Does anyone think the current Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover would be rejected for lighting if it as submitted to microstock sites?

Here is a link to the cover:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011_swimsuit/more/cover.html

I don't think so.  And if it were, I'd say the reviewer who did it should be sent back for re-education.

NO WAY... shes hot... and almost naked. very commercial and all agencies will gladly have that shot. Now, if she was average looking, with blemishes, then you would get the usual "lighting" rejection. which basically means no one wants to use this picture in any advertisement.

Quote from: packerguy on February 17, 2011, 17:38
Does anyone think the current Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover would be rejected for lighting if it as submitted to microstock sites?

No there's nothing wrong with the lighting.

Lighting? Was there something about 'lighting'? Sorry, I just didn't notice.

The horizon is crooked. REEE-JECTION! Only professional photographs accepted.

Sorry, I just can't get past the pointy elbows

She has elbows?

Accepted but with 2 model releases; one from her and one from her plastic surgeon for his artwork!

Claude

What's wrong with her lip? Looks like she has a big blister on the top lip.

Quote from: packerguy on February 17, 2011, 17:38
Does anyone think the current Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover would be rejected for lighting if it as submitted to microstock sites?

Depends on who submits it. 

Shes eyes are like from dolphin from oil wasted sea 

Quote from: packerguy on February 17, 2011, 17:38
Does anyone think the current Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover would be rejected for lighting if it as submitted to microstock sites?

I won't go into long detail why, but it looks kind of artificial and plastic. 

Yes it would be rejected for Micro for a number of reasons. Mostly because Micro isn't art it's marketing.

Heck - Adams, Stieglitz, Feininger and the foundations of photography would be rejected too. Norman Rockwell however was a bridge and would be acceptable anywhere for either. Interesting?

Well don't think it would be rejected....but it is rejected it would be surprising to me though.

Sorry, poor isolation.  Please correct and resubmit. 

Typical hard fashion lighting. No rejection. Probably get about 75 downloads over 2 years time, mostly extra small.

Quote from: nosaya on February 18, 2011, 14:38
Probably get about 75 downloads over 2 years time, mostly extra small.

... and about 20,000 'views'.