Shuttterstock rejection: Poor or ...White Balance...

Photo_grapher

New Member

« on: November 21, 2011, 00:48 »

#link

Hello friends

I have started submitting to Shutterstock few months back. Unfortunately I find that most of my photos are being rejected for the following reason:
Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

Could the experienced users here please be kind enough to advice me on what I need to do to avoid rejections for this reason?

I have enclosed 3 of my latest images which were rejected for the above reason with this post.

Please help.

Thank you


	Ignore \| Logged

markrhiggins

« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2011, 01:00 »

#link

first is far too saturated and midtones a bit underexposed. Clouds are a too blue for wb and whole scenes lack contrast. All are post processing problems. WHy post the same in the critique forum at SS as well as here?


	Ignore \| Logged

Photo_grapher

New Member

« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2011, 06:45 »

#link

Thanks so much Mark

First I posted to Microstock group, and then I remembered that SS also has a forum where I can discuss things. So I posted here too. I could delete the MSG post, but I thought that those who are not the members of SS can post there but not here.

Now to the main issue. Could you please provide me some guidance regarding PP of Landscape shots? I have searched Google, but could not find anything suitable for my specific need.
I must admit that though I have been photographing for quite a long time, I started using a D-SLR only very recently. So I am still a novice when it comes to PP. So it would be really helpful for me if you could suggest me some PP techniques to improve these shots.

Thanks again.


	Ignore \| Logged

pancaketom

« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2011, 14:46 »

#link

SS doesn't much care for cloudy weather lighting, so they will usually get rejected lighting or WB or whatever.

Also the first one looks pretty overprocessed to me, it just doesn't look natural at all. (not that that is a problem for many of the best sellers, but that is my take on it).


	Ignore \| Logged

stockastic

« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2011, 21:44 »

#link

Just my opinions...

I really don't see a problem with the first shot. Yes, it is very saturated, but... this is stock, not National Geographic. It might be considered a bit dark in today's digital world. If the reviewer thought it was oversaturated, you might think they could just say that, and not refer to "lighting". But don't expect rejection reasons to make sense in every case - they seem to have a very limited set of reasons to choose from.

The other too I think are too blue. The third one is too subtle for microstock, there isn't an obvious 'subject' in the picture. I actually like the second one, but again, microstock reviewers may see it as just murky clouds with a building on one side.


« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 21:48 by stockastic »	Ignore \| Logged

Morphart

« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2011, 23:16 »

#link

Quote from: Photo_grapher on November 21, 2011, 00:48

I am sorry, but they all look not quite finished. (not here to bash, but it's my honest opinion0

1st looks like a 3D image, maybe have a nice sky and different composition or framing would help it better (the simple blue fade doesn't do it for me). I think getting more environment perspective to give the effect of being on a hill, or something to fill that empty blue space would help it a lot.

The other 2 looks like you cropped and image in photoshop and just applied it on top of another one.
3rd one the house looks blurred as if it had something cloned out, upsizing or bad texturing in 3d?

I also find on the last 2 that the composition could be worked on also, too much empty space. Removing the house would help it, or make the house at least take 1/3 of the image should help the composition.

Good luck


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Shuttterstock rejection: Poor or ...White Balance...

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results