ADVERTISEMENT
Comments
Hi Tom, and welcome to the Critique Gallery.
You have a very attractive image here, and comparing this to your earlier version in the main Gallery, I think you've mostly made a good job of changing the sky. I say "mostly" because there's a tiny area in the extreme top right corner that you've overlooked.
There's an EPZ member who often comments here in the Critique Gallery, and who apparently has much experience of selling to stock photo sites. If you are patient he may turn up here later, and I'm sure he'll be keen to advise you.
Alan
You have a very attractive image here, and comparing this to your earlier version in the main Gallery, I think you've mostly made a good job of changing the sky. I say "mostly" because there's a tiny area in the extreme top right corner that you've overlooked.
There's an EPZ member who often comments here in the Critique Gallery, and who apparently has much experience of selling to stock photo sites. If you are patient he may turn up here later, and I'm sure he'll be keen to advise you.
Alan
Too much post processing is evident for me. In general, over-processed, and in particular I see bright areas behind the larger trees that are clearly post processing artifacts.
The noise is visible, - likely due to a combination of an unnecessarily high ISO and post processing.
Tried a mod that not a whole lot better, but evene out exposure a bit and deals with over-saturation.
As Alan mentions, we have one member that deal with stock photos a lot so he will add his opinion.
W
The noise is visible, - likely due to a combination of an unnecessarily high ISO and post processing.
Tried a mod that not a whole lot better, but evene out exposure a bit and deals with over-saturation.
As Alan mentions, we have one member that deal with stock photos a lot so he will add his opinion.
W
Welcome from me too.
The sky is well done apart from that blip top right.
Some major issues have been raised above, I would add that I am seeing a strong blue cast which is actually reducing detail in the shadows.
Could we see the original please? You can add it here as a modification.
Moira
The sky is well done apart from that blip top right.
Some major issues have been raised above, I would add that I am seeing a strong blue cast which is actually reducing detail in the shadows.
Could we see the original please? You can add it here as a modification.
Moira
I confess I didn't notice the processing artifacts that Willie ( banehawi ) has mentioned above... but now I can't not notice them!
...That alone would immediately exclude the image from any consideration by an image library, technical perfection being a mandatory requirement.
...That alone would immediately exclude the image from any consideration by an image library, technical perfection being a mandatory requirement.
Hello and welcome Tom.
I really like you motive here, and i think the composition is very fine.
I also think the picture was better after you changed the sky.
But i agree with Willie (Banehawi) here. About the processing.
When you use a ISO 640, i belive that you dont have used a tripod?
And i think it is a part of the problem here. With a low shutterspeed of 1/30s it can be very hard to hold steady. Then you have tried to sharpen it up without succsess. Arrest me if i have wrong. My advice is to use a tripod for low light landskape like this. And keep the ISO much lower. I think you would have got a better result with f10 or f11. If the focus had been on the houses you had plenty of depth.
Kind regards,
Arne
I really like you motive here, and i think the composition is very fine.
I also think the picture was better after you changed the sky.
But i agree with Willie (Banehawi) here. About the processing.
When you use a ISO 640, i belive that you dont have used a tripod?
And i think it is a part of the problem here. With a low shutterspeed of 1/30s it can be very hard to hold steady. Then you have tried to sharpen it up without succsess. Arrest me if i have wrong. My advice is to use a tripod for low light landskape like this. And keep the ISO much lower. I think you would have got a better result with f10 or f11. If the focus had been on the houses you had plenty of depth.
Kind regards,
Arne
I am very grateful for all these comments. Most of them apply to post processing which I struggle with - especially noise removal. My camera seems to pick up a lot of that. I will try to upload the original converted to a jpg. Thank you.
First of all, Tom, welcome to Ephotozine, and to the Critique Gallery in particular. I won't duplicate what's already been said, but I have one or two extra thoughts, and extensions of thoughts.
The answer with noise is to shoot at lower ISO, and not to sharpen too much.
You were, presumably, using a tripod, and so 1/8 second is pretty much as good as 1/30 exposure time.
For processing - do as little as possible. Get everything as right as it can be in the camera.
Most of the Critique Team don't sell images - we're experienced amateurs. However, there are one or two people on the site who sell to agencies, and can speak from experience.
There are also a few really excellent landscape photographers - various styles, from still using film a lot (which requires everything right in camera as a matter of course) to expert digital workers.
The answer with noise is to shoot at lower ISO, and not to sharpen too much.
You were, presumably, using a tripod, and so 1/8 second is pretty much as good as 1/30 exposure time.
For processing - do as little as possible. Get everything as right as it can be in the camera.
Most of the Critique Team don't sell images - we're experienced amateurs. However, there are one or two people on the site who sell to agencies, and can speak from experience.
There are also a few really excellent landscape photographers - various styles, from still using film a lot (which requires everything right in camera as a matter of course) to expert digital workers.
Comments as above technically - it is a pleasant image but a bit over worked. I sell through 5 stock photo agencies and have a technical photography background.
They almost always demand technical perfection - especially exposure, sharpness where needed and no sign of processing. In addition, you need to consider how many images of a certain type agencies receive - a lot like this - very many indeed. That means landscapes must be especially spectacular and not un of the mill.
To supply stock you need to look at content differently. One of my best sellers is a group of 11 mice feeding all in a heap. Another is a broken window after a burglary, alsoa wall mounted fire extinguisher in a caravan and a child's bike bell!
You need to consider how many pictures will come up on the stock site is someone searches for 'landscape' - thousands. For fire extinguisher in caravan - a few dozen at most!
Most libraries also require regular high quality submissions, not just the odd shot now and again.
Having said all that, the pay rate from most libraries are now so low per image as to be hardly worth the trouble. I do it to see what is successful, or not rather than for the minimal return
Hope this helps.
paul
They almost always demand technical perfection - especially exposure, sharpness where needed and no sign of processing. In addition, you need to consider how many images of a certain type agencies receive - a lot like this - very many indeed. That means landscapes must be especially spectacular and not un of the mill.
To supply stock you need to look at content differently. One of my best sellers is a group of 11 mice feeding all in a heap. Another is a broken window after a burglary, alsoa wall mounted fire extinguisher in a caravan and a child's bike bell!
You need to consider how many pictures will come up on the stock site is someone searches for 'landscape' - thousands. For fire extinguisher in caravan - a few dozen at most!
Most libraries also require regular high quality submissions, not just the odd shot now and again.
Having said all that, the pay rate from most libraries are now so low per image as to be hardly worth the trouble. I do it to see what is successful, or not rather than for the minimal return
Hope this helps.
paul
