Posted Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:09AM
This image was rejected quoting the standard lighting reasons.
We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission, entitled Green seeds of a garden plant (https://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/23537911/2/stock-photo-23537911-green-seeds-of-a-garden-plant.jpg) for addition to the iStockphoto library for the following reasons:
We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved. Some of the technical aspects that can all limit the usefulness of a file are:
-Direct on-camera flash and/or flash fall-off (bright subject, dark background)
-Harsh lighting with blown-out highlights that lack details and/or distracting shadows
- Distracting lens flares
-Incorrect white balance
I am a new contributor, still learning. I always keenly follow all the postings in this forum and try to understand the standards required for iStock. Before submitting an image I used to check the image I or 2 times at 100% to ensure the image is OK.
While submitting the above image, I could not find any issues and was sure the image would pass the inspection. The rejection with no submission was a total surprise to me. Is this image not salvageable in any way? Would a scout help in this case?
May be I still have to learn a lot on the lighting standards. I request your valuable comments/suggestions on this.
And I am not upset with this rejection. Actually this rejection gave me a reason to write to this forum.
(Edited on 2013-03-27 09:31:06 by natbits)
(Edited on 2013-03-27 12:57:23 by donald_gruener)
Posted Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:31PM
The file looks artifficial for me as if you blurred the background in PS or composed two photographs.
Posted Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:56PM
I can only get to a file which is 1359 x 2048 on your flickr page. We need to see the full size file to comment fully, especially as to the "cannot resubmit" aspect which may be due to some quality issue we can't see at this reduced size.
From this size, we can see that the white balance is off on the cool end. We can comment further when we've seen the 100% file - thanks!
Posted Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:09PM
/I uploaded the original size to Flicker, but they seem to downsize it.
Here is the link to the dropbox account I opened. Hope this would work
Clicking on the link seems to go to a smaller size image, but the download opton at the top right of the page would get the original size, which is 5126x3401.
(Edited on 2013-03-27 22:58:48 by natbits)
(Edited on 2013-03-27 23:00:36 by natbits)
Posted Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:41PM
Thanks for uploading the the full size version. I think the free accounts on Flickr don't permit the "original" size option.
First of all, this isn't terrible lighting so don't feel too badly.
The lighting on the subject is pretty uneven...much of those upper two pods are sunk into shadow. Combined with the incorrect white balance, my take is that the Inspector has correctly applied iStock's standards in rejecting this.
The Cannot Resubmit would be because either the Inspector didn't see it as fixable, or didn't see it as worth attempting to fix.
You can indeed appeal to Scout, who probably won't overturn the rejection outright, but may grant you a Resubmit if you can make your case for how you can fix it.
Posted Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:49AM
Thanks, Donald. Your assessment that this is not a horrible photo really boosted my confidence.
Now I see your point. The upper pods being the prominent ones should have better lighting on them. I would try to correct that in PS (I am not that much an expert in PS to do localized corrections) and if successful would go for Scout.
When I submitted the file, I concentrated on what I learned from this forum, such as no blown out highlights, no CA, some details in shadow, etc. When I got the rejection, I thought the rejection is not due to lighting, but may be due to issues like too much neutral space or no stock photo concept.
In this image I tried to follow the rule of thirds that resulted in the space on the left side. The concept I thought was this image with green pods and a new shoot would be suitable for any product made out of natural ingredients. As guidance for future submissions, do you think the neutral space is too much that it needs to be cropped out, and would such concepts work in stock photos?
(Edited on 2013-03-29 05:50:50 by natbits)
Posted Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:40AM
do you think the neutral space is too much that it needs to be cropped out
Not at all. Designers LOVE to have space like this. This site is full of photos deliberately composed with copy space. We only reject for "negative space" when it's pure white (or black) pixels with no actual image content.
The concept I thought was this image with green pods and a new shoot would be suitable for any product made out of natural ingredients. ... would such concepts work in stock photos?
The reasoning is sound. Speaking as a designer/buyer myself...in this particular case, the plant is so distinctive and unusual that I would probably pass by this by in favor of something a little less eye-catching - I wouldn't want my viewers to spend even half a second wondering about the significance of the unusual plant. That's generally speaking. That's not to say someone at some point wouldn't find extra value in how distinctive those pods are and base their ad copy on it somehow.
But in general, yes, providing relatively smooth, clean, naturally-occuring copy space in an image is never a bad approach. If you look through some other contributors' portfolios, you will see plenty of this. Every submission doesn't need to have this, but when you encounter opportunities to create such images, by all means go for it.
Posted Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:14AM
Thanks Donald, very clear and encouraging!!!!