had lots of rejections about 70 - 80% for incorrect white balance. I have attached two of the latest batch. can anyone tell me what they look like on their monitors. on mine they look good. after the first rejection I re calibrated the monitor using the software supplied with it.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    critique or comments are always appreciated.

    www.shaunsphotography.com

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,619
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    The third and fourth are crooked, the stacks are not vertical but leaning. This would mean a reject to as stock site
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,610
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't like to be critical for nothing, but the 1st is tonally flat as well as having little of intrinsic interest. I mean this to be as constructive as possible, and I would probably do no better myself.
    Good luck with future submissions, though.
    Am.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter
    geordie's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks for the replys, bu the subjects are not being called into question by the stock site, if they were i could understand. the only reason for rejection though is white balance wrong.
    I was really curious as to if my monitor is calibrated wrong or i am doing something wrong in the workflow.
    the crooked stack is obviously one thing I have done wrong.

  5. #5
    A. P's Culinary Indiscriminant mongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Mar 2009
    Location
    Cronulla, Sydney
    Posts
    8,601
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    agree that 3 and 4 are crooked. Mongo thinks 1 and 2 are muddy (ie lack contrast) and lack sharpness
    Nikon and Pentax user



  6. #6
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,610
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, your white balance is set on Auto, so I thought it'd do a reasonable job. I don't think there's any great departure from what I would have expected there. All but the first one (which shows nothing) show AdobeRGB as the color space. Is that what they wanted? Or should it be sRGB? Again, I don't know that there's much difference.
    Am.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,831
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The last two are overcooked, its not white balance per se more saturation but I can see they'd say WB

    For interests sake - made any sales off the stock sites ?
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  8. #8
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,619
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    When processing photos for stock sites. Think of yourself as the client. If you need a photo of a chimney stack for the cover of say your companies annual report to shareholders, would you buy your own photos, or would you pick another one from the stock site? Search the stock site for 'chimney' or 'chimney stack'. Do your photos compare with the very best on the stock site? If not, then that is what you have to achieve.

    Stock sites want the BEST images, and they will reject a lot of uploads for a huge range of reasons. What you need to do is make sure your stock photos are as good as, or better than, every other photo on the site of the same subject matter.

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter
    geordie's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    32
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks all for the honest critique.
    yes the saturation has been boosted in the second one.
    the requirements ask for Adobe RGb 1998.
    i have a few hundred photos on a few different stock sites and get the same photos accepted onto one and rejected from another, sales are about 45pictures per month so i am never going to retire on the proceeds.
    I started on stock sites to see if my picture taking was any good, and to see if they could be used / seen anywhere but on my computer and walls around home.
    having photos rejected because of subject matter, or no requirement for this type of image are good reasons to me, I just dont like them being rejected for technical faults which I should have noticed / corrected

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    847
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by geordie View Post
    Hi, i have been sending pictures in to a stock site for a couple of years, getting some rejections for different faults but generally getting lots accepted.
    the last three batches I have sent have had lots of rejections about 70 - 80% for incorrect white balance. I have attached two of the latest batch. can anyone tell me what they look like on their monitors. on mine they look good. after the first rejection I re calibrated the monitor using the software supplied with it.
    Both are marginally BLUE.
    The second moreso, than the first.

    Your Profile Request does not allow for posting an edited version of your images.
    Judging from only two samples is not a fair sample group.

    The blue cast is very marginal in these two, therefore, this leads one to conclude that:

    > other images in that 70% to 80% which were rejected have worse WB
    OR
    > the reason given for the rejection is false in some manner
    OR
    > the Stock Editor does not know White Balance.

    WW
    Last edited by William W; 05-08-2011 at 11:13pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •