Author Topic: Poor lighting out of focus for 45 images at SS (Read 13569 times)

aly · « **on:** November 01, 2015, 23:24 »

On a Sunday I seem to have all submissions rejected for the same two reasons-
POOR LIGHTING
OUT OF FOCUS
Yet during the week the similar images are ACCEPTED.
This is NOT GOOD ENOUGH, Something must be done by SS to standardise the review process. It is so unfair and time wasting and frustrating. I ask just how can so many pics be rejected for the same reasons? On a Sunday? WHY??

anathaya · « **Reply #1 on:** November 01, 2015, 23:44 »

Quote from: aly on November 01, 2015, 23:24

On a Sunday I seem to have all submissions rejected for the same two reasons-
POOR LIGHTING
OUT OF FOCUS
Yet during the week the similar images are ACCEPTED.
This is NOT GOOD ENOUGH, Something must be done by SS to standardise the review process. It is so unfair and time wasting and frustrating. I ask just how can so many pics be rejected for the same reasons? On a Sunday? WHY??

Why cannot many pictures be rejected for same reason on a Sunday? How can we say anything without seeing your pictures?

BTW, there are existing threads about rejections in SS. Probably it's a better idea to post your complain there.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2015, 00:55 »

Post examples.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2015, 02:52 »

I'm not sure posting examples will help and the subject is flogged to death until it starts affecting ss bottom line nothing will change sad but true.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2015, 05:07 »

Yeah, I got the Sunday Slaughter too. All my images were rejected for title, which just goes to show it's someone who doesn't feel like working on Sunday so just rejects everything for whatever reason he/she can come up with.

mojaric · « **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2015, 05:33 »

SS is doing this kind of things from ages....BTW sean is right a post like this MUST be supported with an image example, otherwise for me it's spam.

Dumc · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2015, 08:34 »

People rant over SS rejections yet no-one has the guts to show those examples. I wonder why.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2015, 08:41 »

Probably because people on this site will find fault with anything......the point is its inconsistent maybe my pictures are crap but sometimes they get accepted sometimes they dont

StockPhotosArt.com · « **Reply #8 on:** November 02, 2015, 09:44 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 02, 2015, 08:41

Probably because people on this site will find fault with anything......the point is its inconsistent maybe my pictures are crap but sometimes they get accepted sometimes they dont

Exactly. I'm contributing to stock since 2007, starting with modest cameras and always managed to have a very high acceptance rate. Than, all of the sudden, in the last year or so, images taken with a 5D MKII which I own since 2009 are out of focus and other absurd rejection reasons in 100% of some batches.

It's even more absurd when all batches always have images taken in different light types and circumstances. And no, the camera is not malfunctioning and it's as sharp as when I bought it.

So, despite the OP images which I haven't seen I can attest how inconsistent and even absurd the SS review has become.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2015, 09:50 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 02, 2015, 08:41

Probably because people on this site will find fault with anything......the point is its inconsistent maybe my pictures are crap but sometimes they get accepted sometimes they dont

Obviously, this case was so egregious it warranted a new thread, so it must be backed up with some examples so we can all empathize.

aly · « **Reply #10 on:** November 02, 2015, 20:36 »

Four of my images for your interest.

aly · « **Reply #11 on:** November 02, 2015, 20:38 »

another image.

aly · « **Reply #12 on:** November 02, 2015, 20:39 »

one more image

aly · « **Reply #13 on:** November 02, 2015, 20:40 »

one more

anathaya · « **Reply #14 on:** November 02, 2015, 22:30 »

IMO, lighting seems OK in second and third photos, other two has some undesirable shadows.
Cannot say anything about focus since these are not full size images.
(I may be wrong.)

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #15 on:** November 03, 2015, 02:27 »

The images have poor lighting poor composition weak subject matter so they maybe in focus but they have other issues

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** November 03, 2015, 04:56 »

Well, at least you had the guts to post them

. I'd say the lighting is pretty harsh. The focus seems to be ok, but mostly, they just look like snapshots of walk about stuff. Poor composition, tilted horizon, etc.

aly · « **Reply #17 on:** November 03, 2015, 05:05 »

Re my pics -the roundabout subject is one of my top best sellers, as are the pics of flowers.Thanks for your input. Appreciated.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #18 on:** November 03, 2015, 05:28 »

Best seller is a relative statement and by no means a statistic that merits acceptance at a stock agency nor is it an indication that the image has a high commercial value sorry. and I agree with sean thanks for posting examples

Carl · « **Reply #19 on:** November 03, 2015, 06:58 »

In my experience, the acceptance / rejections are arbitrary. I've had 100% rejection on SS and 100% acceptance on other sites with the same batch. Other batches are vice versa. Still other sites are somewhere in between, and images that are accepted and rejected are different among the sites. Ultimately, they all end up for sale somewhere, so I move on.

langstrup · « **Reply #20 on:** November 03, 2015, 07:47 »

If I upload 100 images I rarely get more than 2-5 rejected. Usually because of focus issue, and sometimes they are right

I think the biggest issue with with "lightning rejections" is that some reviewers dont have the expertise to see good lightning if it´s not the "standard light".

In your case I would say they are right - sorry, but you should work more on getting good light. Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting. It´s a easy way to improve your light drastic and getting those long shadows and soft light!

Cesar · « **Reply #21 on:** November 03, 2015, 07:54 »

images does not have value, if i were reviewer i would also rejects stuff like that. sorry. i you upload flowers, it must be very good composition, this images are boring.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #22 on:** November 03, 2015, 08:18 »

'Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting'

Because?

i dont see a valid reason to exclude normal daylight images when done right

langstrup · « **Reply #23 on:** November 03, 2015, 09:03 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on November 03, 2015, 08:18

'Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting'

Because?

i dont see a valid reason to exclude normal daylight images when done right

If you bother to read the rest of my post! "Easy" light is the keyword here!

ACS · « **Reply #24 on:** November 03, 2015, 10:30 »

Thanks for the examples. I think these photos have low commercial value. Even if accepted they will not be able generate more than a couple of downloads. My 8 years experience in the industry tells me that, sorry. Rejection reason should have been "low commercial value". But on the other hand they are accepting similar images everyday and you are right to demand consistency...Anyway, to get a higher acceptancy rate, for less headaches, try to use unusual angles such as low, high, close-up etc.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2015, 10:32 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on November 03, 2015, 08:18

'Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting'

Because?

i dont see a valid reason to exclude normal daylight images when done right

When you ask for critique, don't fight it back. Listen, think and try to learn from it, if it make sense to you.
If you only want meaningless comments, faves or likes to flatter your ego, post these photos on Flickr or FB.

I personally agree with langstrup, Cesar and Sean.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2015, 10:44 »

no need to get all bossy, I didnt ask for critique and i dont disagree with the critique given, i just wonder why everything has to be shot at sunset. if you look at what images are used i hardly see images at sunset

https://www.google.com/search?q=cheap+holidays&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI2ZOq5sv0yAIVRNkaCh1jLQod&biw=1761&bih=995

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #27 on:** November 03, 2015, 11:21 »

Quote from: Microstockphoto on November 03, 2015, 10:44

no need to get all bossy, I didnt ask for critique and i dont disagree with the critique given, i just wonder why everything has to be shot at sunset. if you look at what images are used i hardly see images at sunset

https://www.google.com/search?q=cheap+holidays&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI2ZOq5sv0yAIVRNkaCh1jLQod&biw=1761&bih=995

It doesn't, but blazing mid-day sun isn't necessarily the best either. Especially when accompanied by less than stellar composition, etc.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #28 on:** November 03, 2015, 11:25 »

Not denying any of that

Shelma1 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 03, 2015, 13:22 »

After seeing the pot portfolio I can't take any of their rejections seriously.

Fatmanphoto · « **Reply #30 on:** November 03, 2015, 14:19 »

Quote from: langstrup on November 03, 2015, 09:03

Quote from: Microstockphoto on November 03, 2015, 08:18
'Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting'

Because?

i dont see a valid reason to exclude normal daylight images when done right

If you bother to read the rest of my post! "Easy" light is the keyword here!

There was a thread here a few months ago where general agreement was that Microstock sites preferred mid-day light to golden hour shots.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 03, 2015, 16:15 »

"Best seller is a relative statement and by no means a statistic that merits acceptance at a stock agency nor is it an indication that the image has a high commercial value "

I don't follow the logic if an image is a "best seller" I would have thought by definition it is High Commercial Value? Not necessarily high production value or high quality though?

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** November 03, 2015, 16:18 »

Someone's best seller might have sold twice in a year.
Not saying that's the case with the OP, just pointing out that Best Seller is relative.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 03, 2015, 16:20 »

Fair point yep would need to be a high overall seller rather than an individuals best seller

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #34 on:** November 03, 2015, 18:38 »

lol, what did you upload? let me guess...
night shots, window lighting, sunset, street lights, fireworks, outdoor etc..

you must have got that certain reviewer who is daft and thinks all photography has to be flat lighting as everything else is poor lighting.

Quote from: Shelma1 on November 03, 2015, 13:22

After seeing the pot portfolio I can't take any of their rejections seriously.

oh yes, if everything fails, try sending the reviewer a box of weed. it should improve his/her
eyesight and presto, your images are now in focus to him/her

cascoly · « **Reply #35 on:** November 04, 2015, 14:45 »

Quote from: langstrup on November 03, 2015, 07:47

...
In your case I would say they are right - sorry, but you should work more on getting good light. Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting. It´s a easy way to improve your light drastic and getting those long shadows and soft light!

unfortunately those are precisely the sort of images that are being rejected for poor lighting or 'bad' white balance

Pauws99 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 05, 2015, 09:33 »

SS HATE shadows!

langstrup · « **Reply #37 on:** November 05, 2015, 15:30 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 04, 2015, 14:45

Quote from: langstrup on November 03, 2015, 07:47
...
In your case I would say they are right - sorry, but you should work more on getting good light. Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting. It´s a easy way to improve your light drastic and getting those long shadows and soft light!

unfortunately those are precisely the sort of images that are being rejected for poor lighting or 'bad' white balance

That is not true! I NEVER get images rejected because of whitebalance, but of course you have to adjust the WB too shooting in the setting sun. Below you can see some of my "sunset" images - Never a problem!

www.shutterstock.com/g/UberImages/sets/12720557-couple-dating-in-the-city

www.shutterstock.com/g/UberImages/sets/12811601-teenage-fun

Pauws99 · « **Reply #38 on:** November 05, 2015, 16:48 »

Not True for "Life style" pictures. For other categories my belief is it is true.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #39 on:** November 05, 2015, 17:23 »

Quote from: cascoly on November 04, 2015, 14:45

Quote from: langstrup on November 03, 2015, 07:47
...
In your case I would say they are right - sorry, but you should work more on getting good light. Try to start with shooting everything when the sun is setting. It´s a easy way to improve your light drastic and getting those long shadows and soft light!

unfortunately those are precisely the sort of images that are being rejected for poor lighting or 'bad' white balance

+10
most of batman, resident evil, matrix, xmen,etc... would get an F- by this certain
mindless reivewer who rejects anything that is not mid-day lighting as "poor condition".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Poor lighting out of focus for 45 images at SS (Read 13569 times)

StockPhotosArt.com

langstrup

langstrup

langstrup

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors