| Author |
Message |
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 6079
Location: Masterton,Wairarapa, New Zealand
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:47 am
|  |
These were rejected for "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." It would be good if we could see the credentials of those who judge our work.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
234.76 KB |
| Viewed: |
1501 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
127.04 KB |
| Viewed: |
1501 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
170.76 KB |
| Viewed: |
1501 Time(s) |
|
|
|
kellyplz
Joined: 09 Mar 2009
Posts: 17518
Location: Manitoulin Island, Canada.
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:50 am
| |
Yep, it seems it's ridiculous rejection time once again.
|
|
ruxpriencdiam
Joined: 07 May 2009
Posts: 26270
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:10 am
| |
Plus 100 with Kenny on this i must have gotten the same reviewer everything i submitted rejected for "Poor Lighting"?
Also what about their screen they are reviewing on?
Lookout Attila is on the loose again people.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
92.01 KB |
| Viewed: |
1482 Time(s) |
|
|
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2746
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:12 am
| |
Well, that first shot looks overcooked with a halo around the trees, and the second shot looks flat and dark.
With all due respect, I'm not saying my stuff is the greatest, or even better than yours, but I can maybe see where they are coming from on those. Sorry.
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:28 am
| |
I'd second Rob ... and, come on Kenny, a herring gull sitting on half a lamp, what's the value in that? I'm sure you could shoot a hell of a good gull if you wanted to.
PS: The iris looks good to me.
|
|
Mike Price
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 2919
Location: South Wales
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:02 am
| |
| robhainer wrote: | Well, that first shot looks overcooked with a halo around the trees, and the second shot looks flat and dark.
With all due respect, I'm not saying my stuff is the greatest, or even better than yours, but I can maybe see where they are coming from on those. Sorry. |
I agree
Mike
|
|
maxim1110
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 291
Location: Nijmegen, the Netherlands
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:33 am
| |
Sure, we can have different opinions about good lighting, and about what is commercially attractive. I usually think the SS reviewers know best when it comes to that. But I do get angry when my images get rejected for focus, because I can damn well see if an image is sharp or not (and this happened to me multiple times).
|
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39224
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:13 pm
| |
Your pictures aside ken. Im with you, It's ridiculous at best. Im really about ready to stop trying to feed this beast and a beast it has become.fat and Lazy.What for? new images don't sell so why even submit.Also, I agree Theres something very wrong with the review staff or a few reviewers and it's time someone takes control of it.. I know Lot's of Very,Very good Photographers that do amazing work that have stopped uploading completely because of this.For me, Im looking at some new sites coming up that actually need our work.
|
|
semmickphoto
Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6505
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:44 pm
| |
The halos on the HDR are visible in the first shot is all I can say. If it is HDR, halos are typical for fused exposures in HDR.
But I agree that the rejections have been surprising lately, to say the least.
|
|
robhainer
Joined: 03 May 2010
Posts: 2746
Location: Dallas, GA, USA
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 3:51 pm
| |
There are some other sites that are worse. FT will not take a flower photo, period. It's like an automatic rejection. Even one I just uploaded here and has sold six times over a couple of days. At least they will give it a chance here, if it's good enough.
And then another site rejects images because the model's expression looks "forced," and that was on a candid shot, or they might give "lacks production value." Like I'm going to rent a full size studio and hire models for 25 cents a pop. All on images that were accepted here and sell well.
Does the expression in this photo looked "forced"?
|
|
vanhart
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 2380
Location: Houston
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 5:19 pm
| |
| Mike Price wrote: | | robhainer wrote: | Well, that first shot looks overcooked with a halo around the trees, and the second shot looks flat and dark.
With all due respect, I'm not saying my stuff is the greatest, or even better than yours, but I can maybe see where they are coming from on those. Sorry. |
I agree
Mike |
I thought to write a similar comment as the above. I saw the halo over the trees and then the second shot as a bit dull. I would only have disagreed with the fish rejection.
|
|
kenny123
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 6079
Location: Masterton,Wairarapa, New Zealand
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 5:35 pm
| |
| semmickphoto wrote: | The halos on the HDR are visible in the first shot is all I can say. If it is HDR, halos are typical for fused exposures in HDR.
But I agree that the rejections have been surprising lately, to say the least. |
not hdr-just a single shot jpeg
|
|
gtranquillity
Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 747
|
|
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 5:40 pm
| |
| robhainer wrote: | | There are some other sites that are worse. FT will not take a flower photo, period. It's like an automatic rejection. Even one I just uploaded here and has sold six times over a couple of days. At least they will give it a chance here, if it's good enough. |
Are you sure it's FT?
I have been submitting quite a few over the past few weeks and they all were accepted.
| Quote: | | Does the expression in this photo looked "forced"? |
No, not at all.
|
|
PaulCowan
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 4181
Location: Evolving
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 2:52 am
| |
| kenny123 wrote: | | semmickphoto wrote: | The halos on the HDR are visible in the first shot is all I can say. If it is HDR, halos are typical for fused exposures in HDR.
But I agree that the rejections have been surprising lately, to say the least. |
not hdr-just a single shot jpeg |
Well, however you've done it you have created huge and obvious haloes around the trees. The saturation is surreal and maybe the reviewer didn't like that. too, though I know some people do.
|
|
mandy
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 2349
|
|
Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 3:54 am
| |
| gtranquillity wrote: | | robhainer wrote: | | There are some other sites that are worse. FT will not take a flower photo, period. It's like an automatic rejection. Even one I just uploaded here and has sold six times over a couple of days. At least they will give it a chance here, if it's good enough. |
Are you sure it's FT?
I have been submitting quite a few over the past few weeks and they all were accepted.
|
Ageed. I just uploaded my first flower shop to FT and it was accepted.
|
|
| |
|
Log in
