| Author |
Message |
niserin
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Poland
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 5:50 am
|  |
I have been with SS for about 6 years, have almost 100000 sales and now I see my pictures rejected for:
Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.
Composition--Limited commercial value due to framing, cropping, and/or composition.
Do you really see the problems in these pictures: ?
 |
|
tverkhovynets
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 749
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:09 am
| |
Maybe they are too picky now. They might not like dark areas in the bottom of the first image and also too much chopped bottom parts of tulips on both (it's hard to tell what is the best way to chop them, maybe they want ground to be included). Also on the second image orange tulips are a bit hot on my monitor. Just my thought.
Taras |
|
niserin
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Poland
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:37 am
| |
| tverkhovynets wrote: | Maybe they are too picky now. They might not like dark areas in the bottom of the first image and also too much chopped bottom parts of tulips on both (it's hard to tell what is the best way to chop them, maybe they want ground to be included). Also on the second image orange tulips are a bit hot on my monitor. Just my thought.
Taras |
Great and constructive advice! Thank you my neighbour ;) |
|
digigandalf
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 5417
Location: Twinsburg, OH
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:40 am
| |
Perhaps a touch underexposed, although not really more than some approved ones in your port. Maybe the reviewer has a bad monitor?
I've been getting weird rejects lately too, and it seems others have as well. |
|
tverkhovynets
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 749
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:42 am
| |
| digigandalf wrote: | Perhaps a touch underexposed, although not really more than some approved ones in your port. Maybe the reviewer has a bad monitor?
I've been getting weird rejects lately too, and it seems others have as well. |
Agree |
|
colinbrothwood
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 11
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:45 am
| |
I and am not sure this is a reason for rejection but the flowers do look past their best. |
|
niserin
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Poland
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 7:47 am
| |
| digigandalf wrote: | Perhaps a touch underexposed, although not really more than some approved ones in your port. Maybe the reviewer has a bad monitor?
I've been getting weird rejects lately too, and it seems others have as well. |
Yeah, it is often the case of differences between monitors. Well I think if I exposed these pictures more, some areas would be too burned. |
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2749
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 8:40 am
| |
They are much stricter on images with flowers in them. I can only get in extreme macros or arrangement isolations. Images that are similar to what they have, and there are probably ones that this is similar to, probably won't get approved. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39244
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:41 am
| |
Hey Michal, I would have approved them. Nice port, Lots of variety.Sure we can nitpick But for 38 cents, Kinda silly rejection. |
|
niserin
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Poland
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 10:07 am
| |
| rinder99 wrote: | | Hey Michal, I would have approved them. Nice port, Lots of variety.Sure we can nitpick But for 38 cents, Kinda silly rejection. |
Thanks Rinder !
I will definitely resend them. They are sharp, 21 megapixels, they cost me some work.
A proper note to the reviewer should do. |
|
scheriton
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 735
Location: London, UK
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:02 am
| |
My two cents worth would be - the backgrounds in both are quite dark and busy, and to my mind distract from the nice vibrant flowers.
To make the most of the small picture size that buyers would see when cruising the site, you want the flowers to be BAM! in your face.
Could you make the backgrounds a bit lighter and paler in colour, and maybe blur / bokeh a bit more? |
|
niserin
Joined: 11 May 2006
Posts: 295
Location: Poland
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:51 am
| |
| scheriton wrote: | My two cents worth would be - the backgrounds in both are quite dark and busy, and to my mind distract from the nice vibrant flowers.
To make the most of the small picture size that buyers would see when cruising the site, you want the flowers to be BAM! in your face.
Could you make the backgrounds a bit lighter and paler in colour, and maybe blur / bokeh a bit more? |
It is exctatly what I was now going to do ;).
Thanks! |
|
| |
|
Log in
