Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

italia · Joined: 03 Nov 2009 Posts: 2

I was just accepted by SS. Seven of my first 10 images were accepted, however I am mystified (but hardly crushed) by why the three images were rejected.

Two of them were labelled, "Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."

Attached is one of the two images. I suppose someone could say the lighting is uneven because the sunlight is dappled across the trees surrounding the waterfall... but isn't that what makes it an above-average image of a common subject (waterfalls)???

I have another image (not posted here) which was also rejected for uneven lighting. It is an image of golden sunlight reflecting off the ocean. Of course it is going to have uneven lighting. Isn't even lighting generally considered, 'boring'???

If any of you can shed some light (hahaha) on what the hell SS means by, 'uneven lighting', or if you've had images rejected for this reason which also mystified you, I'd love to hear about it.

Is there any way to 'appeal' a rejection decision? I could understand if the image was rejected for being too 'common' or SS already has enough waterfall images, but rejection for 'poor/uneven lighting' makes no sense at all to me in the context of the below image.

Thanks in advance for any advice any of you can offer!

bred · Joined: 13 Jan 2008 Posts: 1136 Location: Scotland

Underexposed.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:22 am

You should post this in the Critique Forum. Also you need to post it in the correct way including a 100% crop. Here is an article on how to do that:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/109/article1.html

Additionally the rejection you received is a multi part notice that covers several areas. The rejection could be due to any one or combination of the reasons given.

Just from looking at this one I would say that it was for the poor and uneven lighting. The colors in the image are on the dull side and there is limited detail in the shadows. This was probably caused by the metering of the image and the sky causing the meter to think the image was overall brighter than it actually was.

I can't tell for sure but I would also say that if we saw a crop of the trees the image would also have focus issues.

Is there a reason you shot this at f22? There is no need to use this small of an aperture for a shot like this unless you are trying to purposely use a slower shutter speed to try and blur the water.

italia · Joined: 03 Nov 2009 Posts: 2

thank you for the replies, critique and advice.

yes, I did shoot at f22 to blur the water and also for a deep depth of field. Perhaps f16 would have been a better choice.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:49 am

franckreporter · Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Posts: 71 Location: Italia

ss prefer equilibrated photo and sharpened photo

antoine2000 · Joined: 17 Sep 2009 Posts: 37

increase exposure +1 and increase luminance

mauijon · Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 2079 Location: Maui, Hawaii

Now all the whites are blown out. Try using the shadow/highlight to open the shadows and the dodge controls on the waterfalls to make the water white instead of gray, but with some detail, as shown.

sak12344 · Joined: 08 Jun 2009 Posts: 29

For what it's worth, I've received the "uneven lighting" rejection on images that were lighted with two power light 1500's, plus umbrellas, where both strobes were metered prior to shooting at the exact same f/stop. The lighting doesn't get any more "even" than that. :) I accept the rejection and just move on with making more new images. *shrug*

rinder99 · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:57 am

It was underexposed. Simple as that.Sometimes ya have to use your eyes along with a meter. we've all been there.

pharm · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 6139 Location: Contemplating

ccaetano · Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 6:36 pm

It is underexposed and lacks contrast and color intensity. If you check the histogram, you'll see that it is more on the left side (no details in the deep shadows).

Adjust levels and saturate selective colors.
Here is my version, if you don't mind.

studio544 · Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 18

Apart from poor lighting i see some purple fringing on the clouds edge. It also looks lifeless.

nirdesha · Joined: 14 Jul 2006 Posts: 604