Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: p2images on December 22, 2018, 08:48:37 am
-
I could use some feedback here, I think this image is somewhat appealing. At least enough to submit for commercial licensing. It's a 45MP Image and it's in focus and not over-saturated or over-processed. 500PX reason for declining it was "General Technical Reasons: Improper use of on-camera/direct flash, poor or uneven lighting. Severe digital quality issues that cannot be fixed i.e. extreme noise or compression artifacts. (DC#10)"
I submitted this to 500px and it was declined outright. I submitted the same exact image to Getty Images (It's parent company) and it was accepted.. Can anyone comment as to why?
-
My guess: The intern at 500px only likes photos that are taken at noon on cloudless days.
I suspect that intern's days at 500px are limited.
-
My guess: The intern at 500px only likes photos that are taken at noon on cloudless days.
I suspect that intern's days at 500px are limited.
Or perhaps that intern thought the lighting on the buildings were artifacts?
;-)
-
Or perhaps that intern thought the lighting on the buildings were artifacts?
;-)
Aw. I thought the lighting were actually reflections from the on-camera flash. That could be the reason
Anyway if someone rejects a picture of mine (one which I consider being OK) on whatever reasons, I just don't send them anything more. Why care?
They have a different taste. Period.
-
... Can anyone comment as to why?
None of us so far can see the reason, at least not technical, so the only person qualified to answer is the one rejecting it.
Having said that, I do find the image unappealing or not interesting, at least for commercial purposes. Had you waited until the blue hour, you would have ended up with a much more appealing and noticeable contrast between those Xmas lights and the blue sky.
-
None of us so far can see the reason, at least not technical, so the only person qualified to answer is the one rejecting it.
Having said that, I do find the image unappealing or not interesting, at least for commercial purposes. Had you waited until the blue hour, you would have ended up with a much more appealing and noticeable contrast between those Xmas lights and the blue sky.
You get my vote for the best comment.
Getty Images liked it enough to accept for submission and if I make a few dollars on the image great!
I think it's a unique photo, I find it compelling. Commercially - I agree with you, but this could be used for a book cover or some illustration in a Steven King novel.
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate it!
-
I should have followed my own advice and waited for the xmas lights ;)
(https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/img/s/v-2/p1646442522-4.jpg) (https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p1025007936/e6222b81a)
-
Do we know, for sure, that it was rejected by a human? I’m not being facetious here, but given the ‘inroads’ in modern technology, I could see an algorithm rejecting this, especially given the clearly ignorant reasons for the rejection.
It is a more-than-acceptable image. I wouldn’t sweat it.
-
I see you are new to LuLa. Welcome!
-
I should have followed my own advice and waited for the xmas lights ;)
(https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/img/s/v-2/p1646442522-4.jpg) (https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p1025007936/e6222b81a)
you too aye? too funny!.. I think the place looks amazing year round except last summer when they were doing renovations. A dramatic cloud scape might help or lightening?.. Perhaps the Milky way arching over the top.. I also laid down in front of a very small puddle and captured this..
-
I see you are new to LuLa. Welcome!
Thank you Slobodan! I've been a member for a while, just not been active until now.. You seem familiar, did you shoot Manhattan from Weehawken back in 2015 with another gentleman?
-Steve
-
Do we know, for sure, that it was rejected by a human? I’m not being facetious here, but given the ‘inroads’ in modern technology, I could see an algorithm rejecting this, especially given the clearly ignorant reasons for the rejection.
It is a more-than-acceptable image. I wouldn’t sweat it.
Thanks Lux!
-
...You seem familiar, did you shoot Manhattan from Weehawken back in 2015 with another gentleman?
No, but I did shoot a lighthouse reflection in a puddle... "great minds think alike" etc. ;)
P.S. What are those colorful things just above the puddle in your photo?
(https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/img/s/v-2/p1634914215-5.jpg) (https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p1025007936/e6172cfa7)
-
No, but I did shoot a lighthouse reflection in a puddle... "great minds think alike" etc. ;)
P.S. What are those colorful things just above the puddle in your photo?
(https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/img/s/v-2/p1634914215-5.jpg) (https://www.slobodanblagojevic.com/p1025007936/e6172cfa7)
Giant fall leaves LOL remember? the puddle was about 24 inches long. I set the camera on the ground at f/22 so they looked enormous haha!
Used a 24-70 2.8 lens for this.
Did you go further north and shoot Raven's Nest Yet? Looks great during the day, awesome at sunset in winter. I tried astro but had clouds roll in but am going back again this Spring/summer.
-
Do we know, for sure, that it was rejected by a human? I’m not being facetious here, but given the ‘inroads’ in modern technology, I could see an algorithm rejecting this, especially given the clearly ignorant reasons for the rejection.
I bet this is in fact what happened. We're at the point where algorithms making value judgments in various realms is a thing and yet the algorithms are so not up to the task. Witness *flickr's Tumblr's recent embrace of the New Puritanism: after this went down NASA's HiRISE flickr Tumblr account had several image posts removed due to "inappropriate content" or some similarly-worded reason. These were photos of the surface of Mars! ;D The folks using the code know it's profoundly stoopid (for now anyway) so they configure it for high/maximal rejection to cover their tushes.
-Dave-
*Ack, wrong e-deficient content-hosting site!
-
I personally like your shot of the Nubble..
I don't want to imagine what they would have say about my rendition..
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/131978778/original.jpg)
-
The bulk of the image and thus the subject in a manner of speaking is mostly dull blue gray mottled areas with the buildings composed almost as an afterthought (whether it was or it wasn't). I can definitely see why reviewer wouldn't take it - "most of the time" the preference is for tighter compositions with the subject "graphically front and center" and more dramatic as in some of the examples posted by others. That is not to say that the image is not valuable - just not necessarily commercial. Maybe if the sky was a "dramatically orange sunrise or sunset" e.g. and more "brightly lit" - maybe that would have tipped it in your favor with this wide composition
-
I think you have to accept you are competing with thousands of photographers all of whom are submitting great images. Not simply good images. Getty is not as discerning as some other top photo sites/agencies for landscapes and the like. And if you think it is difficult to get on 500 pix, try "1exposure." You have to go through people voting and then through a committee of great well established photographers, all of whom have seen many like images from all over the world. This is why photo stock agencies became greatly devalued after the internet came on the scene.
JR
-
Hi Stephen,
It could be as simple as the flag is at half mast. It may have limited appeal.
Peter
-
Hi Stephan,
It could be as simple as the flag is at half mast. It may have limited appeal.
Peter
True
-
I like the image. You are to be commended for not overcooking it. I appreciate photographers who show some restraint.
-
I personally like your shot of the Nubble..
I don't want to imagine what they would have say about my rendition..
(http://www.pbase.com/bobfriedman/image/131978778/original.jpg)
This is amazing! Love it! Were the seagulls there or added afterwards?
-
I bet this is in fact what happened. We're at the point where algorithms making value judgments in various realms is a thing and yet the algorithms are so not up to the task. Witness *flickr's Tumblr's recent embrace of the New Puritanism: after this went down NASA's HiRISE flickr Tumblr account had several image posts removed due to "inappropriate content" or some similarly-worded reason. These were photos of the surface of Mars! ;D The folks using the code know it's profoundly stoopid (for now anyway) so they configure it for high/maximal rejection to cover their tushes.
-Dave-
*Ack, wrong e-deficient content-hosting site!
Sounds like you are right.. Could be analytics making the calls to automate the process. I imagine they receive a lot of submissions. At least with Getty, you have to be accepted through a vetting process before you are accepted as a contributor.
-
The bulk of the image and thus the subject in a manner of speaking is mostly dull blue gray mottled areas with the buildings composed almost as an afterthought (whether it was or it wasn't). I can definitely see why reviewer wouldn't take it - "most of the time" the preference is for tighter compositions with the subject "graphically front and center" and more dramatic as in some of the examples posted by others. That is not to say that the image is not valuable - just not necessarily commercial. Maybe if the sky was a "dramatically orange sunrise or sunset" e.g. and more "brightly lit" - maybe that would have tipped it in your favor with this wide composition
Well written! I agree with your points and often my images are front and center.. but in this case I wanted to show the dramatic clouds, the sense of isolation of the island, while showing the hope if you will of the warm lights decorating the scene. As I said, I don't think the image is all that powerful, but rather get feedback and state the lack of consistency with 500px and i's parent Getty Images..
-
Hi Stephen,
It could be as simple as the flag is at half mast. It may have limited appeal.
Peter
I hadn't considered that Peter.. Thanks for pointing that out.
-
I like the image. You are to be commended for not overcooking it. I appreciate photographers who show some restraint.
Thank you so much for that feed back!
-
Were the seagulls there or added afterwards?
Nope.
-
This is amazing! Love it! Were the seagulls there or added afterwards?
Nope.
Has to be one or the other, surely ;) Or perhaps both, I suppose.
Jeremy
-
Nope.
Has to be one or the other, surely ;) Or perhaps both, I suppose.
Jeremy
too funny... my mistake, I somehow read past to the end as "were the seagulls added".. they were there..there was a fellow that showed up with popcorn and stirred the gulls up while I was photographing the lighthouse...