PHOTO: Lighting (color change or something else?)

I obviously can't fix the model releases.  But I was wondering if the lighting issues were simply because it of the blue toning or something else.


For background the setup of this photo was to capture the two boys' sihouettes against the backdrop.  I'm attaching a link to the uploaded photo and an untoned black and white version.



The linked text doesn't work well in the forums, so please copy and paste the following (Thanks to kelvinjay and RobMattingley for pointing this out)

Link:  

"Sorry, that page was not found."

Kelvin, the link is fine - it just comes back to the ampersand issue in links in the iStock forums.  You can copy and paste this and see the photo:

https://plus.google.com/photos/108208246678862531804/albums/5732728872397832081?authkey=CIGs17H74-uTOg&banner=pwa&gpsrc=pwrd1

I can't work out what I'm looking at here. Is this a composite image?

/
/
The image was a single shot. Two children playing with a wall behind them covered with grafitti. The wall was bright enough that the children were completely silhouetted.

I can't see a link to a full size image.

This looks slightly underexposed, and it looks more of a fine art image, or possibly good for a very specific editorial use, rather than as a general stock image.

The fact that the grafiti is clearly legible distracts from and dilutes the strength of the silhouette.

This link should allow you select the image and zoom in further.


https://picasaweb.google.com/108208246678862531804/April182012?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCIGs17H74-uTOg&feat=directlink


Thanks for the other feedback, I'll keep that in mind for future uploads.

(Edited on 2012-04-18 10:23:49 by seshsas)

(Edited on 2012-04-18 11:53:44 by seshsas)

If you can't get a model release whatever is technically wrong is moot.

I would disagree, I might have other photos photos with a similar issue and can make a more educated judgement on whether to submit.

The toning didn't trigger the lighting rejection. If the Inspector took issue with the toning, it would yield an "overfiltering" rejection.

The fact that the subjects are silhouettes doesn't present a lighting problem. But imagine the wall behind if it didn't have the silhouettes in front of it...is it well lit? I'd say no. Any silhouette photo is only as good as the background it's shot against.

The image is technically weak as well, the focus is missed on the subjects and the whole image appears to suffer a bit of camera shake as well. That might have been OK if the rest of the image had been visually strong, but here the focus & blurring issues probably contributed to pushing this over the line, even if the Inspector didn't call it out.

Agreed, this is certainly a valid discussion. Anyone needing additional clarity on any part of any rejection is welcome to seek it here.

Ah right. Sorry, it was the scale of the bricks / blocks, made it seem like the kids were too small. I think one of the main issues is not that the subjects are not lit, it's more that what is lit, the wall with graffiti, is relatively too bright and distracting.