I admit it...my name is Beth and I have a heavy hand when it comes to PS editing. I love the topaz filter, and I love HDR. I love to break the rule of thirds and many others. I spent years overcoming my desire to please others with my work. When I finally learned the balance between constructive criticism and simple difference in taste I discovered the microstock market and it blew my progress all to heck. I have to say it has pushed me to become a more technically proficient photographer. I still have miles to go. However, I do find that some images are simply rejected for differ in taste. I'm not deluded in the fact that most of the images I have rejected are for valid reasons, but there are times that I believe great images are rejected because the reviewer does not have the same affinity for the over the top. I say this because I see other over the top landscapes that sell. Anyone else find that some of their images are rejected due to differing taste?

Input your IPTC data before submitting if you're not doing that. Send in smaller batches to test the waters for what they want. Usually HDR stuff if not desirable for buyers unless the image has that "X" factor. Serious designers would much rather have the clean photo and put the fancy effects in themselves. You need to submit for the market, and sometimes it's not what you like.

I'm not sure what your dial is set to on over the top, but it took me quite a while to find a level of post processing that I could regularly get accepted. One of the things I'd suggest is that doing as much as possible with adjustment layers and making layer comps for each variation. So you can have a knock-your-eyes-out version that you prefer and a toned-down-a-bit version for stock.

If my porfolio looks very "plain jane" to you, then your definition of over the top might need a bit of softening to get things accepted. You can try the iStock critique forum for help on specific images if you don't mind posting your rejects publicly and hearing just what other people think

Yes, i understand all of your comments, which is why I said microstock blew my theory all to heck. You must produce work everyone like to sell. I didn't mean to sound as if I didn't understand that aspect of the work. Thank you your posts!