Quote from: heywoody on January 21, 2013, 10:29

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2013, 17:15

Hmmm, in this case iStock had nothing similar or even on the same subject.

You're right of course, IS just seems to take a position on what they like / don't like even if there are no actual technical issues.  SS's attitude makes more business sense as they recognise that a rare selling not well covered image can be more valuable to them than a high selling common subject matter image.

Why would you put a rare low-selling image on the micros? They are doing you a favour if they reject it - put it somewhere it will make decent money for you, on the rare occasions it sells.

Agree totally, but it was an unexpected wildlife photo (i.e. a surprise showing when I was working on something else nearer), and 400mm too often isn't long enough, so it's too small for most macros, even Alamy.
I'm not convinced that a 600mm, plus hiring a sherpa to carry it, would pay for itself in my case.
In addition, most of the pukka wildlife agencies need hundreds (200 up) unique images to start, and a promise of about the same every month or two. An odd rare photo is of no interest to most (it's not totally unique, but not common).
No matter.

You didn't dare to have a shadow on your pics did you?

he he.
And I just got a couple of focus rejections, that I had not expected.
Thats life. The pictures were not important.

Focus is fixed... now it is poor lighting....

Just had a batch rejected for poor lighting.... oh well

No, it is not !

ONE CLICK on Your (or my) batch and voila, You are rejected because " focus is not located where we feel it works best".
Not WE, but HE/SHE...
 
And yes, two days before a batch of similar (but different) photos was accepted 100 %.

Last bunches of images shoot with shallow DOF were all accepted on SS. It's some time since last ''focus'' rejection.

here is an example ( with lowered IQ)

Nicku, this is not an image.
This is pure art !
With high stock potential.
Excellent, both, art and cute girl.
Bravo.