Skip to main content
telemudcat
telemudcat
Participant
May 5, 2017
Answered

Good enough for NatGeo, but "Technical Issues" here.

  • May 5, 2017
  • 3 replies
  • 849 views

This photo was chosen for "Photo of the Day" over on nationalgeographic.com.  It was also used in a book released by National Geographic.  Here, I guess it has "technical issues".   From what I've read on the "reasons for content rejection" page, this includes problems with white balance, contrast, saturation, focus, etc. 

Anyone care to point out something that I'm not seeing here? 

    This topic has been closed for replies.
    Correct answer MatHayward

    Thanks for the post. I reached out to the moderation team regarding this image. The primary issues were that it appears to be over-saturated and the contrast is a bit excessive.

    In my opinion, the general aesthetics of the image overrule some of the technical issues so I've put the file online. If the color is completely natural then please forgive me in advance. As a photographer myself, I want my images to have some color pop to them but not so much that the saturation appears unnatural. To get that result I use only the vibrance slider in Lightroom and never saturation.

    Keep in mind that making photo of the day at Nat Geo or another comparable site or photo contest is an awesome accomplishment. It does not however indicate whether or not the image is a good stock photo. We have to be very careful in what we approve out of responsibility to our customers who have a high level of expectation for technical perfection. It is of course a subjective process and it certainly isn't perfect but you can be assured we are looking very carefully at each file you send.

    Cheers!

    Mat Hayward

    3 replies

    MatHayward
    Community Manager
    MatHaywardCommunity ManagerCorrect answer
    Community Manager
    May 30, 2017

    Thanks for the post. I reached out to the moderation team regarding this image. The primary issues were that it appears to be over-saturated and the contrast is a bit excessive.

    In my opinion, the general aesthetics of the image overrule some of the technical issues so I've put the file online. If the color is completely natural then please forgive me in advance. As a photographer myself, I want my images to have some color pop to them but not so much that the saturation appears unnatural. To get that result I use only the vibrance slider in Lightroom and never saturation.

    Keep in mind that making photo of the day at Nat Geo or another comparable site or photo contest is an awesome accomplishment. It does not however indicate whether or not the image is a good stock photo. We have to be very careful in what we approve out of responsibility to our customers who have a high level of expectation for technical perfection. It is of course a subjective process and it certainly isn't perfect but you can be assured we are looking very carefully at each file you send.

    Cheers!

    Mat Hayward

      telemudcat
      telemudcatAuthor
      Participant
      May 30, 2017

      Ahh, thanks Mat.   Makes sense to me.    I apologize for my lack of knowledge regarding what makes a good stock image "good".  Something for me to read up on for sure! 

      Szalam
      Community Expert
      SzalamCommunity Expert
      Community Expert
      May 30, 2017

      Well, besides just being good for stock in general, this is Adobe Stock; most people are using it in Photoshop, Premiere, or After Effects so they can bump the contrast, saturation, etc. themselves. Thus, unlike a final product or other stock sites, it's usually best to leave images as unedited as possible so people have more flexibility later. As pointed out, the contrast is too much. Detail is lost in the shadows.

        v.poth
        v.poth
        Inspiring
        May 27, 2017

        Great photo, first time ...
        But it seems to have no drawing in the lights and depths in some areas ... Could perhaps be the reason ...

        Szalam
        Community Expert
        SzalamCommunity Expert
        Community Expert
        May 5, 2017

        Looks fine to me at that size. I'm assuming you submitted a much larger image, so there may have been issues we can't see at this smaller size).

        I could understand it being rejected as being not useful perhaps. A lot of artistically beautiful images aren't very useful as stock images. But I don't think this one should be rejected for that reason either. I'm sure it'd be useful for somebody.

          telemudcat
          telemudcatAuthor
          Participant
          May 5, 2017

          I figured it wasn't a "typical" stock image, but like you said, I thought someone might have a use for it.  Thanks for the response!

          E
          EssexVIG
          Participant
          October 24, 2017

          For a book cover as an example!!

          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
          Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices