What's wrong with the quality of this photo?

[GreenTea]

It was rejected in a local semi-commercial website, so I'd be grateful if you could tell me all that is wrong with the quality of the photo - might be the technical aspect or the subject, I don't know.

[pixel pete]

It was rejected in a local semi-commercial website, so I'd be grateful if you could tell me all that is wrong with the quality of the photo - might be the technical aspect or the subject, I don't know.

Green Tea,
Perhaps if you share the URL to the website in question, we'll have a better idea. This business of "quality" is always so subjective.

In the end I think you shouldn't beat yourself too hard for the rejection. iStock has some very stringent demands on its submissions.

On a hunch, I sent along what I thought was a good picture and they rejected it!

Naturally I was outraged. How dare they? I can go on and on. It's more important you find other ways and websites to seek validation of the quality of your work.

Rejection is never easy to take. Please share the URL to the website so we can see if they have anything there that's knocks our socks off.

[Colin Southern]

Would they give you a reason for the rejection?

[arith]

The only thing I can see that could be considered wrong but might be intentional is that it appears to be leaning back slightly.

But I thought these sites only accept images in specific categories where they think there is a demand, and if they have already got a lot of images of this sort will become picky.

Also the person checking out your image might have had a bad day.

I like the image by the way.

[GreenTea]

Thank you guys. They said the "quality" of the photo is not acceptable. I'm waiting for further details from them, but it's the fourth photo they reject, all for the same reason, and they're all fine in my opinion...though I do realize that the other photographers take much more challenging photos and technically better ones, my style is more emotional/romantic than technical/challenging, maybe that's what they don't like, I don't know...

[Benboxer]

I'm always my own worst critic, even when I think I'm spot on. Everyone has different ways to measure the "quality" of an image, based on their experience with the medium, their preference for a certain kind of content and the way they use the two in tandem. You can follow your own muse, or address someone elses needs. that's always the choice!

[GreenTea]

Yes, that's very true. Here's a link to the photos that are accepted to that website:

http://www.picshare.co.il/index.asp

[Amberglass]

GreenTea, the image lacks dynamics when they said lacks quality. No leading lines to draw you into the photo, and though the image is properly exposed; the available lighting is flat. Architectural photography significantly relies on working with the right amount of highlights and shadows, contrasts, exposing creatively, leading lines, repetitiveness/uniform in some situations, and most importantly "perspective".

To give you an idea, take a look at images from the IAAP (the International Association of Architectural Photographers) for inspiration. http://www.iaap.co.uk/showcase.html

I would suggest that you try the same window again, if you can. And shoot it from an angle which includes the doorway, the stairs, and railing. Try it from facing the steps first and then fan your way around to the opposite side of door way, a semi circle from the building. Pay attention to the quality of available lighting.

[Wirefox]

This type of image only catches the eye if the textures become the main feature. Zap up the contrast, take levels and curves to the limit and try to selectively get more definition in the window space. Quality can only be measured against preset benchmarks and that would be ridiculous in Photography (hope no POTN members are listening in) . Quality is a bad word in art based activity...."not our style" would have less presumption.

Steve

[arith]

GreenTea, the image lacks dynamics when they said lacks quality. No leading lines to draw you into the photo, and though the image is properly exposed; the available lighting is flat. Architectural photography significantly relies on working with the right amount of highlights and shadows, contrasts, exposing creatively, leading lines, repetitiveness/uniform in some situations, and most importantly "perspective".

To give you an idea, take a look at images from the IAAP (the International Association of Architectural Photographers) for inspiration. http://www.iaap.co.uk/showcase.html

I would suggest that you try the same window again, if you can. And shoot it from an angle which includes the doorway, the stairs, and railing. Try it from facing the steps first and then fan your way around to the opposite side of door way, a semi circle from the building. Pay attention to the quality of available lighting.

That would be a different photo. Nothing wrong here except to focus on the window and stairs. Texture with a close up is good.

[GreenTea]

This type of image only catches the eye if the textures become the main feature. Zap up the contrast, take levels and curves to the limit and try to selectively get more definition in the window space.

Do you mean with post-processing? And how about the opposite, making it all more diffuse?

[Dave Humphries]

Do you mean with post-processing? And how about the opposite, making it all more diffuse?

Hi Greentea,

The answer to the first question is yes (I say, jumping in answering other people's questions for them ) I hope they allow PP, or it will be very difficult to satisfy them.

I had a quick look at the site link you provided - they seem to have quite a strong bias towards nature shots, with wildlife probably accounting for >50% of their content - if nothing else, I would say this tells you the personal preferences of their content editor
So you're on an uphill struggle already
Any little reason (possibly the leaning back) could be just enough to have them say "No thank you".

I can see one shot quite similar to yours there today, but it does have the advantage of a wider luminance range and it is really a shot of the plant, rather than the window and wall - nature again, you see?

As others have said, don't be discouraged by rejection (easy for me to say, I know).

Why not make more use of us here at CiC for critique on a few shots?
You can always give us a similar, but not identical shot, if they have a "previously unpublished" rule.

Cheers,

[GreenTea]

Dave, how very nice of you to take the time to study the website a bit for me; I really appreciate that!

Indeed, I had seen that photo you linked to, and I really can't find any difference quality wise...

[GreenTea]

Dave, did you have trouble navigating that website because of the different alphabet?

[Dave Humphries]

Dave, did you have trouble navigating that website because of the different alphabet?

Well, I just clicked on pictures and one thing led to another.
I ended up in an album, fortunately with "1", "2" and "3" page numbered links, and kept going until I found something similar to your shot.

Funnily enough, the words were all completely unfamiliar to me and (to me) seemed to start at the end

Of course, I appreciate that's how that language (whatever it is) works.

Regards,

[GreenTea]

Well done, that was adventurous!

LOL That was Hebrew. The reason semitic languages go from right to left is that they were written by hammering in the stone and you can't hammer with your left hand nor can you go from left to right when you're hammering (try it and you'll see). Then when the egyptians started writing on papyrus, they didn't have a problem with either way, so they wrote from right to left and when they got to the end of the line they wrote the next line from left to right and so on, to make a continuum. Then the Greek came and had to decide how to write, so they chose left to right, which the Latin later copied, to this day.

[GreenTea]

Then, a few thousand years after the writing issue mentioned above, I came and took a photo in the oldest known port city in history (Jaffa), where the Greeks and the Egyptians used to fare, and the photo got rejected.

[shreds]

Apart from the fact that the picshare site doesn't seem to want to open for me, I will take a stab in the dark about why they might have rejected it.

First off, do they have any rules regards post processing or size? A lot of image libraries don't like pp at all, whilst others demand very large files, either taken with a camera capable of producing that in the first place, or by interpolation. Whilst there are a number of ways of doing this with differing software, Genuine Fractuals seems to hit most of the buttons if you need to do that.

Composition: Always a personal choice and some editors can be a pain, but might the flower and greenery hanging down have distracted from the primary subject? Does the handrail stop short if it is going to be part of the shot? I don't know, but worth considering?

HTH

Ian

[eNo]

Art and commercial photos are 2 different animals. Ask yourself: who would buy this photo for commercial use, and how would it be used in an advertisement or marketing campaign? I went through a period where I was submitting a lot of "great" images to a couple of microstock outfit, getting only 3 out of 100 accepted. Then I realized my images weren't deficient, rather they were useless to them. The subject matter I see in your image is more adept to a fine art print, i.e., something that gets sold in a gallery. So let's see whether it would work there...

What is this image about? I'm guessing about a window, but I don't find much about that window that is compelling. A technical problem with the image is the non-vertical door frame on the left; yes, the window is fairly level, but that door frame really upsets alignment (don't know if it's do to FOV, distortion, or simply, a badly constructed door frame). I would have tried this in B&W to add interest through the textures in the wall, and to make it more about form/shape, but I'm afraid there just isn't enough there.

All in all, though, I commend you for trying to see and capture something out of the ordinary. You didn't go for the standard shot, and if you keep trying that, eventually you'll start connecting with some interesting and compelling images. Keep at it, and don't bother with those submission services. They're a waste of time and as good as rolling the dice, as far as I'm concerned. Keep working the creative side of your photography, look for subject matter that will impart emotional impact and slowly but surely your photography will improve and start connecting more and more strongly with your viewers.

[Radu Dinu Cordeanu]

Green Tea,
You place your soul in front of the onlooker.Those shots handle the soul of the onlooker.
The subject manipulates you.In those shots the subject was manipulated.
You must go on in your personal way and better it.
About the way to place the soul in front of the viewer there are a lot to talk,of course.eNo told you enough for the beginning.
You must know it is easier to talk than to do, for me.
Thank You for reading.
Radu Dinu