Hi, could I get some kind feedback on these rejected photos?

[christink89579149]

[christink89579149]

Also these....

[Jill_C]

IMG_4265 copy-2.jpg - overexposed, blurry, chromatic aberration and you would need to remove the people

IMG_4948 copy-2.jpg - chromatic aberration and not sharply focused 

IMG_6506 copy-2.jpg - focus on the eye isn't sharp enough

IMG_5407 copy-2.jpg - too blurry

IMG_5427 copy-2.jpg - DOF is too shallow

[christink89579149]

Thank you. Guess it's confusing cos some bokeh shots are accepted, some are not. (pertaining to like 5427 for example). I didn't even notice people in 4265, thank you! (coastline shot)

[daniellei4510]

The flower images are all out of focus due to the shallow depth-of-field. Also, there are a gazillion flower images on Adobe Stock. Even had these been accepted, the chances of them being found in a search is unlikely. If you do wish to continue submitting flower images, do a search for flowers and look at your competition.

[christink89579149]

Yes, good idea to do a search. Some of my bokeh flower shots have been accepted, so I was confused as to why some weren't. Guess it's the name of the game. Thank you 🙂

[Abambo]

Yes, good idea to do a search. Some of my bokeh flower shots have been accepted, so I was confused as to why some weren't. Guess it's the name of the game. Thank you 🙂

By @christink89579149

If you are photographing borderline, ie a lot of out of focus, it may just be a short line between acceptance and refusal. It's not like the light is on and the light is off. 

[Nancy OShea]

I don't look at flowers anymore. It's a waste of time. Stock already has 71 MILLION flowers to choose from.

https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=flower

Your chance of making a sale are less than zero, unless you find a very rare species that nobody else has submitted yet. Good luck with that.

[christink89579149]

Haha that's funny cos the 2nd sale I made was one of a simple daisy I almost didn't submit. I'll keep submitting flowers cos I like them:) Everyone's will be different:)

[Nancy OShea]

Good for you!  I hope you make more than one sale from your daisy. But don't be too disappointed if you don't. The numbers are against you. And Stock is a game of numbers.

[Abambo]

Haha that's funny cos the 2nd sale I made was one of a simple daisy I almost didn't submit. I'll keep submitting flowers cos I like them:) Everyone's will be different:)

By @christink89579149

There is no issue with that. Flower pictures sell, sometimes. It's more a question of probability. And there is a different kind of probability. It's more probable to sell a picture again, that has neen sold once. So, you can get even multiple sales from that picture. It's possible.

It does not contradict what @Nancy OShea said.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

First one: out of focus, bluish cast; what is the subject here?

Third one: bluish cast again; what I assume was the main subject is unnecessarily cropped

Fourth one: the Ford logo is an intellectual property issue

Last one: under and over exposed, with no information in the middle values to indicate what is supposed to be the main subject

[christink89579149]

Thank you! Yes, was worried about that bluish cast. Probably bad examples to include. Ah, shoot the Ford. 

[ZALEZPHOTO]

Christin, I can tell you are having fun shooting, and that's the number one thing you need to always remember.  What Daniellei said is on point, so I'll add what could help.

I checked 4 photos and all were shot with the lens wide open at f4 and shutter speeds of 1/500 and 1/600  Are you familiar with depth of field? You have a good lens, but the blurryness in most of your photos suggests your lens needs calibration.

And even if thats not the problem, you're bettter off shooting with smaller f stops.

Since I don't know your knowledge of the mechanics in photogrpahy, I am going to send you some basic guidelines that might help you. Also, avoid shooting macro shots without a tripod, it is very dificult to get these shots razor sharp, as in your flower shot.

Again, I like what your eye is seeing, so don't get discouraged.

[christink89579149]

Thanks so much for your positive feedback! And yes, I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, at least technically. I get too much into what I like to see, esp with bokeh flower shots, that I fail to see the technicality errors.  Macro with a tripod is something I didn't know, guess cos I'd assume I'd have to be too far away? But I'll try it.  Thanks so much for the attachments and the compliment!

[Abambo]

In macro photography, the focus area is very narrow, so even a slight movement will bring your subject out of forcus, so each mean to get stability will be welcomed. With handheld, you obviously have camera shake, even if it is minimal. Incidentally, wind is also posing issues with flower pictures.

The picture I looked at (5407) is out of focus. 

[Ricky336]

When considering a tripod, be sure to get a sturdy one, not a flimsy one, because even a slight puff of wind can cause camera shake. Avoid cheap tripods as they are flimsy!

[Abambo]

@ZALEZPHOTO : Do you have the right to post these pictures here? If not abstain of publishing such pictures. If yes, you should publish them inline. 

[ZALEZPHOTO]

Yes I do. I call it the 45 Minute Photography Course, I created 15 years ago to teach middle schoolers.
I should update it and sell it in or to Adobe Stock 😃

[Abambo]

Yes I do. I call it the 45 Minute Photography Course, I created 15 years ago to teach middle schoolers.
I should update it and sell it in or to Adobe Stock 😃

By @ZALEZPHOTO

You can't sell it onnAdobe stock. Slide 27 cannot be opened on my iPad. Your ISO explanation in connection with a sensor is wrong. You do not change the sensitivity to light of a sensor. The sensor has always the same sensitivity. ISO is just relict from old film cameras, where it was indeed a physical property of the film. In a digital camera, it influences the amplification of the signal after hitting the sensor. The effect is similar, but it's not the same.

You should put your name on the slides.

[Ricky336]

Indeed, ISO for digital cameras is rather an incorrect term, because these days with digital, there is no such thing as 'film speed'. It's just the old fogies that stick to this term.😂 Being digital, the sensor is connected to amplification of the signal! The higher the ISO, the greater the signal = more 'noise'. Film did not have noise, but grain - larger, coarser silver halide crystals, which produce more visible grain. 

And a small thing, but these days ISO isn't short for International Standards Organisation, but rather Iso = meaning equal, as from the Greek 'iso'.

That's what some people say now. Even though back in the day of film, it was the 'International Standards Organisation', an international version of ASA. But these terms now belong in the very very distant past - last century! 

[Nancy OShea]

---

@Ricky336 wrote:

...these terms now belong in the very very distant past - last century! 

---

==========

Increasingly, young & old are re-discovering the advantages of film and ditching digital for analogue. One main reason is that it ends the megapixel race. When you shoot with film stock, the camera & sensor become less important. 

https://36exposures.com/10-reasons-i-switched-from-digital-to-film-photography/

"...like most people, I made the switch to digital cameras in the early 2000s. It wasn’t until 2020 that I returned to the art and joy of analogue photography.

I had become disillusioned by the amount of time I was spending behind a computer screen post-processing images in Photoshop, rather than in the field behind the lens. I felt disconnected from my art and from the subjects I was photographing..."

~ Ian Turnage-Butterbaugh 

Extreme Multiple Exposure Photography

[ZALEZPHOTO]

To each their own!

I 100% disagree that digital photography took away time from shooting... in fact, Butterbaugh is flat out wrong.

We used to spend endless hours in the darkroom to make a print exactly how we wanted. And, with that a shortened life expectancy, and terrible enviromental damage from photo chemistry. What about the time saved not buying film, doing test clips developing or the dilema on what film to shoot for a job?  

The quality I get from my Fujifilm GFX100, is better than shooting with a monster 8x10 view camera...

Most of all, for me to become a decent photographer I had to shoot at least 15,000 rolls of film and that  = to hundreds of thousans $. With digital we can shoot as much as we need to get it right, (providing we know what we want) and I can afford $$ having shot past one million images in my career, and humbly considered myself a master in my craft who never had to work a day of my life. 

I also be that had Ansel Adams gotten his hands on the digital revolution, there's no doubt in my mind he would have never shot film again.

Having said all that, sometimes I fantisize that if digital photography disappeared, the mediocre photographers that are much better in saling, would suddenly be lost and unable to adjust.  

[Nancy OShea]

Ansel Adams said, "You don't take a photograph, you make it."  He had access to the best cameras of the time. He mainly used large & medium format box style cameras. But his favorite gear was a Hassblad 500C with Polaroids that he brought along for prepping shots. 

Had he lived today, he might have replaced Polaroids with digital. That would make sense. But my gut tells me he could never part with large & medium format film that was his trademark. 

Digital gives us lots of freedom. Sometimes too much, which can lead to complacency. Digital is a different

mindset from film photography thanks to memory sticks & flash drives which hold enormous amounts of digital detritus (shots we should not have taken). 

When you're paying for every inch of film you use & the lab or chemicals to develop it, you're ever more mindful of what to focus your lens on and when to press the shutter.  Film requires more planning & patience than digital, but the two are not mutually exclusive. That's why there are plenty of contemporary photographers who are using both. Film is definitely not dead. 

[daniellei4510]

Ansel Adam's quote reminded me of Henri Cartier-Bresson's "The Decisive Moment" and his assertion that "photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organization of forms which gave that event its proper expression," to which one photography critic opined that this "moment" was when an assistant showed him the contact sheet and Cartier-Bresson said, "Print that one." Cartier-Bresson hated the darkroom process and hired professionals to print his images.