5 photos rejected, reason *image out of focus*...?

New Here ,
Mar 27, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello everyone I'm a newbie to ADOBE stock photography. My recent photos has been rejected because of *out of focus*..? really? these are moving head shoots of a baby and I did use a 50.0 mm lens 1/80 sec-F/2.5, ISO 160. Off course you will get a sharp focus around the eyes and soft edges on the rest. What is confused is that these images has been approved by *Dreamstime*, *IPhoto Stock* and Shutterstock* but not by Aodbe. Then what F-stop I should pick or at least what setting is required for submitting head shots of people or what F-stop in general is mandatory to get NOT rejected because of out of focus?

If anyone can provide advise or take a look these images and judge yourself will be very appreciate.

Thank you for your time.

Santi-2.jpg

Santiago.jpg

Santi-3.jpg

Santi-4.jpg

Santi-5.jpg

TOPICS
Contributor critique

Views

625

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more

5 photos rejected, reason *image out of focus*...?

New Here ,
Mar 27, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello everyone I'm a newbie to ADOBE stock photography. My recent photos has been rejected because of *out of focus*..? really? these are moving head shoots of a baby and I did use a 50.0 mm lens 1/80 sec-F/2.5, ISO 160. Off course you will get a sharp focus around the eyes and soft edges on the rest. What is confused is that these images has been approved by *Dreamstime*, *IPhoto Stock* and Shutterstock* but not by Aodbe. Then what F-stop I should pick or at least what setting is required for submitting head shots of people or what F-stop in general is mandatory to get NOT rejected because of out of focus?

If anyone can provide advise or take a look these images and judge yourself will be very appreciate.

Thank you for your time.

Santi-2.jpg

Santiago.jpg

Santi-3.jpg

Santi-4.jpg

Santi-5.jpg

TOPICS
Contributor critique

Views

626

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Mar 27, 2017 0
Explorer ,
Mar 27, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I didn't download them or view at 100 percent - but by looking at the eyes, I do think they're soft.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Mar 27, 2017 0
New Here ,
Mar 27, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

They rejected more than 5 photos because of non-sharp reason. That's really stupid, it is a nice game with such lenses to make a certain amount of region out of focus on the pics.

IMG_3332.jpg

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Mar 27, 2017 1
New Here ,
Mar 29, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ficou boa, provável que quisessem o objeto no fundo em foco, não entenderam seu objetivo.

quais as configurações usadas?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Mar 29, 2017 0
New Here ,
Mar 29, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ich denke:

Bei Offenblende F1,8-2,5 läuft man Gefahr, bei Porträt
Aufnahmen, das nicht beide Augen scharf sind.

Alle Bilder haben unscharfen in den Augen des Kindes. Einmal
links, einmal das andere rechts.

Bei Frontalfotos möchte ich beide Augen scharf haben.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Knipsersiggi

I think:
With opening diaphragm F1,8-2,5 one runs danger, with portrait
Recordings that are not sharp in both eyes.
All images are blurred in the child's eyes. once
Left, the other right.
In front photos I would like to have both eyes sharp.

Sincerely, Knipsersiggi

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Mar 29, 2017 0
Community Beginner ,
Mar 30, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Photographing babies is tough  (unless they are sleeping).  Shooting portraits of babies wide open and that close up gives you little room for focus errors.  If I'm looking at a cute baby with beautiful big eyes, I want those eyes to be Tack sharp. Anything less would be soft and the buyer will move on to the next baby image.  The eyes in your images just miss the mark and the last image appears to have motion blur in it.

I really like the second image. If the eyes were super sharp, that image would be a hit.  Try again and stop down the lens or pull back from the subject and crop in later.

Cute baby

Kathy

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Mar 30, 2017 1
teclimes LATEST
Community Beginner ,
Mar 30, 2017

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The best shot is the fourth one, unfortunately the blurred purple rattle in the foreground is distracting. The others are soft mainly because only one eye is in the plane of focus. Kathy is right, pull back from the subject. When you do that your depth of field will get deeper. Then you can crop tighter in post processing. Baby portraits are tough to do at anything less than F5.6 if you are going to be close to the subject.

Kathy is also right, cute baby!

Tom

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Mar 30, 2017 0