Author Topic: Would the SI Swimsuit Cover be rejected by Microstock Sites? (Read 4966 times)

packerguy · « **on:** February 17, 2011, 12:38 »

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

disorderly · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2011, 12:40 »

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

VB inc · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2011, 13:39 »

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.

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2011, 14:02 »

Quote from: packerguy on February 17, 2011, 12:38

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2011, 14:16 »

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

rimglow · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2011, 15:01 »

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

nruboc · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2011, 15:21 »

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

Blufish · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2011, 15:59 »

She has elbows?

le_cyclope · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2011, 17:14 »

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

Claude

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** February 17, 2011, 17:20 »

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

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** February 17, 2011, 18:01 »

Quote from: packerguy on February 17, 2011, 12:38

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.

Suljo · « **Reply #11 on:** February 17, 2011, 20:25 »

Shes eyes are like from dolphin from oil wasted sea

RacePhoto · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2011, 01:27 »

Quote from: packerguy on February 17, 2011, 12:38

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?

getbizy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2011, 07:26 »

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

etienjones · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2011, 08:19 »

Sorry, poor isolation. Please correct and resubmit.

Graffoto · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2011, 09:38 »

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

gostwyck · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2011, 10:55 »

Quote from: nosaya on February 18, 2011, 09:38

Probably get about 75 downloads over 2 years time, mostly extra small.

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Would the SI Swimsuit Cover be rejected by Microstock Sites? (Read 4966 times)

packerguy

disorderly

VB inc

RT

gostwyck

rimglow

nruboc

Blufish

le_cyclope

ShadySue

cathyslife

Suljo

RacePhoto

getbizy

etienjones

Graffoto

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors