True wisdom comes from listening and then asking yourself the questions to see then how you answer them!

Look at the Shaolin and Buddhist Monks.

Hi Scott, thanks for chiming in. Just wondering, how can it be inconsistent light in the sky, if its in the image I shot? I didnt photoshop it to become inconsistent light, its just there. The skyline and the city centre behind the skyline has a lot more light pollution than the part to the right in the image, where the light dims, because its just housing in the dark and the M1 going out of the city. Furthermore, its a panorama of Dublin city, showing the docklands and the skyline at the quays, it is what it is,. Its shot from an apartment block on the 5th floor, it gives a look of the city of Dublin you normally dont see.  You want me to photograph Dublin and photoshop it into a different city?  But I emailed Shutterstock and they gave me an admin note to resubmit. Inconsistent? I am confused now.

Hi Ron,

Thanks.  Makes total sense.  Putting aside the technical and aesthetic considerations for a moment, I think the right thing to do is to look at the image from the customer's perspective (or the customer value perspective). 

If it's a commercial image, what context would it be used in?  If it was used in a travel context, then the customer is going to be looking for something aspirational and exciting and possibly a clearly distinguished and identifiable sense of place.  For those uses, saturated color can add excitement to the image.  Many contributors will shoot timelapse-style images of cityscapes with slow shutter speeds to add visual excitement and a sense of bustling, city motion.  Travel buyers want something that looks exciting and dynamic.

If it's a documentary image used in an educational or newsworthy context, then the customer is probably looking for something a little more realistic, but again - with a strong sense of something unique and identifiable about the location.  I.e., the architecture, the city layout.  Unfortunately, color casts in digital images aren't always realistic as you would see them with the naked eye - they're sometimes an artifact of a camera's inability to capture different color temperatures from different light sources accurately in a simultaneous way, or simply a matter of the image being set to the wrong white balance.   

If the image was to be used in a decorative or artistic context, then the image could be all about the graphic elements.  Strong lines, impossible perspectives (i.e., shooting from the top of the Brooklyn Bridge looking down, etc...). 

I think the skyline is definitely worthy subject matter with commercial and editorial value, but I think you'd have a more successful image commercially (or editorially) if you were down on the street shooting detail of the unique architecture OR up very high focusing on compositional elements that may be unique to the city - grid layouts of streets, for example, or just the opposite - random layouts in European cities.   The perspective of this image splits the difference.

Again - just my 2c based on what customers respond well to.  The image was rejected for white balance - I'm just putting myself in the shoes of the reviewer who made that determination. 

In terms of resubmission and acceptances, it's important to keep in mind that some images are neither perfect nor imperfect (and therefore, not images that are subject to black-and-white reviews), but fall in-between.  It's important to think about the ROI on your time, but your goal shouldn't be to focus on the acceptance - your goal should be to focus on creating images that have the highest commercial and editorial value from the customer's perspective.  If the white balance looks like a flaw, then the customer is going to pick the next image.

We can look at two images on the site shot with the same exact subject matter, the same exact equipment, similar models, etc..., and -- given the same opportunity -- one image will get thousands of downloads and the other image will get less than 100.   It's all about paying attention to these kinds of details: styling, composition, room for text, color. 

Even if you ask for reconsideration and a reviewer decides that they can be more forgiving of a perceived flaw, our ultimate goal isn't to just get you accepted - it's to teach you how to maximize your earnings and get the most sales.   There's always more for us to do in that regard.

Best,

Scott`

Usually I don't have many rejections on SS. Of course some files are rejected but hey no complaint that's part of the game.
Inspectors are humans and they do make mistakes (except Lobo) but recently got a nice surprise, mail from SS Contributor Success Representative and I didn't ask for a second review:



"Thank you for your latest submission.

Please resubmit the images from batch xxxxxxxxx. The images in question were incorrectly reviewed and they should not have been rejected.

For your next submission, add the following Note To Review "ATTN REVIEWER: See an Admin about this batch (re:case #xxxxxxxx)"



It's called professional and respectful way of doing business!

GOOD JOB Shutterstock

^^ so why didn't they just accept them rather than making you resubmit?

....

Quote from: ShadySue on November 27, 2013, 19:31

^^ so why didn't they just accept them rather than making you resubmit?

rejected files at SS are deleted after a week or so, you do need to resubmit, no other way I guess

Ah, they don't keep them in a File of Shame for all eternity. 

Three more rejected for WB.  Three studio object shots with white backgrounds.  Reviewed in less than 24 hours.  I think someone is trying to make some money for Christmas shopping.

In all my life, I've never seen any evening around here that looks remotely like 'Blue Hour' photos - must be a lot of Photoshopping going on!

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/little-reindeer-christmas-card-edward-fielding.html

If there is a wb problem on this, I certainly don't see it.

I would think (hope) that agencies monitor their reviewers statistics and would be able to catch lazy reviewers based on a high rate of reviewing and amount of rejections.  No doubt for a lazy reviewer it is safer to reject than accept. 

Quote from: scottbraut on November 27, 2013, 18:35

[�]

Unfortunately, color casts in digital images aren't always realistic as you would see them with the naked eye - they're sometimes an artifact of a camera's inability to capture different color temperatures from different light sources accurately in a simultaneous way, or simply a matter of the image being set to the wrong white balance.   

Realistic?
What means realistic?
It is not very objective �realistic�

Who says that all lights must give a white color?
Realistically they are not the same color, so it is normal that they appear different colors.
Personally if I look out of the window at night, with my eyes, I see lights of many different colors: yellow tungsten lights, green, blue and pink neons, yellow/red sodium vapor lamps, cyan/green mercury lamps, etc.
This is realistic for my eyes.

In the Ron's photo most of the lights seems to be tungsten or sodium vapor lamps, so the general yellow cast is normal. And it is realistic, it is like this.

Then if some customer needs a realistic view of the docks of Dublin this image will give him something as close as possible to the reality.

If you want less yellow cast you can do it pushing the white balance to the blue.
Maybe it will be more pleasant for the eyes, but it will simply not correspond to the reality and will completely change the mood of the place.

Quote from: ShadySue on November 27, 2013, 20:15

Ah, they don't keep them in a File of Shame for all eternity. 

lol
+1

Yeah, that line didn't sound right to me either. The problem is the camera does capture the color of the different lights correctly and the eye doesn't. So we usually try to tweak things to make it look like you think it looks when you see it with your eyes. This is what we all expect and most of the reason why there is a WB setting in the first place.

While I don't always agree with the rejections or the reasons for them, it is interesting and useful to get more insight into what they are looking for and what they think will sell.

Quote from: topol on November 28, 2013, 07:43

Scenery like that should be shot in the blue hour. That should ba basic knowledge if you are involved in photography for more than 15 minutes. If you do that, you just have to set WB so the sky is a rich purplish blue, and it's gonna be all ok.

I would like to dispute your perspective (which IMO sounds like the sort of thing people might say at a camera club TBH).

Not in any camera club judging I've ever been at, presumably because it doesn't exist here.

I've heard it a lot, I've even seen some allegedly 'blue hour' photos from Glasgow; but the only way I can get that sort of effect is by intensive manipulation. I have never seen it and I've never heard it mentioned around here. In fact, I specifically looked for it in both Memphis and San Diego, because I'd only heard about it from the US, but didn't see it there either (bad luck with sky conditions, probably).

A bit like 'sunny f16'. For years I wondered why no camera that I ever had or borrowed exposed properly with the sunny f16 and its equivalents, then I discovered that it was a rule made near New York, on a similar latitude to Madrid. We don't have the same intensity of light. In Baja I discovered that on a heavy overcast morning, the quantity of light was much more (totally different camera readings) than on a similar morning here, even if the quality / end result wasn't any different/better.