| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/01/2005 05:15:50 PM · #1 |
I just had this image rejected by shutter stock, they said it was blown out. I dont see it, I have it set as a desktop know and it looks awsome. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:18:07 PM · #2 |
Looks great. I can't see any blown out parts. I'm sure it's great as desktop, it's detailed but there are no elements in it that catch your attention all the time. Although that's not somethign to aim for in the challenges, is it?
Message edited by author 2005-01-01 17:18:53.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:18:19 PM · #3 |
I think it would be hard to tell unless anyone sees the real size image. max 640px is not something that would give a good idea of the actual file you submitted.
Message edited by author 2005-01-01 17:18:52. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:21:09 PM · #4 |
If you have Photoshop CS, open the image and then open the levels dialogue. Turn up your sound card. Take the White Eydropper Tool from Levels and click around in the top area of the clouds. If you hear a system ding in any area, that area is blown out.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:22:39 PM · #5 |
| It is a wonderful shot but the large cloud near the top of the photo is blown out. It is one solid area of white. I think you can easily fix it by cloning some other clouds into the problem area. It's an image that is worth the extra work. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:31:44 PM · #6 |
echo what joanns said, the cloud near the top at te rRH thirds line is the problem. The blue, and to some extent the green channels are "over the top". Mabe it's just me, but I don't really see that small area of blown highlight as being a detraction at all. In many imges that inlcude sky, with white clouds, there may be small "blown" areas, but if there is detail in the clouds overall as ther is here, then the overall effect is not unpleasant.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:39:07 PM · #7 |
Is this any better?
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:44:55 PM · #8 |
It doesn't look blown out to me. It looks sorta funny though...like everything is painted brown except the sky. I'm not sure how you did it. Did you use Selective Color? It looks, to me, like you used the magic wand to select the sky, inverted the selection, and then overlayed sepia on everything else. Mostly it shows in the branches of the trees. They aren't as thin and crisp and detailed like they should be. I don't know how to explain it. Then again, maybe that's what you were going for...? I like the image, just not the effects.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:48:31 PM · #9 |
You've eliminated any overexposed sections of the sky, but the transition from the branches to the sky now looks artificial. I'd try more localized cloning.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 05:59:59 PM · #10 |
I don't know, I like the original. I think I am sticking with it. I don't care what shutterstock says. I have already had a few comment from people who loved it. From seeing it on my website, Thanks for the input everyone.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 06:05:40 PM · #11 |
The clouds are much better, but now the trees seem unreal.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 08:45:27 PM · #12 |
| Travis, I think it is an awesome shot, even with the blown out clouds. But, out of camera, was the sky blown out or did that happen in post processing. When I used to use the auto levels tool in PS, the result would be blown out clouds, more times than not. I have to go now...got a little 3 year old coming to get photographed...:) |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 08:48:19 PM · #13 |
| The original is wonderful. The blown out area is insignificant. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 09:24:45 AM EDT.
