I have comment from reviewer for this photo,first time! 

Comment is : "Nicely done!"



http://www.bigstockphoto.com/photo/view/3644796

just had a very good month for september, since january 08. they have been
quite steady for me.

don't seem to get many rejections, which was surprising as i read these posts,
i think i have more rejections in FT or IS.

but they are very quick and helpful too. just last month i uploaded a wrong file
and wrote to them, they helped me resolved it very fast.

Quote from: UncleGene on September 19, 2008, 05:49
They also get my vote for the most ridiculous one:


Can you guess? It is obvious!
It was rejected for cropping.
I know, my bad, next time for an ocean shot I'd rent a space shuttle.....

Oh please, the space shuttle will set you up for a snapshot rejection. There'll be too many distractions (islands and continents) from the main focus of the ocean. Try again though.

This one made me laugh so hard...



When iStock said 'lighting' - no contest. But here -

"Subject not evident enough - hard to tell what the subject of the photo is - sorry, thanks"

Quote from: UncleGene on November 07, 2008, 00:44

This one made me laugh so hard...



When iStock said 'lighting' - no contest. But here -

"Subject not evident enough - hard to tell what the subject of the photo is - sorry, thanks"

sorry, no sexual acts , please ! 

Quote from: hali on November 07, 2008, 01:57

Quote from: UncleGene on November 07, 2008, 00:44

"Subject not evident enough - hard to tell what the subject of the photo is - sorry, thanks"

sorry, no sexual acts , please ! 

Maybe they meant opposite - they said they want it more evident? 

Quote from: UncleGene on September 19, 2008, 05:49


Can you guess? It is obvious!
It was rejected for cropping.

Running the risk of being a partypooper and you getting mad at me, I have to agree with the rejection reason. There is a cropping/framing problem here. People in sunsets are very difficult to do and not only for technical reasons, like spanning the huge luminance differences. We all have the tendency when standing in the water to keep our cam safe from getting wet. The result is you don't have the horizon in the image, and especially with sunsets this makes it slower for our brain to extract the object shape. Personally, I mostly try to have the shoulders over the horizon. This yields a surprising and eye-catching composition which has more chances to be sold. You will have to lay down in the surf and you need one eye on the surf to protect your cam. Seawater and DSLRs don't mix very well.

As an expample, this shot (not mine) from Istk. Which one would you buy? Yours or this one?


An example of a shot while I was laying down with the cam just a couple of inches above the water level. Imagine how it would look if I were standing up and I had the model surrounded by just water ...

No, you'll not make me mad. I agree with (almost) everything you say, and I do not claim this photo to be great (though I like it, otherwise it would not be submitted).
IMHO the issues you are pointing are not related to cropping/framing - these are 'choose how to frame from the same point of view', and you are talking about changing viewpoint.  Purely on cropping side, I have similar photo with horizon included, and from this perspective it makes photo worse.

But all this - on serious side, and I posted about funny one. Here is the exact rejection reason:

"Poor composition/Cropped subject: Chopping off part of subject makes photo harder to use generally :-) thanks"

It would be nothing funny in this rejection if it was limited to first two words

Quote from: UncleGene on November 07, 2008, 16:12"Poor composition/Cropped subject: Chopping off part of subject makes photo harder to use generally :-) thanks"
It would be nothing funny in this rejection if it was limited to first two words

Well reviewers at BigStock have only a limited number of rejects reasons to chose from, and this is probably the closest they could find. Some sites are worse. Take IS: when they reject for distorted pixels, they really mean we love our exclusives 

Quote from: FlemishDreams on November 07, 2008, 16:37
Take IS: when they reject for distorted pixels, they really mean we love our exclusives 

Are you sure? I always thought that we love our exclusives is translated to over filtered. They even give us a hint - "over filtered" as two words exist only in their language

My last sale on BigStock was on september 14th. It's really sad.... It's almost 2 months since then

maybe they took time off to campaign for the election

My last was yesterday...

In my portfolio BigStock is double better than StockXpert and 123RF...

Quote from: borg on November 12, 2008, 13:29
My last was yesterday...

In my portfolio BigStock is double better than StockXpert and 123RF...

Also better than Fotolia...

Today also 1 sale of 2 $...

BigStock lost the 5th place this month to Zymmetrical, but sales there are normal to me (slow but steady).

Regards,
Adelaide

I can understand that someone earns more or less than other, but why it's so big difference in percentage by agencies sales at so many contributors...!???

Borg,

This is always strange indeed, you have one person saying "site A rocks" and the next "site A sucks".  One reason could be the type of image one creates, maybe some sites sell them better than others because of their specific clientelle.

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: madelaide on November 13, 2008, 20:46
Borg,

This is always strange indeed, you have one person saying "site A rocks" and the next "site A sucks".  One reason could be the type of image one creates, maybe some sites sell them better than others because of their specific clientelle.

Regards,
Adelaide

Yes!

I really don't know what else can be...

Thanks Madelaide!