What's not "stock' with this one?

03/28/2005 08:42:20 AM · #1

Ok, something that came up to my mind.
What's not stock bout this one? What's wrong whit it?
I wasn't expecting to get a top 10 on this one, but plz, 19sumthing isn't quite what I expected as well.

Anything constructive?

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

03/28/2005 08:54:20 AM · #2

Left you a comment on the image. Hope I wasn't mean. Just don't take it wrong.

digitalknight

03/28/2005 09:03:32 AM · #3

I think you got good feedback during the challenge. The light being more diffuse, and bounced back into the shadows would go a long way, and the DOF being a little deeper would make this terrific.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

03/28/2005 09:14:03 AM · #4

Scuds - I gave you a 6 on it. I liked the concept/creativity. Thought the front corner was a bit dark and would have composed it with some brighter colors in the front left corner. Blur for shallow DOF is just ok (IMO) - wonder what it looked like in focus all the way out, or blurred a bit less? The blue and red crayons in the back right took away from the overall score (they look too pointy or something).

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/28/2005 09:14:38 AM · #5

Hahaha, I wonder why I do such things. The focus was right on the whole bunch of crayons, I messed up with this on PS, created a gradual "background" blur layer on top of it. Well, living and learning with it.

I tried using a reflector to enhance the lighting on the shadows, but it was creating some weird effects (reflections) on the mirror.

This is the original file (not editing, just resize)

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

03/28/2005 09:19:06 AM · #6

The original is a lot better. If I would have voted on this challenge I would have scored the original around a 9

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/28/2005 10:26:48 AM · #7

LOL, this could be the poster child image for overediting in PS. You took a perfectly nice original and blew it out of the water with harshness, artificial blur, and weird cropping... As you say, live and learn.

Robt.

nsbca7

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2005 11:03:19 AM · #8

Why did you pull the paper of the crayons? I'm used to seeing crayons in their wrappers.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/28/2005 11:05:11 AM · #9

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Why did you pull the paper of the crayons? I'm used to seeing crayons in their wrappers.

Some stock companies don't accept items showing trademarked designs.

nsbca7

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5

03/28/2005 11:14:24 AM · #10

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
Why did you pull the paper of the crayons? I'm used to seeing crayons in their wrappers.

Some stock companies don't accept items showing trademarked designs.

Some do. Also, if that was the concern, they could have been rotated in such a way as to partially obscure the logo. I scored this image low because I could not understand what use a buyer would have with an image of crayons that are not immediately identifiable as crayons.

We associate certain images with certain things and it is rare that a person sees whole crayons without the labels.

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 11:19:08.

C_Steve_G

Apple iPhone 12

03/28/2005 11:18:02 AM · #11

I also would have submitted the original. It's clean, focused, & intriguing...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/28/2005 11:18:33 AM · #12

Originally posted by nsbca7:

We associate certain images with certain things and it is rare that a person sees whole crayons without the labels.

Visit any day-care center, nursery school, or kid-friendly restaurant -- you will see plenty -- although it's true, a significant percentage will not be whole : )

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/28/2005 11:26:19 AM · #13

I like this one much better, but still doesn't have the "wow" factor. Did you happen to look at the top 50?

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/28/2005 11:27:17 AM · #14

I agree with others suggesting the image was overedited. That is a problem I have with my own post processing as well.

Better workflow helps. When post processing the first thing I do is duplicate the original image into a new layer. I name the new layer "adjustment" and is where general editing such as cloning, noise reduction or autolevels might be done. I leave the original background layer alone, untouched.

After a long editing session I can turn off the layers above the original to check progress to see if what I am doing is actually improving the original or not. When it is not then edits are trashed or reworked.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/28/2005 12:06:55 PM · #15

Originally posted by bear_music:

Well, I guess I have to find the "limits" to my editing in PS.

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Why did you pull the paper of the crayons? I'm used to seeing crayons in their wrappers.

They were shot as they came, straigh out of the box. The thing is, they're OLD, very old. Like 10 years or so. They are almost unused though. I know crayons on the US usually come with paper "wrap", but it doesn't happen with this kind of stuff here in Brasil. Weird....

Originally posted by stdavidson:

agree with others suggesting the image was overedited. That is a problem I have with my own post processing as well.

That's the biggest issue here. I'm taking it under consideration for the next challenges.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

03/28/2005 02:57:50 PM · #16

Originally posted by scuds:

Originally posted by bear_music:
LOL, this could be the poster child image for overediting in PS. You took a perfectly nice original and blew it out of the water with harshness, artificial blur, and weird cropping... As you say, live and learn.

Robt.

Well, I guess I have to find the "limits" to my editing in PS.

It occurs to me that this may have sounded harsh or sarcastic, and I didn't mean it that way. I was working off the fact that you had acknowledged, youself, that you had gone too far, and I was emphatically agreeing. I hope no offense was taken, for none was intended.

Robt.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/28/2005 03:00:26 PM · #17

Originally posted by bear_music:

Not at all! Don't even think that Robt.

It's all good. I'm learning and DPC, including you, has a lot to teach!

Any idea of a diff take on this image?
A larger version can be provided if needed.....

coolhar

03/28/2005 03:07:00 PM · #18

Originally posted by scuds:

... The focus was right on the whole bunch of crayons ...

The focus appears to be on the front of the bunch, the ones at the back are not as sharp, and the difference is quite accentuated in your edit. In a studio shot for stock you have control of all these things like depth of field, lighting and bg. Better to get them as close as possible to the desired outcome at the time of shooting instead of trying to dial in loosely controlled variables with software. Stock wants technically perfect shots, not artistic effects like shallow DoF.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

03/28/2005 03:12:11 PM · #19

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by scuds:
... The focus was right on the whole bunch of crayons ...

The focus appears to be on the front of the bunch, the ones at the back are not as sharp, and the difference is quite accentuated in your edit. In a studio shot for stock you have control of all these things like depth of field, lighting and bg. Better to get them as close as possible to the desired outcome at the time of shooting instead of trying to dial in loosely controlled variables with software. Stock wants technically perfect shots, not artistic effects like shallow DoF.

According to what I read in this thread and in the comments on the photo itself, the image was in focus - then blur was applied intentionally to make it appear to have a shallower DOF.

03/28/2005 03:17:45 PM · #20

Originally posted by glad2badad:

According to what I read in this thread and in the comments on the photo itself, the image was in focus - then blur was applied intentionally to make it appear to have a shallower DOF.

Right on it.....

vivien

Sony DSC-F717

03/28/2005 03:22:13 PM · #21

I also prefer the original one!(sorry I know it wasn't the question)

Message edited by author 2005-03-28 15:24:21.

Click for a bigger version

03/28/2005 03:24:58 PM · #22

kearock

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

03/28/2005 04:14:27 PM · #23

I actually like the edited version. It might be a little too much editing, but I still like it better than the original. It's much more dramatic and I prefer the tighter crop. I like having the crayons in back out of focus, but maybe it would work better if the out of focus ones weren't the brightly colored ones. My eye is drawn to the yellow, light blue, etc making it feel like the out of focus part dominates. I think if those bright colors were the front, in focus, crayons with the darker colors in back and out of focus it would work well.

I gave the image a 6, but I would have voted it higher had they been wrapped, normal-looking crayons. I just couldn't see a stock buyer being interested in crayons that didn't look natural.

2Shay

Nikon Z7 FX

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

03/28/2005 04:20:39 PM · #24

Originally posted by GeneralE:

[quote=nsbca7] Why did you pull the paper of the crayons? I'm used to seeing crayons in their wrappers.

Maybe you got marked down some for the nudity! ;-)

Actually, I like your original photo much more than the edited version. I would have scored it a couple of point higher.

2Shay

nsbca7