Rejected for Focus

Karimala · #1 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 04:47 PM

I'm really confused about why this image was rejected for focus. The only part that's even remotely out of focus (except the background) is the front lip of the bowl, but to me it looks like it should be within acceptable limits...especially since everything else is in focus.

Can someone enlighten me? Thanks!

100% crop

http://home.comcast.net/~karimala/Cr...03_-_Queso.jpg

striver · #2 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 05:55 PM

The reviewer probably just clicked the closest reason they could put their finger on. Overall the picture has many problems that add up to a no go. What they likely keyed on was the blown whites on the edges of the chips that tend to make them look soft and a bit out of focus as well as a bit washed out color-wise.

The two biggest problems I see are cropping and color. Where is the copy space? And even in tight crops like this you need at least some breathing room. Look how close the bowl is to the top edge. It would be very hard for a designer to use this picture as is. The other problem is that the color is too uniform. In fact, the background is too close in color, but just a tad stronger than the subject, making the food look even more washed out.

You need some major contrast to all that pale amber. The dark red outside the bowl helps a little, but the dark blue plate is not so good. Color is extremely important in the food industry. Take a look at the standard color schemes in all the big fast food chains and all you will see is what they call catchup and mustard decor. It is all red and amber. The reason is that these are the colors that make people eat more. If you want people to eat less...serve the food on dark blue plates because that tends to turn people off to the food.

Teresa · #3 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 06:10 PM

Ok, I'm feeling better about my photograpy all the time. About 90% or more of my rejections on SS lately have been for out of focus or focus not where we want it. And I'm at a loss as to where exactly the do want the focus. I've tried focusing on the near edge and gradually softer as you go back. I've tried focusing in the middle and softer focus to front and back. I've tried having it all in focus except for more distant background and I keep getting the same rejection. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.

Teresa · #4 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by striver

The reviewer probably just clicked the closest reason they could put their finger on. Overall the picture has many problems that add up to a no go. What they likely keyed on was the blown whites on the edges of the chips that tend to make them look soft and a bit out of focus as well as a bit washed out color-wise.

The two biggest problems I see are cropping and color. Where is the copy space? And even in tight crops like this you need at least some breathing room. Look how close the bowl is to the top edge. It would be very hard for a designer to use this picture as is. The other problem is that the color is too uniform. In fact, the background is too close in color, but just a tad stronger than the subject, making the food look even more washed out.

You need some major contrast to all that pale amber. The dark red outside the bowl helps a little, but the dark blue plate is not so good. Color is extremely important in the food industry. Take a look at the standard color schemes in all the big fast food chains and all you will see is what they call catchup and mustard decor. It is all red and amber. The reason is that these are the colors that make people eat more. If you want people to eat less...serve the food on dark blue plates because that tends to turn people off to the food.

If the cropping and color were the problems, it would be easy enough to indicate that rather than saying it is focus. And I like the cropping.

Karimala · #5 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 06:21 PM

Any comments on the focus specifically? I've been working with manual focus for the first time, and am wondering where I got it wrong...or if I even did.

I agree with the rest of your assessments, Lee. Too much yellow going on, but that placemat is all I had on hand to work with that looked remotely Mexican. I could have done an isolation on white, but quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of doing those. :-) And...it was shot in a light tent, as the lighting in my apartment is really poor, so space was limited and therefore the cropping had to be tight. This was actually the furthest I could pull away from the shot without bringing in the light tent's background. So...yeh...it's not a great shot, but that still doesn't explain the focus issue. I would have rather had a "too many on site" rejection, if it was rejected for all the reasons you listed.

I'd just like to understand where I messed up the focus, because I just don't see it.

striver · #6 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 06:43 PM

Well...as I said...it is in the chips and it is a combination of problems that generally add up to a sense of soft focus. As I have mentioned in other forums, the reviewers do their best to pick quickly from a list reasons that may not necessarily cover all the problems. Think about the fact that most agencies are now reviewing one million pictures per year. If you do a bit of math (that I won't bore you with here) you will find that adding only seven short seconds to each image review would require an extra full time employee working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year with absolutely no days off...not even Christmas unless it happens to fall on the weekend.

So it isn't a good idea to put a lot of weight on the reasons they give. I critiqued one in the SS forums yesterday that looked like someone had shot it by accident while playing with the camera. The reviewer had rejected it for lighting but they easily could have added focus, cropping, and not good for stock and still been equally correct. It is a pick-a-reason-and-click-reject as fast as you can and I imagine the reviewers get burnt out pretty quick on trying to be helpful.

What I generally take away from a rejection is that the overall picture wasn't good enough. Usually, if the picture is really hot, good framing and color and all that, the reviewer tends to overlook problems like minor noise and focus issues. You have pretty much agreed that the picture is not all that. It is safe to assume that this was the real reason it was rejected and they just grabbed the first reason that seemed to fit without taking too much time to really assess and carefully critique it for you. They just don't have the time.

But cheers to you for trying to avoid yet another isolation on white. The buyers are burnt out on those. Try something red next time.

Karimala · #7 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 07:24 PM

If I do shoot queso and chips again, I'll probably concentrate on the blues for contrast. I'm a sucker for blue and yellow combinations, like this one (it's not mine), and most of my tablewear is in those colors.

And if what you're saying is true about the reviewers, then we should all be expecting quite a rollercoaster ride in regards to rejections in the months to come. Food images like my queso, with all the problems you've mentioned about funky colors, soft highlights, etc., were all being accepted a mere month ago.

Gracey · #8 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 07:30 PM

To me, the only thing in sharp focus are those green things (some sort of pepper?) on the right and left hand side, with just a little of the corn chips around them (and the basket weave is in focus too). Everything else looks a little soft. On the chips in the foreground the edges are sort of blurry.

Whatever is in the bowl (sorry for the ignorance, I'm not up on foods like this) doesn't look well focused - maybe it's just the texture or consistency of it rather than out of focus.

...or maybe I'm just too picky :lol:

striver · #9 (**permalink**) 01-08-2007, 07:38 PM

Yeah...the competition is heating up...time to look into other outlets to market your work.

When you think about it, it is actually smart to have blue dishes. Most of mine are dark blue. It isn't that the color makes food look bad...it just makes you tend to eat less...so the restaurants don't like it. But I actually doubt that many reviewers know that. It is one of those inside things in the food industry. Caterers will often use blue because they are not paid by the item.

Karimala · #10 (**permalink**) 01-10-2007, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gracey

To me, the only thing in sharp focus are those green things (some sort of pepper?) on the right and left hand side, with just a little of the corn chips around them (and the basket weave is in focus too). Everything else looks a little soft. On the chips in the foreground the edges are sort of blurry.

Whatever is in the bowl (sorry for the ignorance, I'm not up on foods like this) doesn't look well focused - maybe it's just the texture or consistency of it rather than out of focus.

...or maybe I'm just too picky :lol:

:lol:

I see the problem now...thanks, Gracey. The sharpest focus seems to run in a band across the image from left to right.

And that stuff in the bowl? We call it "queso," but it's more commonly known as plain ol' cheese dip. The recipe I use is a staple in Oklahoma and Texas...cut up a large block of Velveeta cheese, add two cans of Ro-Tel (which is diced tomatoes and chilies), microwave five minutes and stir, and repeat until smooth. Darn tasty and so not good for you! :-)