Jump to content

Ms Jane Campbell

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ms Jane Campbell

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

332 profile views
  1. You are right Mark. Why do I come here? I stopped coming here. I never found it helpful. I found all the comments particularly unhelpful and rather tedious. I am glad you work outside of stock. Good to hear. I just wanted to know as stock producers what you thought on how to fix the white balance, given the white balance is the temp of the image. Chris gave me his advice and that was fine. The fact that I had already done what he suggested couldn't have been known by him. By "fixing" the image the way he said the image became much cooler but I find Shutterstock like warm images. I don't like warm images. They tend to lean to the warm image side, the oversaturated image side. I don't mean to the excess but if images could be a tad warmer a tad more saturated then good. So as good stock contibutors that you all are and having had the experience with SS that you have and the success with SS that you have had I asked in good faith what WB they could possibly want.I actually know what WB I like for the shot. I will not come to this forum again. I will not ask again for your expert advice. I find it predictable and tedious. So I will stay calm Markrhiggins by staying away. Don't bother replying to this. I will delete it without reading it.
  2. Well for what it is worth, Brady, I think it is a great background. If you have noticed a trend in Japan then go for it. Remembering it is a background image and the buyer is putting things on top of this of their own, I think you can throw the "clarity and booting the detail" comment out the window. You don't want your background being more important than your message and it does not look over sharpened on my screen so you can have another comment to balance markrhiggins' negativity. He might be right on the lightness though. If I squint at this the lightness knot it does seem to intrude and would be hard to not intrude on the buyers final idea .... maybe. As markrhiggins says we are not the buyers and we don't really know what they want. Except by trends and you say you have found a trend ..... so go for it.
  3. Listen peoples, I only asked how to fix the WB. There is no sky in this image. it is all mist. The light was beautiful and I chose the right time of day to make this image. The reviewer is not supposed to pick one, he/she is supposed to give all reasons so that we contributors don't waste our time trying to fix an image if possible. Shutterstock have told me that. Stock photos are used RinderArt in places other than product or service. You, I think, would be surprised the images I have sold. Shutterstock are keen to get away from the traditional and rather hackneyed images that are still being created by people who are lost in the world of stock and never see anything else. Buyers want something different from the crap that you see on the stock pages, the over used unoriginal predictable images that populate the stock pages. So again I repeat the sublties of this image have been lost because I downsized by reducing the dpi. I only asked how to fix the WB. I should have known better than to ask on this forum. I don't enjoy dealing with the negativity I find here, against me and against most people who post here.
  4. Ok I will try the above. I did use the eyedropper on the footpath but the temp came in at 4300K and that looked a little blue. There is detail in the white but this is a 72dpi so a lot is lost at that resolution. Interestingly I have already bumped the saturation on the tree and the autumn leaves but I will try a little more. It must have been too subtle. At the moment the only rejection reason is the white balance. Maybe it is that when I resubmit they will then say "focus issues", "noise", "not enough info in the highlights". Who knows. But thanks for the advice. I will cool it down a bit or rather take out some yellow. Seeing it here it looks too yellow. Mind you that is why I stopped and took the image. It was very misty and yellow.
  5. You can clone the name out and it would be acceptable in my very small experience. A bike is a bike and your DOF makes it unrecognizable as a Brooks without the brand name Brooks. It is a lovely shot. I don't know about newsworthyness of editorials. I am finding as long as it has something that stops it being usable as commercial you can post it as editorial. Not sure about this one though where the brand name is almost the point of the photo LOL.
  6. This image was rejected by Shutterstock and before you all jump in and say "noise" "focus" "composition" I can tell you it was none of those. Nor was it "exposure" and no it wasn't intellectual property. It was for White Balance. The thing is I don't know how to fix this. I feel it should be easy to fix but I need advice. Thanks Jane

    © Jane Campbell

  7. My experience has been and it hasn't obviously been all that much, that digital copes better with low lights than high lights. Opposite really to film where you can get something out of a thin neg but it is so much harder to get something out of thick. Once a highlight is blown there is no going back. In fact a professional digital photographer once told me to underexpose by at least half a stop. You can always get it back in PS but you cannot get information back in PS in the highlights. I think bracketing is the way to go.( I don't want to go to HDR I think they look unnatural and generally annoy me. ) It is just I keep forgetting to bracket. So I posted this to show why I am confused. I dislike this shot. But then I dislike a lot of the images on Shutterstock and have had to come to the realisation that it is a job not an art form. However it was not refused for any of the stringent grounds the Lord Nelson image was rejected for even though it is a far worse image for focus, noise and poor lighting. I do thank you Barry for all your gruffness. I went to that link. It turns out that I did know all what they had to say. I haven't finished watching - there is a tutorial on how to correct in PS for noise. You would have thought I would have watched that first - go figure! So thank you for your replies and your help. I do appreciate it. I will contest with my last breath that the noise in Lord Nelson isn't that significant, even at 100%, to reject the image for. When you consider the size of the image and the size of the plinth in it but I wil set my beautiful tools to bracket. ps I like F16
  8. Hi Barry, I posted a new image to show why I am confused.
  9. I find it amusing that I seem to have a thing for monotonish brown images. LOL Even the tourist is all in browns! Remembering the river, half boat, roof top in a monotone brown I posted here.
  10. So here is one Barry to continue, if you don't mind, with my tutorial. Taken at 1/250 F16, ISO 100. Exposure increased in PS to 1.35 so about 1 and 1/2 stops (I really must consider bracketing!) lowlight slider increased to 40. What do you think? bearing in mind this is probably a trick question! i.e. This one was approved. No focus issue, no noise issue, no poor lighting or white balance issue. No rejection! What I think maybe is that Lord Nelson is a dime a dozen and they don't want to accept it with even the infinitesimal amount of noise in the dark parts of the very small plinth because they have enough photos of Lord Nelson even if this one is nicely framed with lacey cirrus clouds but they are looking for images of natural tourists, (this had to go editorial of course cos I don't have any releases) doing their stuff so the fact the entire image is out of focus except the tourist (and really even the tourist is a bit soft and I sharpened it both in RAW and in photoshop god bless the unsharp mask), the fact that it is full of noise, and the fact that it has lighting issues becomes irrelevant. Or maybe it is that editorial photos will not be blown up to 100% ... that is a thought. Still for a newbie like me it is confusing.

    © Jane Campbell

  11. ISO 100, F16, 1/125th and I didn't do anything to the image in photoshop bar raise the clarity 21 and vibrance 15 no wait I just checked and I raised the fill light to 15 to raise the shadows. I will look at the link you gave me and thank you for your help. Is there a better way to fill in some lowlights than the fill light slider? Thanks again Bracketing is obviously a better bet!
  12. Ok Barry, you are going to have to explain to me please what you mean by noise? Pretty please, I mean that as a request not as the demand it seems like in words. I seem to have completely missed this lesson in digital photography. ps I am so glad you are not a reviewer or maybe you are - you are as chatty as the reviewers!!
  13. But David I got rejected on three counts. I can see exposure, there are some lowlights without information. However the main part of the image is the sky, the blueness of the sky with the frilly cirrus clouds and the silly man on a column looking out over them. Still a reject is a reject. What I really want to know is why all three rejections. Where is the noise? What is wrong with the focus?
  14. OK then bring on the machines!!! Something is wrong somewhere. They have got me doubting my ability BUT.... they have also got me to question my standards which is a good thing. I'm thinking that maybe I don't have what it is to be a stock contributer.
×
×
  • Create New...