MicrostockGroup

Most of my rejections in SS are due to "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.". Most of the times I don't understand them since the histogram looks good and I use a grey card for WB. I'm lighting with a 100x80cm softbox, 45º left of the subject and a reflector right so fill shadows. So could you help me understand this problem and correct it?

Here's an exemple of a rejection:



Thanks

SS doesnt like most images taken midday, on an overcast day,stormy weather, etc, or buildings partly in shadow - sometimes you can fix these by increasing highlights or leveling, and adding saturatiion -  but it seems to also be one thoose "not-sure-but-i-dont-like-it" reasons

Thanks for the input. I'm familiar with isolation but I was trying to get away from that since I thought it could be boring if I over did it. I was looking at portfolios from other stock photographers I there are a lot of photos that are not isolated and that I liked. I mean the cigarettes are not floating on mid air, their are on top of a white table. I guess it doesn't work that way, at least with SS.

Nice tip. Thanks. I didn't noticed that. I really need to start color calibrating my monitor again. My calibrator stoped working when I installed Windows 7...

It depends on the subject.  I've used this (partial desaturation) on some images that have sold well. 

Shutterstock doesn't officially allow resubmission, but I think it's actually ok if you add an explanatory note.  Is that right?

What Leaf said is correct - it only works if the color cast shouldn't be there.  In a mostly white room, the shadows have real color due to reflections from objects.  A white cigarette on white paper should ideally have pure gray shadows.  

I guess if it were me, I'd also take out that loose speck of tobacco laying on the table.

They have that brief rejection but here's the full "Lighting" answer:  http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/rejection-reasons/why-photos-get-rejected-for-poor-lighting

Also yes, you can re-submit if the image is altered and with a note to the reviewer. Some reviewers are much more helpful and responsive than others. I don't know if it's optional, or if they are contract employees or just higher up? But I have received a helpful answer to a rejection now and then.

Guidelines Page which isn't always easy to find directly:  http://submit.shutterstock.com/guidelines.mhtml

Look under reasons for warnings:

5. Submitting an image that has already been rejected without writing a note to the reviewer explaining why the image(s) is being resubmitted. Resubmitting an image without making the appropriate corrections.

I found this interesting, even though I don't shoot anything that fits this, it may be fair warning:

People - If it has a person or body part in it, the image should be in this category. Groups of people also go here. *If you are posting a photo of a child DO NOT EVER USE KEYWORDS NUDE OR NAKED. Nor can you use "teen", "nude", or "sexy" as keywords or in the description of a single image. You will be warned the first two times you violate this rule; the third violation will cause you to be banned from the site, your past earnings will be forfeited, and your current images will be removed permanently.*

This one cracks me up:  9. Uploading repeat images that are in abundance (i.e. sunflowers, one office building, etc.)

Business handshake? Girl with headset? Sliced vegetables... Pet Cat? LOL

Rejection reasons of big agencies become a puzzle to solve. Since they have several reasons to use, the editor simply picks the most appropriate.
In the majority of the cases, poor lighting is translated as: "I don't like this image" or "The overall look of the image is too poor". They simply can't write this there, because sounds ugly.

Looking at your example, I found too cropped. Also the filter part of the cigarettes looks extremely short. Regardless of the fact that the filter continues in white, it simply gives the whole image an unpleasant look.

The best answer to this would be like this: please take a fresh look at your image after a weekend/holiday/another-non-photographic-activity and you may see the real image, not the image you wanted to make.
Looking back in my portfolio, well, I have a LOT of images that look different compared to what I wanted... Those images had a lot of rejections at different agencies.

If you upload your images months after it was submitted to the first agency and it was also sold several times, you may be angry on stupid rejections. Somehow, some editors have a very good sense to reject exactly those images that sell best. Of course, in the same batch they accept all the crap. Generally speaking...

Great advices from everyone, thanks. Bottom line is I should stop trying to figure what a did wrong regarding lighting and concentrate more in producing better composed images.

I see a blue cast too.

Yes, the blue caste is there.  Get over it.  Some clients want that.  Yes, the shallow depth of field is there.  Get over it.  Some clients want that.  Yes, there are shadows.  Get over it.  Some clients want that.  If anyone doesn't want the clients to want things like that... get over it!   

Congrats!