Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

kenny123 · Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:18 am

After 7 years,I have decided it's a waste of time uploading here-the following shots were made within minutes of each other in exactly the same lighting,yet the first got approved,the other two were rejected for:

"Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."

patrickpoendl · Joined: 12 Jun 2009 Posts: 87 Location: Mainz, Germany

Sorry, but I think the reviewers were exactly right here. The last two are underexposed.

kenny123 · Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:24 am

hansenn · Joined: 10 Feb 2009 Posts: 818 Location: netherlands

exposure may be right.
But the last two were shot with the sun in (the left) front of the lens. Not much, but enough to get those harsh lights and shadows instead of more saturated colors in the first shot

peterwey · Joined: 24 Mar 2007 Posts: 839 Location: www.peterwey.com

hi kenny
imho i have to agree with the reviewers. the last two seem to have a wierd lighting, specially the last one. looks too dark an too contrasty on my screen...
sorry :-)
7 years is a long time here
pete

ajancso · Joined: 18 May 2009 Posts: 1891 Location: Right Behind You

I don't have an issue with the second one, but I agree with the guys about the third shot - harsh light.

libyphoto · Joined: 08 Jun 2009 Posts: 796 Location: Oz

Kenny,
I find that most shots not accepted by SS are accepted at other agencies... and sell!

matthi · Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Posts: 485

hansenn · Joined: 10 Feb 2009 Posts: 818 Location: netherlands

at least one got approved. My last batch of 25 all got rejected.
On another site (also a respectable one like ss) 24 of them were approved.

My advice: forget your rejections and keep shooting.

rinder99 · Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:58 pm

I feel the pain man. I had 2 rejected awhile back for lighting also. I resubmitted and both accepted to both getting a EL each. I made 56 dollars and SS made $146.00 neither of us would have made that money if I believed some reviewer.Almost cost me money and SS.That said....

Your first Image is perfect as per subject, Your second is just OK and should have gone through and third is way off,color,detail,And overly Contrasty and lighting. Sorry Brother, Just my opinion since you posted.kenny....You do have a heavy hand at processing at times.Stay cool.

tbarrat · Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 28 Location: Chicago, IL

SS does not appreciate shadows, so image #2 has one. My encouragement is not to quit, but to accept the SS position, and don't upload images with shadows to them. Others will take them. Other stock sites don't want cropped images, so I have stopped uploading close images there.

No big deal, just adapt to the company's sweet spot, and make your money that way without any drama.

Good luck.

kenny123 · Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:56 pm

kellyplz · Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:03 pm

PaulCowan · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 4181 Location: Evolving

All of us need to keep developing our understanding of what the requirements are. If we reach the point where we believe our work is perfect, the inspectors are wrong and it's not worth doing it any longer because of their frequent rejection mistakes, then maybe the final conclusion is right. SS isn't going to alter its standards to suit us so if we refuse to accept that there is any need for us to change then giving up might be the best answer.

For what it's worth, the third one needed fill flash if it was worth taking at all. The contrast difference between Easter Island (which looks natural) and the latest shots is instructive.

martyhaas · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 148

The second one DOES have a strong shadow in it. Look at the tree's reflection in the water and you can see a sharp line going across it from left to right. The rectangular shadow consumes the bottom 1/5 of the photo or so. It's most noticeable in the tree's reflection but it goes almost to the right edge of the photo. It almost looks as though there was a building casting a shadow.