MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photo Critique => Topic started by: pyrst on April 21, 2014, 21:34

Title: Rejected at SS
Post by: pyrst on April 21, 2014, 21:34
Hi i am having bad luck with SS. While overall my acceptance is around 75-80, lately its been around 20 with SS. And i usually just bite it and shoot on. But this one confuses me. It is rejected due to: Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.
What am i not seeing? Help appreciated!

http://www.colourbox.com/image/tourists-in-san-marko-square-venice-italy-image-9739908?utm_expid=22365066-34.fcazlHfCSC-Yd0O3uzsCHQ.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.colourbox.com%2Fsearch%2Ffind%3Fq%3Dwoman%2Bvenice%2Bcamera (http://www.colourbox.com/image/tourists-in-san-marko-square-venice-italy-image-9739908?utm_expid=22365066-34.fcazlHfCSC-Yd0O3uzsCHQ.0&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.colourbox.com%2Fsearch%2Ffind%3Fq%3Dwoman%2Bvenice%2Bcamera)

Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: a and n on April 21, 2014, 21:44
Nothing wrong with it in my opinion.  That image would be accepted at all other stock photo sites.  Maybe try increasing exposure by 0.05 in Lightroom and resubmit.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: disorderly on April 21, 2014, 22:00
I'm guessing of course, but I'd say they don't like the shallow depth of field.  Maybe they think a photo of a photographer shooting a famous scene shouldn't blur out the scenic parts of that scene.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: pyrst on April 21, 2014, 22:37
I'm guessing of course, but I'd say they don't like the shallow depth of field.  Maybe they think a photo of a photographer shooting a famous scene shouldn't blur out the scenic parts of that scene.
- Fair enough, but why not use that reason then?
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: disorderly on April 21, 2014, 23:00
I'm guessing of course, but I'd say they don't like the shallow depth of field.  Maybe they think a photo of a photographer shooting a famous scene shouldn't blur out the scenic parts of that scene.
- Fair enough, but why not use that reason then?

I don't know.  Maybe they saw something at 100% that we can't see from your thumbnail.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: pixsol on April 22, 2014, 00:43
The four corners seem to be a bit darker than the center. Perhaps the reviewer does not want to see that effect. I am personally fine with the effect though :)
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: luissantos84 on April 22, 2014, 00:50
The four corners seem to be a bit darker than the center. Perhaps the reviewer does not want to see that effect. I am personally fine with the effect though :)

which he can easily fix on Camera Raw, you could also lighten up a bit the blues so that the sky doesn't look so underexposed
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 22, 2014, 02:51
I think you've lost some contrast by lightening the shadows a tad too much and the overall picture might be a little bit too cool. I'm not sure if something is going on in the sky, it looks as if there are two different patches in it to me, but it might just be a bit of thin cloud (and surely it should be marked as editorial with all those people in the background?)
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Red Dove on April 22, 2014, 05:02
If I were being a very fussy reviewer it would be because of over exposure on her arm, both on the red jacket and her skin, also the vignette in the corners as mentioned previously.

A lot worse gets through, as we all know.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 09:22
I'd lose the vignette, bump contrast or levels slightly and resubmit. The vignette is giving the sky two color casts and gives the image an uneven lighting look.  Some images certainly do well with the vignette look but this one would serve the buyer much better without in my opinion.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 09:24
.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 09:28
I think you should throw the photo away it's unlikely to make any more than a couple sales in its lifetime (if you're lucky) and only a few pennies at that.   Focus on making more salable images.

It's perfect for Getty then!
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 09:29
.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: JPSDK on April 22, 2014, 09:31
It is a tourist snapshot. not a professional photograph.
Taken at the wrong time of the day, in the hot midday sun. Note the deep shadows and the almost burned out white walls.
Add to that the scewed horison and the lens distortion and you have a snapshot.

Worst is it is not loyal to the subject: the photographer is not displayed at her best and the environment is secondary.
To do this shot right, you would need a better framed photographer model, in better light conditions and more of the environment in the frame.
Imagine an HDR of the background buildings in  the evening light with a wb conflict from a lamp post and add a backlit pink haired, Japanese photographer in a miniskirt in front.

"No, it was not like that when I was there", you will answer. "I took the scene as it was".
Not good enough.
Microstock will expect you to create the ultimate icon of whatever you photograph.
And if you dont, someone else does.
And he will sell 1000 copies and you only one, and you will be crying all the way to the bank to pay your loans.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 22, 2014, 09:31
Right.  She's shooting something, we can't see what.  Basically, it's a shot of the back of someone's head.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 09:32
I think you should throw the photo away it's unlikely to make any more than a couple sales in its lifetime (if you're lucky) and only a few pennies at that.   Focus on making more salable images.

It's perfect for Getty then!
Why would it be perfect for Getty?

Not sure if you were around these forums when Getty pushed a lot of their content onto Istock a few years ago but many of the images were laughable. I think it was called the agency collection, but not sure.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 09:33
.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 09:35
I think you should throw the photo away it's unlikely to make any more than a couple sales in its lifetime (if you're lucky) and only a few pennies at that.   Focus on making more salable images.

It's perfect for Getty then!
Why would it be perfect for Getty?

Not sure if you were around these forums when Getty pushed a lot of their content onto Istock a few years ago but many of the images were laughable. I think it was called the agency collection, but not sure.
The Agency collection didn't have editorial images in it.

Moot point.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on April 22, 2014, 09:40
Not sure if you were around these forums when Getty pushed a lot of their content onto Istock a few years ago but many of the images were laughable. I think it was called the agency collection, but not sure.

The toilet door with the flash-burn in the center was my favorite :)
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 09:41
.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 09:44
I think you should throw the photo away it's unlikely to make any more than a couple sales in its lifetime (if you're lucky) and only a few pennies at that.   Focus on making more salable images.

It's perfect for Getty then!
Why would it be perfect for Getty?

Not sure if you were around these forums when Getty pushed a lot of their content onto Istock a few years ago but many of the images were laughable. I think it was called the agency collection, but not sure.
The Agency collection didn't have editorial images in it.

Moot point.
Oh and here I was thinking you were trying to be helpful.  I should have known better by now.

From a quality perspective my comments were spot on. I see I hit a nerve with you by speaking ill of your favorite agency. My how the tides change,
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 09:48
.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: JohnItalia on April 22, 2014, 12:30
Right.  She's shooting something, we can't see what.  Basically, it's a shot of the back of someone's head.

That does not make it a non salable photo! Maybe it won't make hundreds of dollars over the next year or so or maybe it will, however, even if it makes $10.00 that's cash in your pocket.
Not just SS but many stock companies employees put their head where the sun don't shine which in turns losses money for both sides. I have a mediocre photo of Stonehenge that was rejected by SS, but picked up by 4 other stock companies including IS, that photo has made over $800 in 2013, go figure!  My opinion is that the photo has potential to be a salable photo!
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 22, 2014, 12:31
Right.  She's shooting something, we can't see what.  Basically, it's a shot of the back of someone's head.

That does not make it a non salable photo! Maybe it won't make hundreds of dollars over the next year or so or maybe it will, however, even if it makes $10.00 that's cash in your pocket.
Not just SS but many stock companies employees put their head where the sun don't shine which in turns losses money for both sides. I have a mediocre photo of Stonehenge that was rejected by SS, but picked up by 4 other stock companies including IS, that photo has made over $800 in 2013, go figure!  My opinion is that the photo has potential to be a salable photo!

Well, technically, every photo is a "saleable photo".  That doesn't mean they want any specific photo cluttering their collection.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: luissantos84 on April 22, 2014, 12:37
Right.  She's shooting something, we can't see what.  Basically, it's a shot of the back of someone's head.

That does not make it a non salable photo! Maybe it won't make hundreds of dollars over the next year or so or maybe it will, however, even if it makes $10.00 that's cash in your pocket.
Not just SS but many stock companies employees put their head where the sun don't shine which in turns losses money for both sides. I have a mediocre photo of Stonehenge that was rejected by SS, but picked up by 4 other stock companies including IS, that photo has made over $800 in 2013, go figure!  My opinion is that the photo has potential to be a salable photo!

Well, technically, every photo is a "saleable photo".  That doesn't mean they want any specific photo cluttering their collection.

its not that bad, guess you are being too harsh, you need to check the collection more often
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: cascoly on April 22, 2014, 13:02
SS often uses bulk reject reasons for 'lighting' - even if it's dramatic or atmospheric

don't spend time worrying about why -- as others have suggested, some small changes to lighten the image will often get it accepted (and it's likely just a different reviewer is all that's needed)
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Goofy on April 22, 2014, 13:35
ok, I am going to toss this out (might be way off) for thought. I've noticed a much higher rejection rate from the weekend (Sat/Sun) reviewers than the Weekday (Mon- Fri) reviewers. Might just be me but food for thought  ???


Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Ron on April 22, 2014, 13:37
ok, I am going to toss this out (might be way off) for thought. I've noticed a much higher rejection rate from the weekend (Sat/Sun) reviewers than the Weekday (Mon- Fri) reviewers. Might just be me but food for thought  ???
Same here and many others on SS as well, its on the SS forum. I am only submitting on weekdays since I found out, and I see a 98% approval rate now.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Goofy on April 22, 2014, 13:59
ok, I am going to toss this out (might be way off) for thought. I've noticed a much higher rejection rate from the weekend (Sat/Sun) reviewers than the Weekday (Mon- Fri) reviewers. Might just be me but food for thought  ???
Same here and many others on SS as well, its on the SS forum. I am only submitting on weekdays since I found out, and I see a 98% approval rate now.

so either they have junior reviewers or software doing the reviewing on weekends?
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Ron on April 22, 2014, 14:10
ok, I am going to toss this out (might be way off) for thought. I've noticed a much higher rejection rate from the weekend (Sat/Sun) reviewers than the Weekday (Mon- Fri) reviewers. Might just be me but food for thought  ???
Same here and many others on SS as well, its on the SS forum. I am only submitting on weekdays since I found out, and I see a 98% approval rate now.

so either they have junior reviewers or software doing the reviewing on weekends?
I dont think SS uses technology to fully replace humans
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: Dr Bouz on April 23, 2014, 13:23
It is rejected due to: Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues and/or incorrect white balance.
What am i not seeing? Help appreciated! ....


 Hi
 What i think that you do not see (because it is not written), is not actually about exposure/wb issues, it is about commercial usability of your photo. I guess their real rejection reason would be "not commercial" - but in my experience, and discussion with reviewer from one of ss competitor agencies is that they actually avoid to put this reason - because it's opening a lot of debate - because ANY image -accepted or rejected - have some similars both - in accepted or rejected images. -and with this rejection reason - it is possible to start (useless) arguing "why this one mine is not commercial and this one.... is and is online..".
 My 2c.
 cheers
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: JPSDK on April 23, 2014, 15:58
thats right.
Title: Re: Rejected at SS
Post by: pyrst on April 24, 2014, 00:03
Hey ho i just wanted some input on the actual rejection so i can use it to enhance the image and re submit. But great to know that the photo is crap as well!  :D

BaldricksTrousers: the people in the background are blurred. I don't have the hang of this how to work editorial. Doesn't the photo need to be news worthy to be editorial? Is there a big difference in exposure/sales between RF and editorial?