Photo Editing

[guyn]

Hi guys,
Attached below are two exmamples of pictures i took and edited using lighroom/photoshop.
The 2nd picture (with the birds) was rejected by istockphoto and i'm no entirely sure why and how to avoid that.
Can anyone take a quick look and help me out ?

Thanks again,
Guy

 

[joecap]

Well, I have not looked into the stock photo sites, so I don't know what they are looking for.
Your first picture is not that great...it's not TERRIBLE, but just a generic street scene.

However, your second picture of the hawks is positively AWESOME!
Not only is that a hard scene to capture in any situation, everything about it is perfect!
The focus, exposure, composition....that would be a photo good enough for any nature magazine...I don't see how they could reject that!
I should be so lucky as to get a shot like that!

 

[nicfargo]

The second one is a great photo, the only reason I could see them rejecting it based on the image itself would be that the birds themselves are a little dark. I'd mask them and bring up their exposure just a tad. It could also be that your image size isn't high enough, or something to do with the format of the image. Many stock sites have very strange reasons for not accepting an image.

 

[Emerana]

i think 2 doesnt look real...like its not the original photo at all and all photo shop work

 

[R0TT3NBURIT0]

1st one i can tell is photoshoped cause i use it a lot and colors are not perfect 2nd one everyone knows is photoshoped

 

[MarcusM]

yea, #2 looks really great at first glance, but after a closer look, it seems that something's not quite right about it. I think it does look Photoshopped to me.

Something about the sky is really weird. It looks to me as though there are actually 3 sections of sky stitched together, one on top of the other. I could be wrong, but the sky really stands out to me as not 100% natural.

I think what it is is the clouds. Clouds do not look like that at that distance. That mountain range looks to be 25-30 miles away to me...meaning the clouds are not going to be as high in the sky as they are....anyone else see that?

 

[AlexW]

I like the first one but the second one looks pretty photoshopped. The sky looks really abnormal but the hawk below the other one is really catching my eye. It almost looks like a poorly rendered hawk you pasted into the picture after shooting it? It's not very sharp and through it's feathers, there are rendered wholes through which you can see the sky and the head has a lot of black around it suggesting it was rendered.

 

[mrodgers]

I thought I had read somewhere here or on another forum that stock sites don't like to have any editing done to submitted photos.