sceee Photography Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 One thing I really struggle with when submitting photos is selective focus/larger aperture/bokeh. It seems as if I often see how the photos should be sharp everywhere, and a small enough aperture should be used to ensure that this is so, but there are times I think it adds to the photo. For example, here is a shot I took this morning (not sure I would submit this, but it is a good example): Would a photo like this likely be rejected based upon the selective focus? I ask this today because I have encountered another image on Alamy that seems to have nothing in focus. Truth is, I quite like the image, but it is not sharp; however, it doesn't seem to be intended to be that way. I don't mind sharing the example, but I don't want to point out someone else's image if this is not appropriate to do. Thanks in advance for helping me to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jordan Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Technically I would submit that, subject to a close look at sharpness of the foreground frame. Not sure how I would caption or keyword it though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 As peter says above, I would submit it on technical grounds thinking that it would pass QC. I've got many images with similar bokeh accepted. Not sure about the saleability though.....only one way to find out if it will sell. John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissie Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Selective focus is integral to many images, it's not a reason for rejection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 It seems as if I often see how the photos should be sharp everywhere, and a small enough aperture should be used to ensure that this is so, Not sure where you see that, but it's simply not true. Very narrow, properly targetted plane of focus is fine . . . do a search for "selective focus" and wade through the over 270,000 images that show up. Would a photo like this likely be rejected based upon the selective focus? No photo is rejected purely because it incorporates selective focus. It may be not sharp enough where it's supposed to be sharp, it may be the point of focus doesn't make sense, it may be too noisy, but "selective focus" in itself is not a reason for rejection. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstw Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I think selective focus and out of focus backgrounds are great when used correctly. For instance. One shot I seen was of a mans leg and clenched fist in focus and the out of focus woman crouched on the floor. Obviously highlighting abuse of some kind. I thought that was a very good use if it. I think it works well when both parts of the image are integral to the story of the image. Sometimes the OOF area can totally distract from the foreground subject because it's not really been through about as a part of the story of the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceee Photography Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not sure about the saleability though I totally agree - didn't really take this one with the expectation that I would put it on Alamy, but it illustrated my point well. I might still submit it if it is sharp upon closer scrutiny, but that wasn't the intent. Thanks everyone for helping this thick-headed photog understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Submitting selective focus shots still gives me hives. I've had a couple fail due to disagreements over the main centre of focus. However, I don't think there would be any problem with the one you've posted. It would be wise not to take my word for it, though. As far as saleability goes, the wooden triangle might make it suitable for a math book. Having said that, I've never managed to sell any images that illustrate geometric shapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 If in focus / sharp enough I would definitely upload the image - and having English as a foreign language I would love to keyword and describe it. Will need some creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 If in focus / sharp enough I would definitely upload the image - and having English as a foreign language I would love to keyword and describe it. Will need some creativity. For starters, I would put "right angled angle triangle" somewhere in the keywords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 "right Isosceles", "isosceles" . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Still for starters: rectangular, close-up, wooden, beam, girder, strut, construction, solid, secure, clothes posts, clothesline, solidness, solidity, strength, stoutness, stout, robustness, sturdyness, etc. etc. etc. + metaphorical keywords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceee Photography Posted March 5, 2014 Author Share Posted March 5, 2014 I love the list of keyword suggestions! I would add snow, ice, icicle, wood, and grain. After I get a moment to closer evaluate the picture to make sure it is sharp, it will be submitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 "right Isosceles", "isosceles" . . . dd Yes, "right isosceles" would be more precise, and don't forget the Pythagorean Theorem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.