Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Image Comments posted by GregDPhotos

  1. As a nature photographer, I like this photo. The main thing I would do have more contrast between the water, land formation, and sky.

    However, my experience indicates that both generic and iconic landscape photos don't sell. Truly unique, dynamic landscapes sell periodically. Whether or not to upload would depend on whether you think the photo will add to or detract from your broader stock portfolio.

  2. Great overall composition, in my opinion.

    Well done as far as the angle, though I'd be interested to see a photo at a slight angle that shows the 3D aspect of the smaller dishes. It might not be any better, but worth comparing.

    Good non-distracting background.

    For stock, I would not cut off any dishes. This can be a nice creative effect, but a marketer searching SS is likely to prefer to get the entire image and decide if they want to crop it. They might even want room for wording.

    I would also flip the photo to "landscape" - these tend to be most useful. The main micro-stock uses for "portrait" photos is for cover/full page images and, well, portraits. Almost anything else is better landscape.

  3. First off, always good to see photographers specifically refer to critters as having been created, per modern science. I encourage including that term in keywords.

    Now to the photograph itself. The good:

    • The subject is sharp/in-focus.
    • The background is blurred, helping to separate the subject.
    • The subject is almost completely in the frame.

    The potential problems:

    • The subject blends in. This isn't bad from a strictly photographic standpoint. I happen to like my photo below with the same issue. But if a customer is looking for an image of a bird, they'll probably go for something with more contrast.

    Bird hidden on a tree wildlife

    • The photo is almost square and tight around the subject. Marketers are likely to want a wider photo (think 16x9 HD or standard 4x6). Alternatively, a tall photo with a lot of negative space above the subject might be more useful.

    Basically, keep in mind that SS is a commercial photography platform, not a nature photography sharing site. 😏

  4. I like the leading lines and shallow depth of field. And for some purposes, the soft subject would be a nice touch. But for stock imagery, the main subject almost always needs to be very sharp; this photo would likely be rejected for being out-of-focus.

  5. I like the angle. However:

    • Way too much noise.
    • A distracting background.
    • Half of the main subject, 4/5 of the foreground, and 3/4 of the background are washed out.
    • Our friend's front-left paw is partly cut off.

    I did what I could with the JPG in LR; you might try doing more in LR or PS if the original is RAW. Your ISO is very low, so I'm not sure how you got so much noise. As far as the wash-out, a faster shutter-speed would help with that and ensure sharpness.


  6. I would try to put the baskets in a helpful context (with other fishing gear, etc.). I recommend asking three questions: Who would use the photo? How would they use the photo? Why will they choose my photo of fishing baskets over someone else's photo?

  7. I agree with Phil. Also, I suggest getting in closer with a longer focal length and/or cropping (though be careful with loosing image quality when cropping). Generally if someone wants a picture of an aircraft, they don't care about its context unless it's relevant (e.g., an airport).

    2018-03-15 Sky 004.jpg

  8. Great photo. I would suggest two things: 1) subtly darken the sky; as it is the eye is drawn to the bright sky rather than the water. 2) Title your image with specific location information. My experience has been (generally) that people search for landscape photos by location. Almost all of my landscape images state the location/landscape subject. You can see how I titled and keyworded a similar image here: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sailboats-anchored-on-lake-washington-sunset-1221201580?src=4os6kb7wEMVBpb-ejcpzyg-1-0

  9. Generally, this comes down to style. I don't have any recommendations for completely eliminating the specs. If your style calls for showing the scene "as is," I would recommend leaving it. If your style involves "purifying" images to only show certain elements, I would defer to a photoshop nerd who could provide you with sufficient instructions. As far as commercial viability, that largely depends on the market segment your photos generally attract and what they want.

  10. Great composition. I would recommend bringing out the texture in the shadows, and subtly increasing the contrast in the sky. In this case your medium aperture seems to have worked, but as a general rule for landscapes I would strongly recommend f/14-f/18 and being sure to focus at the hyperfocal distance (somewhere around the middle of the first ridge, in this case).

  11. I would have had the women in as sharp of focus as the landscape. As it is, the eye can get confused because it is drawn to the most prominent subject but can't gather much information. If the goal was to have the city as the main subject, I would have used an unobstructed view. Here's an example of what I did with a similar image: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/climber-on-summit-east-pacific-north-773843806?src=2BO-CZ98KLCIQkGYxYo81w-1-10.

    Now that I've given you multiple long-winded comments, please keep in mind that almost any feedback you receive on this forum - from me or others - will have an element of personal bias, no matter how hard we try to remove it.

  12. As silhouettes go, I like this image. At the same time, the sun and sky are what draw the eye's attention; the dark and hazy city go almost unnoticed. That is perfectly fine for a photograph made for artistic purposes, but I think it is unlikely that much, if any, commercial value will be attached to it. I think that a photo with more balanced light would be more viable on Shutterstock - but that's a guess. I've attached an edited version of your photo that is more along this line (but messed up because I was editing a JPEG).

    My only technical feedback is that regardless of the purpose of the image or the effect you're looking for with the city, the sun is WAY overexposed.


  13. I like the goal of this image. The challenge I see is that there are very distracting "lines" to the left and right of the subject that lead the eyes away from the subject. On top of that, the brightest areas of the image are around the edges, further distracting the eyes from the darker subject. The shallow depth of field is a good start, but the branch to the left of the flower is apparently at roughly the same depth. I would recommend subtly darkening everything except the subject and reducing the contrast in those areas (see the edits I attached). You can also check out what I did with an image with similar issues here: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/spring-velvet-flora-1085686379. Hope this helps; keep at it!


  14. Agree with above. Here's one idea for improving the composition if you have the opportunity to try again: Move to the left, get the big rocks out of the picture, and see if you can line up the rocks further out to form a line that "leads" to the background. Not sure how this would ultimately work out, but I manipulated your image (see attached) to illustrate the point.


  15. Agree with Laurin; I can't give any helpful feedback on technical elements without a larger image.

    As far as composition, I have a starting question before I would give any feedback: Are you trying to sell this as a marketing image (for use with text/in order to sell something), example image (to illustrate someone's point), or display (to show the subject-matter)?

  • Create New...