PHOTO underexposed model

I'm including my entire rejection email below, what I'm interested in receiving some critique help on is the underexposure not so much the shoot description - My meaningless description was what I named the project in my Digital Asset Management folder - sigh. I've now fixed my description and included a generic description of the sets I did with this model, so it should *fingers crossed* be good.


That being said, I'm confused by the underexposure problem, as I've bumped it in Photoshop and nothing in my histograms is screaming underexposure. Guess I could pop the whites of her eyes up? Help! Thanks!


-Jon


Link to rejected file:


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/82259680/IMG_3832%20-%20Version%202%20PS%20Watermarked.jpg


Email:


We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Nicole (https://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/22590946/2/stock-photo-22590946-nicole.jpg) for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:

++ Please provide a meaningful shoot description. 

Your model release does not comply with the new standards. Images shot after the 1st of September 2009 must comply with the new guidelines. Please see the following article for more information.http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648, find additional helpful FAQ list herehttp://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=114791&page=1 
Thank you for your understanding.

++ In review of this file, we found the lighting underexposed. For information about iStock lighting standards please see: 
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=524

For more information on iStock Lighting Standards, please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.2_lighting.php

Related Articles: 
Lighting and Shadows:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=46
Setting up your own home studio:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=14  
Custom White Balance:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=95

Decent Exposure:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=40

If you require further explanation regarding this rejection, please visit our critique forum for immediate peer to peer feedback.  To visit the critique forum please see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_threads.php?forumid=26

Judge it by stock photography standards where things have to be bright and bouncy. Levels slider down to about 210.

Yes, what Lucetius^^^  said - and, with respect, the histogram for this image does show a significant gap on the right hand side.. 


Also small blue dot on edge of model's right eye.


REGARDS

Yes it's underexposed. Should look about like the upper left of this IMO.





As kbwills says there's quite a gap on the right of the histogram. Watch out for noise in the OOF areas if you brighten it up.

Appreciate the comments! Thanks for your help everyone! 

you have to be more specific in Shoot Description field of MR. iStock is trying to protect you and model from potential misunderstanding, specifically when model is lightly dressed, not dressed at all, or captured in some suggestive pose (your case). Images like yours usually end up in advertising for escort services, phone sex, etc.