pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - lucidology

Pages: [1]
1
Photo Critique / Please critique 'poor lighting' rejection
« on: August 03, 2012, 18:22 »
Hi,
Here are two images I would appreciate help with.

http://imageshack.us/g/9/p1050950copysmall.jpg/

I submitted them as part of my shutterstock application and they were rejected as 'Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.'

I would have been OK if the rejection had been something like, 'fake plastic gold coins are fake' but the lighting on these was something I had actually spent two or three days tweaking to get perfect, shooting many dozens of images to get a setup I liked.

The idea behind these was to use reflections to make the piggy appear shiny and 3D as opposed to the somewhat flat white shape it appears in real life.

These images have been accepted at every other stock site I've sent them to. I am not sure what I am supposed to do differently on these?

Thanks for your help!

2
People have posted anecdotes that they often have had rejections that eventually sold well on other sites, but I haven't seen any specific examples of this.

It would be interesting to see if there's any commonality between them, it seems selective focus is a big killer in that it can both make an image work to call attention to the subject and therefore generate sales but also has the drawback that selective focus images often get automatically rejected by reviewers.

Natural sunlight seems to be something many people say reviewers often dislike and that it needs to be diffused for reviewers to pass it.

If you have an image that got rejected on one site and still made you money elsewhere, please post it to help us see what is going wrong in the reviewers' minds.

Pages: [1]

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors