MicrostockGroup

I had the image below rejected at Istock and DT because of lighting.  Also, a different shot of the plant taken at the same time was rejected at SS because of lighting.

How does one improve the lighting when taking a shot with diffused lighting from an overcast day?  Is there something I can to when processing the image that would help?  It seems like images taken in this type of lighting is a crap shoot, some times they are accepted and other times they are reject because of lighting.

Thanks – Mark

4) Shoot raw and use a color checker or grey card.

5) Use a (off camera) flash. The image in the exaple would have been very easy to light with a flash.

6) Come back (or wait) when the light is better. I try avoid shooting in boring light.

7) You may have some success with using "negative reflectors", black cards to make the shadows deeper and/or limiting the light falling on the subject.

No post-processing tweak will help here, the main problem is that the light source (overcast sky) is too big.

I thought so too.  To me, it's nice, maybe could be a bit brigher and more vivid. 

I like it.

You can tweak it in curves/levels/saturation obviously but personally I don't usually bother shooting for stock until conditions are virtually perfect. It's likely to be a waste of time as you will be competing for sales against better images.

I agree with other comments - overcast days are good for these types of shots - look at your post processing a little more - a bit more exposure and contrast should do the trick.

The problem with your overcast picture is the color of the plant, green.  Green is a horrible color to meter and photograph.  Next time look for a red or yellow subject on an overcast day.

Like what some of the others mentioned, I prefer shooting macro under overcast skies, as it doesn't give harsh shadows. Bit the lack of shadows may also make the image a bit bland, with no sense of 'depth'.

So I would use an off-shoe cord to get the flash off centered, plus a flash diffuser to create some shadows, but not too harsh, use the flash as a fill-in, not the main source of light (ie, -'ve compensation). Plus the fill-in flash light could help bring out a more vibrant colour.

A reflector may also do a similar job, but I'm more used to using a fill-in flash approach.

Hope this helps

Cheers,
PTLee

Yes in many ways, you already have diffused light.

As for the comment about a warming filter, it will do nothing if the camera is set for auto white balance. Nothing!

You can adjust the camera for "cloudy" in the white balance and achieve the same effect as filters used to do. With digital, you don't really need a bag of expensive filters because it's doing in post processing. If you are short money and need a UV filter to protect your lens, you can go buy a used 82A or anything clean and in good condition from the bargain bin and it works fine. Of course you are stuck with a warming filter in the way if you want any other setting. 

Should you want the warming filter to be in effect, you just change to manual color temperature and it's there. But we really don't need filters anymore.

Copper or golden reflectors are a nice way to not only correct, but also control the lighting. You could put a filter over the fill flash?

Temperature   Typical Sources

1000K   Candles; oil lamps
2000K   Very early sunrise; low effect tungsten lamps
2500K   Household light bulbs
3000K   Studio lights, photo floods
4000K   Clear flashbulbs
5000K   Typical daylight; electronic flash *
5500K   The sun at noon near Kodak's offices **
55-5600K   Electronic photo flash Xenon *
6000K   Bright sunshine with clear sky
7000K   Slightly overcast sky
8000K   Hazy sky
9000K   Open shade on clear day
10,000K   Heavily overcast sky
11,000K   Sunless blue skies
20,000+K   Open shade in mountains on a really clear day

* different sources have different temperatures? I've found the 5500 to be a better figure.
** a little humor since some say "daylight" is 5000K. I use the figure 5500 since it matches the number for the daylight flash.