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

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.

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.

Quote from: disorderly on April 22, 2014, 04:00
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?

Quote from: pyrst on April 22, 2014, 04:37

Quote from: disorderly on April 22, 2014, 04:00
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.

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

Quote from: pixsol on April 22, 2014, 06:43
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

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

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?)

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.

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.

.

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:24
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!

.

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.

Right.  She's shooting something, we can't see what.  Basically, it's a shot of the back of someone's head.

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:29

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 15:28

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:24
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.

.

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:33

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 15:32

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:29

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 15:28

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:24
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.

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 15:32
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

.

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:41

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 15:35

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:33

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 15:32

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:29

Quote from: Mantis on April 22, 2014, 15:28

Quote from: tickstock on April 22, 2014, 15:24
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,

.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 22, 2014, 15:31
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!

Quote from: JohnItalia on April 22, 2014, 18:30

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 22, 2014, 15:31
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.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 22, 2014, 18:31

Quote from: JohnItalia on April 22, 2014, 18:30

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 22, 2014, 15:31
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.

its not that bad, guess you are being too harsh, you need to check the collection more often