Jump to content

alvarobueno

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alvarobueno

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But all the stocks wants real people, real places, real reality, real feelings, real real, real light, real life, real colorus, no filters... Heh... I always try to avoid that my photographies smells like stock images... I do not like the ultracosmetized and plastified images of the typical stock images. They all look the same with the same saturation, the same processes, losing the authenticity of what you feel or see when you take the pic, taking in mind, of course, that photography is only a rough copy of the reality... Thank you all !
  2. No, no, no, you don't have to be sorry. I appreciate your help. Those images you show me looks like the typical oversaturated and unreal stock images that I wouldn't buy for a project... I can assure you that I have had to download thousands of photographs from different stock, for different m&c projects such as shutterstock and as istock or getty ..
  3. Thank you Whiteaster for your advice, but I use Camera Raw for proccessing the image, but just a little bit. The high saturation you gave the colour is not very real, and deheaze effect rise the luminance noise in the shadow microcontrast areas. And I don't really like the "after" you make, sorry, is not real, of course keeping in mind that the photos are just rough copies of reality. There is some fog from the morning, there is particles in the air that should be there, there is difractions, etc.... Hey but it is just my opinion! EDIT: The sky is perfect, just leave it as it is..
  4. Nor is it my fault that the world has an atmosphere with air and that there are different magnitudes of light, such as diffractions, refractions, etc ... But what bothers me is that the reviewers say that the focus is wrong. Another thing would be if they told me that aesthetically is not what they want to sell, well, I would accept those reasons for rejection ... It must be that the real world does not matter, you are right, yes yes ... I attach a cropped file of my photo rejected for focus problems ... 100% size just crop, 300 ppp 12 quality exported from raw. Thanks.
  5. About NOISE and FOCUS, I would like to explain something to the reviewers... NOISE: Luminance noise or color noise is one thing, and water droplets in the air when it is raining or near a waterfall is another. Please pay attention once and for all to these facts, look beyond the cosmetic and technical needs, look at the context in the subject to be able to correctly differentiate and not waste time on collaborators. FOCUS: About the focus, please pay attention to the technical data, if the focal length is 400 mm and the landscape is several kilometers away, it is inevitable that the objects and shapes suffer a distortion effect due to the atmospheric thermal changes , and the different temperatures of the air currents moving between the camera and the subject does not mean that the focus is wrong, the focus is correct, but the world is an irregular place and the rays of light constantly change direction, generating diffractions, refractions and reflections ... Please, I ask again that you be ahead of these types of questions so as not to waste time on collaborators. Thank you.
  6. Please, could someone help me to understand how could I give information about the photo in a tittle? I really do not understand what I am doing wrong. This ones are the titles I have created: A) "Detail of the statue of the Virgin Mary in prayer position, at sunset, located on the portico of the main entrance to the Cathedral of Jakarta, Java Island, Indonesia." B ) "Pot with a plant of the species Adenium obesum and Adenium multiflorum in the central courtyard of the National Museum of Indonesia in the district of Central Jakarta." This ones are the photos rejected for title issues, I attach it: Thank you!
  7. "It is a new regulation. Close-up images of new artwork are no longer acceptable in the Shutterstock library. Shutterstock filters your existing library for short story images in the near future, but does not allow new content with the discrepancy. Sorry. If the statue is part of a larger landscape, then it may be acceptable for editorial use." Is this true? Thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...