Reflections

[Alan-DPhotos]

I know I'm not a professional but I'm confused as to why 2 images were rejected for being out of focus when the object was to show a reflection on water.

The 3rd image again shows a reflection on water of the clouds above but with a leaf floating - this image was rejected for a grain/noise problem.  Where?

I'm fine with being rejected but sometimes it seems that the pictures are not considered in the full context of the image be put across.  Can anyone here enlighten me please?  I can only learn from constructive feedback.  Thanks

[twaritar3263062]

Moving to Stock Contributor Critique​

[ricky336]

Could post the pictures here rather than a link. It makes it easier to see.

[Alan-DPhotos]

Thanks ricky336 - I didn't want to play the first time I tried hence the links.  Working now.

[joanH]

Hi, no matter what the reason for rejection or why things are burred,  why would a customer want to buy confusing photos? If your plan was to show reflections, without the original object above, you have done this. Not much call for this. Yes, there is noise in the leaf photo. However, there are so many better photos depicting reflections as a buyer I would not mess around with these. It is not worth trying to justify your intent as a photographer to say reflections are blurry. One needs the object being reflected to see that clearly. Search Adobe stock tree and water reflections and see why these simply do not qualify to offer for sale. JH

[Alan-DPhotos]

I asked for constructive critism for reasons why the reflection was considered to be out of focus not your opinion as to whether they are sellable or confusing to a customer. 

Enjoy your time on your pedestal.

[joanH]

The opinions were not meant to make you feel insulted, both of us spotted the same reasons for rejection. Just thought you would want to know. Wishing you well and more excellent photos. New but capable you are. JH

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hi Alan,

Firstly, you should submit in colour. B&W photos will most likely get rejected.

If you want to take reflection photos, you should show what is being reflected. So, here, you should show the tree. The viewer then would have more to go on. In this case, just showing the tree reflection without any reference point, one could take it that the photo is not in focus.

Perhaps the reviewer was thinking of this:

and this in your B&W photo:

You do have some noise in the leaf photo. Take note of the water for example - it looks a bit grainy:

This were viewed at 100%. Always review your own images at 100%.

Something to consider.

[Alan-DPhotos]

Hi ricky336,

Point taken about the mono shot.  I didn't like the colour version in that shot.  I'll wait till I get as good as Ansel Adams before doing it again (Could take a while! 🙂 )

I get the absence of the original object not being present but in my mind it was meant to challenge the viewer to visualise the original.  Thats OK, I'll not upload anything as challenging in future although it is annoying that it is just passed as being 'out of focus' without understanding the image a little more.

I can see the grain in the leaf image now on my laptop.  Having issues with a monitor that I thought was cured so may have to splash out on a new one, It just looked like it was just dirty canal water.

Thanks for the pointers and explanations.  Lessons learnt, onwards and upwards!

Thanks

[joanH]

Alan,

I know the artistic thing you were trying to accomplish - I do that when I exhibit my illustrations but I learned that here it is considered a finished art piece and not what stock buyers want. They want art they will incorporate or change or use to add to something they are composing. I have used reflections to make colorful abstract art but not for sale here, in a gallery or exhibit. Experiment with these in Photoshop if you have it. Best. JH

[oleschwander]

You can’t see it’s a reflection. Thats a srious problem. It looks like an image turned upside down, and what’s the pupose of that?

[Alan-DPhotos]

I’m afraid that the serious problem is that you didn’t read the original post and the question that was asked!

I asked why it was construed to be out of focus.  I have no real interest in how the image is translated or its purpose at this point. That is a matter of personal interpretation and I have taken the comments made above on board for future reference.

I have been given an answer I am happy with and do not require further comment at this time. Your effort, albeit misguided is appreciated.

Thanks

[ricky336]

Glad I could be of some help Alan.