I wonder if that distinctive building in the BG may be a trademark concern?  There are several reviewers at SS and what one may accept another may reject particularly if trademark issues are questionable which may explain why that building got by some inspectors in previous images.

Can't be. There are tons of images of the aquarium. I think it's more likely that the Ice Cream Show's sign in the lower left corner (the "M SHO" is obscured by a railing post) is causing concern, but I don't know. I asked for clarification from shutterstock. We'll see what they say.

Incorrect WB is a favorite rejection reason.  It seems that some inspectors don't take into consideration the time of day the image was shot or the lighting conditions under which it was shot.  I use the Colorchecker Passport when I shoot to make certain I'm getting the proper WB and still get WB rejections, occasionally.

Seems like it's a "we just don't like it" reason then. That's a shame, because their advertisers might like it anyway. I think the white balance is fine here, for the record. It's just a colorful sunset.

I don't shoot HDR so I'm not familiar with SS policy with that technique....it does look HDRish to me so perhaps that was a factor in this rejection.

I don't know the policy either, but I tried to submit it first without HDR. Twice. This was the first rejection reason:

Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.

Note that there was no mention of trademark or wb. So I brightened the fill (at the expense of the sky), and this was the second rejection reason:

Trademark--Image / Metadata potentially infringes on intellectual property rights.
Composition--Image is poorly composed and/or poorly cropped.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance.

I actually thought I deleted that second image before it hit their reviewers, so I was surprised when it finally got reviewed alongside the HDR. This is it on flickr though:


Ruth Holmberg Pedestrian Bridge at Sunset by Trevarthan, on Flickr

As you can see, it's not much different from the HDR. The sky is just a bit more washed out and the concrete and glass tiles don't have quite as much "punch". IMO, the HDR is "better".

The HDR was my attempt to ultimately "fix" the exposure issue. It offered the best of both worlds. Properly exposed sky and properly exposed foreground. Sigh.

My experience is that once they reject an image, they become dogged and reject any attempts to correct the image for the rejection reason out of hubris. "You don't like our rejection reason? Too bad. No amount of correction on your part will fix it. You're done." I hate that.

Quote from: Mark Windom Photography on September 06, 2014, 10:38

I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .

I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!

"Personal" implies emotionally butthurt, I think. I'm not butthurt about this. I just want to know what I did wrong. I don't understand, and I can't play the game if I don't understand the rules.

Quote from: trevarthan on September 06, 2014, 11:47

Quote from: Difydave on September 06, 2014, 11:41

Quote from: Mark Windom Photography on September 06, 2014, 10:38

I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .

I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!

"Personal" implies emotionally butthurt, I think. I'm not butthurt about this. I just want to know what I did wrong. I don't understand, and I can't play the game if I don't understand the rules.

That's good that you're not taking it personally, but it still strikes me that you're trying to analyse and quantify something which is really just a subjective judgement. It depends on opinion of the reviewer you get. There are no set "rules" as such, just a matter of judgement within certain parameters. Again I will say though that I don't know the ShutterStock system specifically. I'm talking generally.

I agree. I just want to make sure that this is 100% a subjective rejection and not a technical rejection.

Subjective rejections shouldn't be tolerated in this highly technical industry, IMO. But that's a different discussion.

Quote from: trevarthan on September 06, 2014, 11:20

........My experience is that once they reject an image, they become dogged and reject any attempts to correct the image for the rejection reason out of hubris. "You don't like our rejection reason? Too bad. No amount of correction on your part will fix it. You're done." I hate that.

not true -- I often get images accepted that were initially rejected for white balance or lighting, especially late afternoon lighting -- as others have mentioned, you're going to have different reviewers, so different rejection reasons are not uncommon.  and reviewers often just give 1 or 2 reasons for rejection when they may have other concerns too -- it's how it works.

So what can I do to improve the lighting in this photo?

The next image up, the one on Flickr, looks a bit "flat and grey" to me. Needs a bit of a mid range contrast boost IMO.
As already said though, it's all pretty subjective. One man's "giving it a bit more pop" is another's "too much contrast"

Agreed re: second image. That's why I tried the HDR. It worked to fix the contrast. What about the HDR? What could be improved there?

Hard to be other than totally subjective here, but IMHO the "blue hour" photo creates a mood and since the bridge is the sharpest area of focus, the beautiful museum building seems incidental, whereas in the HDR photo the impossible depth of field is jarring and, despite being identical to the accepted blue hour photo in many respects (the same image processed differently? or a re-take? - either way, it just doesn't work because it seems fake). They can't reject it for "everything being in focus," though ironically that is the major problem, so let's look at the stuff that might have been acceptable if not for the "too perfect as to seem unreal" DOF (IMHO) - the colors seem tweaked and the distinctive building is more prominent.

I really like the blue hour photo - and I'm sure the other one took you ages to stack and tweak - but chalk it up to experience. Personally, I've spent hours "improving" something in Photoshop only to realize I actually ruined a good picture, it happens.

I remember being at PhotoExpo when I first started, listening to an editor from Travel & Leisure explain why she hated some photo where everything in a beautiful hotel room was in perfect focus as was everything outside the window and it was all perfectly exposed.

What makes a good photo? There are rules and there are great photos that break those rules, but ultimately at some point it is subjective, though IMHO the rejected photo breaks rule #1 - a travel photo needs to be real.

Hope that helps.

Eh. Good feedback. Definitely not what I wanted to hear, but good nonetheless. For the record, it's definitely a reshoot. The blue hour photo (I'm guessing you mean the darker of the two) was shot with an 85mm PC-e. The bridge tiles were in perfect focus all the way across (downward lens tilt), but everything else blurs a bit. The architectural guys on a landscape forum I frequent told me to sell the lens after I took that shot because I wasn't using it the way it's supposed to be used. It really bent them out of shape seeing me butcher it that way. That's why I called it "crap". So I thought, I'll do it again with the 85mm 1.4g at sunset and a focus stack. Surely everyone will love that. 

It's funny... the colors aren't tweaked at all. I mean, I used exactly the same processing on this photo as I did on the others. I have a super simple formula:

In camera, I expose as far to the right as I can so I get the benefit of the complete dynamic range the sensor is capable of.

In Lightroom:

- Highlights all the way down
- Shadows all the way up
- Just enough bump on the Whites to bring back the specular highlights.
- Just enough bump on the Blacks to blow some of them (hold the Alt key while sliding to the left until you see just a tad black show up).
- Vibrance +8 (practically nothing)
- Saturation +8 (again - nothing - just a hint)
- "Enable Profile Corrections" and "Remove Chromatic Aberration"

That's it. That's all the processing I do, and I do exactly that same step by step process for every photo I submit to shutterstock. Other than that, it's as shot. 6 shots, only the focus motor moved in between.

So yeah, this is actually how the scene looked. I did a little dance when I successfully completed the stack because there are always people walking across this bridge, and it takes a good minute to complete the walk, so it's super rare to get 10 seconds of clear bridge, much less the 2 minutes necessary for a focus stack set, and much much less the 2 minutes I needed right in the middle of a fading colorful sunset when the lights under the bridge are just starting to brighten. (for some reason, people start flocking across the bridge at sunset - never fails - it's like the colors behind them light a fire in their legs - I don't understand it)

I guess I'm getting dinged for doing a good job. 

I don't know. I think what you're really saying is that maybe this just isn't a stock photo. Maybe it works better as fine art. Maybe I need to always keep it simple for stock. White puffy clouds. No colors.

Shame though. I'd prefer to let the market determine if they want it or not, rather than some reviewer.

I think wordplanet has summed it all up pretty well.
I can't help but think that you are overthinking all this. It's stock. Take the shot, process it, upload. If they refuse it then either put it right and re-upload, or move on to the next shot. If it's refused again, move on.
Can't say with ShutterStock, but with iStock, when their inspection process was still strict, images which were seen as being easy to get, or which didn't have a strong concept tended to be judged more strictly than those which did fulfil those criteria. I know you went to a lot of trouble to get this shot, but the reviewer doesn't know that, so that could be at least partly the case here.
Also stock isn't really art. Or at least "fine art" often doesn't seem to sell that well as stock. You may be better selling these types of shots elsewhere, again as wordplanet suggests. The whole thing of what is "good" or not is very subjective, and trying to analyse it is an impossible task. If it was possible we could all say "This is good stock" or "This is good art" and sell accordingly. If only it was that simple!
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Quote from: JPSDK on September 06, 2014, 00:33

all three photos are fine, especially the last.
But look at the rejection reasons, that basically say:
not relevant for stock, there could be trademarks, and lighting is strange.
all is true.

They don't say that, really. But that's what I took away from it too.

Am I twice as likely to be rejected if there is a colorful sunset in the photo? I was wondering all night if that was the red flag that got me.

Quote from: JPSDK on September 06, 2014, 00:33

the point is your are not in a photoclub where you try to impress other photographers.

I resent that a little. I'm just trying to portray the scene at it's best and most beautiful. I think that's what most travel photographers do.

Quote from: JPSDK on September 06, 2014, 00:33

Instead you are on a marketplace where you want to make customers  pay for your images. So you need to think about the customers needs and that is not interesting light, or interesting compositions.

I saw a photo from istock on facebook a few months ago of this scene. It was clearly a purchased stock image and shutterstock didn't have the same version. The one it had was weak, IMO, so I started shooting it.

I'm also wondering if they're rejecting me because I have three different photos of the same scene at this point, ignoring the fact that this one is technically the best.

However, none of the photos on shutterstock are at sunset with a colorful sunset, so I thought the time of day would be useful for some advertisers. Was I wrong? If that's the case, I can always reshoot, waiting for a colorless sunset with clouds, like this:


Ross's Landing with Fluffy White Clouds by Trevarthan, on Flickr



I just need to know if sunset colors are something to avoid.

Quote from: JPSDK on September 06, 2014, 00:33

If you put a woman with a shopping bag on the bridge it will be much more stockworthy, but still the bridge and buildings are distracting, unles you aim for a special modernistic urban impression. And are there customers for that?

Not a bad idea at all. It's just a different kind of photo from what I see mostly for travel photos. Usually I'll have to shoot with higher shutter speeds and use f2 instead of f8, or else keep the model extremely still. I'm not opposed. This was just the low hanging fruit.

Thanks for the feedback, btw. I appreciate it.

Icons and essense, my friend.
meaning.. Our photos are meant to make people buy things, so there are more sales in a photo of a shopping bag than a bridge. So photograph shopping bags, not the wonders of the world.
But since all shopping bags have already been photographed, and also all kinds of women with shopping bags, there are only women on bridges with shopping bags left. Thats a nische market, untill someone (like you? ( come up with a new icon.
If you have a picture of a bridge with no women with shopping bags, then you will find that the image is hard to sell and the agencies know that, which is why they reject. Dont take it personally. Its about business, not about photography. Repeat. Its business NOT photography.
I cant say it much clearer, and if you now think about lenses, light and dof, and what you have done right or wrong you are still on the wrong track and still stuck in the mud of the photo clubs.

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 06, 2014, 16:44

Quote from: trevarthan on August 06, 2014, 16:12

f16 is dead to me. It's f8 or bust.

f8 sounds pretty possible to be the sweet spot. most lenses stop down 2, 21/2 , 3, for that.
and in my case, with most of my working lenses, i found f8 to be the sweet spot.
congrats on both approval of this image and finding f8.

According to this site and their 3d blur graphs (pretty cool), f5.6 is the sweet spot for the 24mm f3.5 PC-e and the 24mm f1.4g:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1176/cat/12
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1325

I'll have to try f5.6 next time. I'll also make sure I do some research on this in the future before shooting.

I have found found f5.6 to be the case with many of my lens.

Quote from: trevarthan on September 06, 2014, 21:50

In Lightroom:

- Highlights all the way down
- Shadows all the way up
- Just enough bump on the Whites to bring back the specular highlights.
- Just enough bump on the Blacks to blow some of them (hold the Alt key while sliding to the left until you see just a tad black show up).
- Vibrance +8 (practically nothing)
- Saturation +8 (again - nothing - just a hint)
- "Enable Profile Corrections" and "Remove Chromatic Aberration"

Sorry if this is stupid, I am not very experienced at post-processing after all -- but you really do hold highlights/lift shadows all the way on every single photo? I mean, won't that make you end up with a completely flat, pseudo HDR look? Don't get me wrong, I am all for a little highlight/shadow correction, but all the way on every photo seems excessive.

The other thing I would add my two cents to: I, too, shoot mostly in the "landscape", "architecture", or "travel" categories, and I have learned a long time ago that while that stuff does sell, it doesn't sell as much as other things. That's just how it is.

Shrug. Looks great to me. I'm not great at editing. I try to keep it simple. And yeah, I know the sales are slower. Doesn't really bother me. I enjoy shooting it.

Doing highlights and shadows all the way is a trick I first heard from photographer Serge Ramelli. I just found out that it might be ok as a starting point, but it is too extreme for most of my photos. The philosophy is ok, I guess, but that is just the starting point.

Concerning SS - that's the queston of what kind of photos will sale - I had a lots of photos with completely good light, soft shadows, everything ok, even though I got rejections with light problems. Then I've found out it is not really light, but the colors.

For example, the cloudy sky should give the perfect light - but that is not good enough for SS. If the histogram is a bit on the dark side - and there are lack of colors on the photo - not good.

Thats the moment when you press the button to the "pep and pop for shutterstock" photoshop action.

JPSDK, can you maybe share that action? I still didn't figure it out completely...

The very next moment when I start thinking that I got it finally, and got a few batches accepted, I get my next batch 100% rejected