MicrostockGroup

Hmm, apparently I'm the first one to post here.

I had this one rejected at DT for "Poor lighting setup, poor contrast or incorrect exposure."  StockXpert also rejected it as "Photo too dark".

Well, it's recycled paper, so it's a bit dark indeed.  I had already increased contrast to show fibers better (you can see them even in this thumbnail).  Any thoughts?



Regards,
Adelaide

Could you perhaps upload a 100% crop?

I tend to give up when they say poor lighting etc because every other agency for me accepts it and then its poor lighting or incorrect exposure for them. Unfortunately thats the way the ball bounces  

Not sure how to help although I'd love to know what to do to avoid that stupid generic rejection

In fact I don't have a flatbed scanner, but a film scanner.  I took this image in a series of recycled paper and cardboard settings.



I could add a bit more contrast and brightness, I'm just afraid this will start to show artifacts next.  Histogram profile is almost totally above 50%, with peaks around 75%.

And you know how these things are, I sold this at 123RF today. 

Regards,
Adelaide

sorry, meant for this to show up in my comment above.

I was just thinkin about all the other comments I've seen from so many others about that specific rejection  "too dark" ....  I ran into this a couple weeks ago with some shots.  None I personally thought, too dark, which I understand is subjective to the individual looking at it. And the reviewer has a right to say it's too dark, as does the outfit he,she works for.
    I took two of the shots that I had no particular passion for (simple stock shots, one was a sign) and lightened them to the point of where I thought the look was horrible. Resubmitted,  one they took, the other they rejected,  "too dark" . Fact was, anything that was 'light' in the original would be rejected elsewhere for  'blown highlights'.   
   They only reason I say anything is that ALL those pictures sell well elsewhere on 5-6 other sites..  the likes of  SS and DT, which are pretty tough on rejections themselves.  The pix StockXpert rejected as too dark yesterday,  I wouldn't even consider lightening. They're good shots. They're selling fine just the way they are.  I actually have some pix that they rejected as  "too dark" or "poor focus"  selling for me on SS ...2,3, 6 times or more per day since I put them up a couple weeks ago.
    My whole attitude is,  " you don't want 'em,  no sweat, I know someone else that'll sell 'em for me.  your loss." I don't even go back and argue with these reviewers anymore.  Waste of time, especially with outfits where reviewers are also sellers. [see the current thread on DT and their 40,000 image backup]   Talk about conflict of interest!
It's a lose/lose situation. 
    Forget about the rejection, give your pix to someone else, go out and shoot some new stuff.

.........
   Maybe it's poor thinking on my part, I'm still relatively new to the biz and I'm not going to go out making radical changes at the moment.  But more and more, I see a few sites that have done zip,  such as a half dozen sells in six or seven months and others where I'm selling upwards of two dozen images or more, a day ( i  still have a small 'folio - 200 plus or minus depending on the site).   My point,  it's a complete waste of time for me to go and check my  stats on these sites... I am really thinking about pulling out of all those sites and just concentrating on the few that produce.  Hey, it's the exact same portfolio on all of them. Generally the same titles and keywording. ...Why six in six months here and up to two dozen a day there?
    I wonder if that may have been the thinking of the many that go exclusive to one outfit or at least make certain pix exclusive to certain sites. 

    I'd invite honest opinion on this.  Good idea to be on a gazillion sites? Good idea to limit yourself to a few producers?  I'm sure there are two schools of thought on this, it'd be interesting to hear both sides.