Just had another 25 rejected.  Ok, a few I can understand.  I still don't understand how you can see noise in a 5D's image shot at ISO100 with no post processing, and then reject the next image for over processing with noise software set at the same settings.  But hey, I can live with that.

But I don't get these...

  ! SD_RF_MS_08_0043.jpg, Peat Plant Pots
    Composition could be better.

It's a stack of plant pots isolated on white... how much more composition do you need?

  ! SD_RF_MS_08_0045.jpg, Military Boots
    Composition could be better.
    Image is too clustered, try to concentrate more on one point

 
It's a picture of boots isolated on white... how much composition do you need?  What does "image is soo clustered" mean?

 

! SD_RF_MS_08_0046.jpg, Water Polo Ball
    Composition could be better.
Please leave space, too centered

It's a water polo ball, isolated on white.  In the middle of a canvas cropped to remove excess space (but leaving a decent white border).  How can you need more space?  All a designer needs to flippin do is add more white space around the edge!

  ! SD_RF_MS_08_0006.jpg, Red Capsicum
    Composition could be better.

My composition skills are clearly really bad.  Perhaps I should give up photography.  Because I can't even get a flamin red pepper isolated on white correct in composition!

I thought I'd post it here to get your thoughts guys, I'll stick some thumbs up later if you want them.  They've all been accepted on various other sites, and I don't really get the rejection.  I'm going to figure out if I can contact the person who rejected them so that I can contest most of the batch.

What do you lot think?  Do you find LO rejects alot of your images isolated on white for bad composition?  Or am I just a crappy photographer...

I stopped uploading to them 7 months ago. I had very few rejections at LO (only from Tommy). Without possibility to put my photos to sideshow I'll not upload to them any more.

I have only very few rejections and I have a lot of "over white" pictures. On the other hand - I have near to NO SALES there.  >:(So I am going to give them up unless they start selling.

Yeah, Ive had the odd reviewer occassionally. About 6 months ago I had most of a batch rejected for odd reasons. Emailed Jill and it didn't happen again. Last review, I got about 1/3 rejected. Some reasons I hadn't seen before. I got the impresson the reviewer was spending a lot of time on each image as the rason re rejection was pretty detailed. Some I could have argued with, but it's usually a waste of time. Since Jill is gone, I wouldn't know who to complain to. I think they have lost a lot of people. This was in the last review, "We've recently lost several of our most prolific Bouncers, so everything is backed up.  Jill left LO, Travis got a new job, and I was promoted to do initial reviews.  Hopefully we'll add some new Bouncers soon."  I know in our company, when we lose an employee, we always tell our clients that 'hopefully, we'll plug that hole soon, meanwhile just wait.'

Another oddity, I have noticed for a long time. Does anyone ever get all their images reviewed? It seems I get about half my images reviewed, no matter how many or few or over what time period. If there are only 10, they review 5, if it's a hundred, it's usually in the 45-60 range.

Right now it's at a hundred which means no review for 2 weeks.

For me, it's more about consistency. I agree with Miz, if I didn't think it would pass, I wouldn't submit it, but I am often wrong about that. I've had what I thought were marginal images accepted across the board and seel great and images I thought were great concepts fall flat.

BUT... I don't think my quality or concepts vary that much from batch to batch. So when, as is the case at many sites, you get 90% acceptance one time and 90% rejection the other, there is some other variable at play here other than the photographer.

For me, it's more about consistency. I agree with Miz, if I didn't think it would pass, I wouldn't submit it, but I am often wrong about that. I've had what I thought were marginal images accepted across the board and seel great and images I thought were great concepts fall flat.

BUT... I don't think my quality or concepts vary that much from batch to batch. So when, as is the case at many sites, you get 90% acceptance one time and 90% rejection the other, there is some other variable at play here other than the photographer.

Sure, I agree with Miz too, but these images have been accepted at other sites.  So they've been rejected at LO, I've got back and looked at them, and perhaps agreed that I could have improved on a few things.  But I cannot see how a Canon 5D on ISO100 produces noise (what should I be shooting on?  Medium format loaded with ASA25 and a drum scanner?) when I haven't played with the images.

I also despise the reviews that say I've used noise reduction software.  I've never used noise reduction software in my life!  I don't shoot subjects for stock that need it!

But someone please tell me, why should I add more white space and improve the composition of this image:

In fact, because it is an isolated image, composition plays no part in this scenario.
It is expected that a designer will take an isolated image and do one of two things:

1. Copy the image into another image.
2. increase or enlarge the canvas size (White  Space) in order to place text, or another image in order to create a composite.

In other words, an isolated image is treated the same way an icon is. Its available for use over and over again with different images.

The MIZ

In fact, because it is an isolated image, composition plays no part in this scenario.
It is expected that a designer will take an isolated image and do one of two things:

1. Copy the image into another image.
2. increase or enlarge the canvas size (White  Space) in order to place text, or another image in order to create a composite.

The MIZ

Exactly, which is why the rejections just don't make any sense to me!  I don't understand how I can improve the composition of a single object isolated on white!  I mean, I guess I could shoot the other side of the ball, but it would look pretty similar...

The funniest rejection I had - "Areas of the image too overexposed" for isolation
Yes, I've spent some time "overexposing" the background

....... and i've just decided that i don't fret most rejections these days - after 2 years of them, i just shoot more and move on.

amen.
     they're like nachos.... make more.   ....and as you've pointed out yourself, Seren...     if one site doesn't take 'em....  another one will.... 
     I have stuff macro took and micro shot down.... IS took LO didn't,  LO took IS didn't and all across the board with the 12 I'm on...  and there's no rhyme or reason to it all...
 ain't no biggie.

 I've got pix { probably we all do } that one site is selling by the hundreds and another said wasn't stock-worthy....   

     rejections sometimes aren't worth spit in the ocean. at the same time...  I've had stuff I thought was tech-perfect and IS  found a blemish I never saw....  so in a case like that... yeah, I've had rejections I've had to say, yeah, they're right.
        ain't no biggie.   =tom

oh, your iosolated ball...  looks great to me... but then,  i'm not the reviewer...

I'll tell you one beef I do have with LO....  It is the slowest site I'm on. It seems to take forever to navigate around the thing. I was trying to do a couple of comments on pix I liked tonight.  It got to the point, it wasn't worth it.  wait wait wait,  time outs, time outs...  It's not me. I'm running cable and superman would have a hard time keeping up with my 'puter. I'm zooming fast everywhere else on the planet....  'ceptin   LO. 
    I have a block of pix sitting there waiting for KW'ing, but ....man, it just takes too long. Everytime I go to work there... I get ticked and log-off... time is too short, I'll go upload where I can get some work done.
   Am I the only one?   

Bryan.... we need some Hi-test premium jet fuel injected there somewhere....  =tom