RealRedHair

Hello! First post to this forum. Need some assistance;

Here I have a photo rejected at iStock due to: We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Technical aspects that can affect the overall quality of lighting are: flat/dull colors, blown-out highlights, harsh reflection, shadows or lens flares. I also posted at iStock but did not get a good reply; so hope to get more here.

I assume the inspectors worries about the blown-out lights of the lighting of the factory. I tried different approaches to reduce the blown-out high-lights but without good results. What is the best approach???? Or is something else wrong?


I did select the lightening by select highlights, expand selection and feather and then contrast/brightness correction. Any help is welcome. Thanks.

Gaussian

Welcome 8))

iStockPhoto just gives a "copy/paste answer" if they refuse photographs, which is understandable, because they propabably have to reply hundreds if not thousands of times per day. The real reason is probably that the photograph isn't all that good overal.
Now I could start a lenghty post about what's wrong with it, but maybe it's better for you to visit a site like http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/home.htm to understand what excellent night photography should really look like.

As for the image; bright lights is not the same as blown-out highlights.

ronmatt

Gaussian. the site you sent this guy to deals with HDR. If he doesn't have CS2 or CS3 and can handle Camera raw files and a camera that can bracket then the info he gets there is of little value. There are thinge that can be done in CS or 7 that can enhance the photo and minimize the blown out lights.

RealRedHair

I know a bit about HDR and I got CS2/3 so that's no problem. But I just did not make bracket range of exposure. Tried to solve it by under/overexposing in Lightroom but there is too little DR to be processed in PS.

But even then I personally like the photo. So I'm interested to know what can be improved or why the photo is not that good. Please explain and then I can see if I can change it. For the moment I'm not sure about what is missing in the photo.

Thanks [righton]

Gaussian

Yes, most of them, but that's not the point, it shouldn't matter what the path was to make these kind of photographs, for the viewer only the endresult counts and I don't know about you, but I think the Cambridge nigh shots are simply looking amazing.

Gaussian

The most important element of any photograph is missing in your shot, which is a focal point; there isn't one in your shot, at least not one that is strong enough. The dark foreground covers too much of the photograph and is distracting, as are the vapor trials in the sky. There is no real balance and depth in the photograph which leads to a boring composition. Every photographs need to have interesting elements, whether it?s the subject, color, lighting, depth, etc, they all can catch they eye of the viewer. In this case a lot of important details got lost in the distance and no other elements could really make up for that.

Especially with night shots you want some details in the shadows, in other words, you want to have a descent dynamic range. For the foreground this doesn?t matter, because silhouettes are allowed to be completely black, but the darks in the factory are too dark, they?re close to pure black. Again, visit http://www.cambridgeincolour.com and notice that few parts of any photograph contain pure black. To be honest, pure black is quite unique, unless you take shots of the inside of a closet.

I think the shot would also have been improved if you had used a tripod (The image isn?t sharp enough). Also the use of different lens size might have done wonders.

Mind you, it?s not a bad shot, but I?m just pointing out what could be improved, since that?s what you asked for.

ronmatt

fact of the matter is, I visit the Cambridge site religiously. I think I even posted the link on another thread.
What they've done should be an inspiration to all of us who venture out, camera in hand, looking for the perfect image. The inspiration being, we can create the 'perfect' shot from almost anything, with a little time, thought and effort. In the Cambridge shots, for me the artistry comes from their creation of focal points that, in many cases, simply aren't there. They represent an understanding of the interaction of light and dark, mood and rhythm combined to create just enough surealism to capture the imagination. They're almost haunting. Compared to the Flick'r HDR site where most of what I see is just bad.
That said, I'd like to suggest a challange here. Why don't we take RealRed's photo, and enhance it as best we can. Then post it [with an explaination of what and why we did what we did to it]

RealRedHair

I could provide you with a bigger size of image. Shall I give a link?
The photo was should on a tripod (of course I would say). In the original you can see that there is a lot of detail available. Still my starting point is the rejection form iStock and there argumentation. (We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Technical aspects that can affect the overall quality of lighting are: flat/dull colors, blown-out highlights, harsh reflection, shadows or lens flares.)

The other points might be true but lets start to make it technically a good (or better) image. [righton]

RealRedHair

http://www.vernede.nl/temp/07-04-7415-350D_DIGITAL.jpg Here is the link for bigger image.

RealRedHair

Hello!

No further help so far; who can help me???

Thanks 8))