PHOTO: Spa

Rejected:


http://www.theoxfordgroup.com/istock/deb-spa.jpg


We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:

-Flat/dull colors
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance
- yadda yadda... 


I took this to see if IS would accept it -- but expected the rejection since I have not seen ONE stock photo anywhere of a night spa shot using the actual spa lights. I hit it with strobes but it killed the mood. Could Yuri have taken a shot like this and got it approved? Is it possible? Any takers? Seems like IS is about tons of light and tons of white. 


Shot specs:

iso 200
f/4.0 
1/4 sec
Canon 5Dm2
24/105 lens

Anyway -- your input is appreciated.


OX

(Edited on 2012-01-29 17:38:10 by -Oxford-)

Well firstly, we don't give preference to certain contributors. We inspect each image on it's merits and wether or not it meets the criteria for iStock standards. You do have the option to Scout it.

I'd say there isn't quite enough light on the model, her face is largely in shadow - too much light on the water - could you use reflectors to get the head of the woman out of the shadows a bit? And do the same on the large black lump that takes up a lot of the foreground, or recompose so the big black object takes up a lot less of the frame.

I'd also say at 100 per cent the image quality looks a bit mushy - it's hard for a model to keep absolutely still for a 1/4 of a second exposure.

"Well firstly, we don't give preference to certain contributors. We inspect each image on it's merits and wether or not it meets the criteria for iStock standards. You do have the option to Scout it."

@ Inhouscreative - Was not implying that but suggesting that perhaps Yuri had the skills to take a similar shot and get approval. I actually sent him a site mail with such a challenge.

I'd say there isn't quite enough light on the model, her face is largely in shadow - too much light on the water - could you use reflectors to get the head of the woman out of the shadows a bit? And do the same on the large black lump that takes up a lot of the foreground, or recompose so the big black object takes up a lot less of the frame. 


I'd also say at 100 per cent the image quality looks a bit mushy - it's hard for a model to keep absolutely still for a 1/4 of a second exposure.

All good points Susan. Thanks. I hit this with strobes but it killed the mood. Perhaps a snoot strobe or grid on her face and less black rocks would help. 

And ISO 400 or 800 with a faster SS. Yep 1/4 is a loooong time. Then beat back the noise...

You focused on the tile, not the girl. Try again.

I would say, you missed the focus + it's underexposed too, so no surprise it should be rejected

I think you're probably going to have more success with this kind of shot if there is some ambient light...just enough to keep everything from sinking to total black. The impact of the pool lights will be the same but the image won't be so heavily dark. Shooting around sunset when there's still a little light in the sky, or using supplemental lighting, just carefully controlled in terms of placement and power to not kill the mood as you said. Barring either of those options, one more approach would be to compose the image in such as way as to fill more of the frame with the lighted water and minimize the detail-less areas...or maybe compose with one significant black area which could more comfortably serve as copyspace (the black area in bottom left is awkwardly shaped for flowing in text).

In addition to the focus issue mentioned, this is showing some artifacting, note the squiggly areas in the water immediately surrounding the model's head for example.

Just because this got a lighting rejection doesn't mean this is terrible lighting. I think there is plenty of potential here. It will be critical that everything else comes together as well in terms of composition, focus, & image quality. This wouldn't have been rejected if some of those other aspects had been closer.

Good luck, I look forward to seeing what you come up with if you shoot more!

Donald - as always -- thanks so much for your awesome input.

Thanks Sean and Krill - Good points.


 


Sean -- i could resubmitt and title it "Blue Tile?"


 


OX

live link: http://www.theoxfordgroup.com/istock/deb-spa.jpg

In addition to what is already said, you can:
1. Put camera on a sturdy tripod. Take two shots, one for the spa and then one with model. Merge two images.
2. Set camera to M with proper exposure for the spa. Plug in defused strobe to expose model properly. Have her swim away from the frame as soon as strobe hits. Proper spa shot is probably going to be 15-30 seconds, plenty of time for her to swim away.


I have several shots of pool at night in this lightbox. It may give you the idea of acceptable 'overall composition of file lighting'

SLOBO - that is so AWESOME! I will try that. Man, yer the best!


 


OX

Thanks for all the advice. I reshot the photo and it was accepted.


 


 -woman-in-spa.jpg

Nice work, that's a great shot.

Much improved. Hope it sells for you

Thanks Matt and Kev


It was one exposure, using a strobe, and some light painting. fun stuff 


 


ox

one more


 


 

nice