Author Topic: shutterstock rejection (Read 6567 times)

mtkang · « **on:** May 27, 2011, 06:19 »

Hi, i got a rejection from shutterstock of this image.
Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.

I used surrounding light for this image, i wonder is there a way i can improve this image by post processing to make it accepted by shutterstock?

I am quite clueless sometimes about the rejection reason, do i need to pump up more light? or the white balance is incorrect?

thank you.

[

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2011, 09:58 »

They don't like shadows.

You should try to get a single, softer shadow from the ball instead of two hard shadows.
Also, the dark hole on top is probably too dark.

Karimala · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2011, 11:42 »

Also use reflectors on both sides of the ball.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2011, 11:54 »

seriously?? send it next month

Carl · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2011, 13:13 »

The lighting does seem to be quite harsh. Try using much more diffuse light sources, and perhaps tone the saturation down a bit. Also, take a good look at the image at 100% and make sure the focus on the ball is razor-sharp. The inspectors at SS look are understandably strict on focus.

borg · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2011, 03:47 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 27, 2011, 11:54

seriously?? send it next month

Don't! I get warning!

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2011, 04:13 »

The green baize doesn't look the right color to me. You could adjust the color balance with the raw file but then they might reject it for focus. They don't seem to like the background being out of focus for some reason that I can't understand. The reviews seemed fairer lately but I had a really good photo rejected yesterday that surprised me. I usually forget about rejections, other sites can make money from their mistakes.

mtkang · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2011, 07:30 »

thanks for all suggestions, i took it in raw files so i tried to adjust the white balance and will try to submit again.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2011, 11:24 »

Quote from: borg on May 28, 2011, 03:47

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 27, 2011, 11:54
seriously?? send it next month

Don't! I get warning!

really? never had one! I do it rarely but when I feel a picture is worth I open it change minor and resubmit

borg · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2011, 17:14 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 28, 2011, 11:24

Quote from: borg on May 28, 2011, 03:47
Quote from: luissantos84 on May 27, 2011, 11:54
seriously?? send it next month

Don't! I get warning!

really? never had one! I do it rarely but when I feel a picture is worth I open it change minor and resubmit

Yep!

I was answered to support that reasons of my re-submitting was approved status on BigStock and sometimes when I think that I am able to fix errors, nothing more...

mtkang · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2011, 08:10 »

You are right...I just adjusted the white balance from the raw files, now i got a new rejection..Focus--Your image is not in focus or focus is not located where we feel it works best.

does it mean the focus is too shallow?

Quote from: sharpshot on May 28, 2011, 04:13

The green baize doesn't look the right color to me. You could adjust the color balance with the raw file but then they might reject it for focus. They don't seem to like the background being out of focus for some reason that I can't understand. The reviews seemed fairer lately but I had a really good photo rejected yesterday that surprised me. I usually forget about rejections, other sites can make money from their mistakes.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: shutterstock rejection (Read 6567 times)

mtkang

microstockphoto.co.uk

Karimala

luissantos84

Carl

borg

sharpshot

mtkang

luissantos84

borg

mtkang

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors