photo rejected at Shutterstock

[kevin99989]

Hi !
I just had a photo (out of a few) rejected at shutterstock. This is it. The reason was "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect.". This image has some dark spots that naturally occur in the image - i'm wondering which specific spots in the image they are referring to (the uneven or dark shadows)??

Thanks for your help!

[Iguanasan]

A more important question is are you making any money off of your work at Shutterstock??

I really like the shot and I can see the appeal of cutting off the left hand side so all you have is waterfall and rocks and moss. The dark "strip" down the left hand side doesn't add a lot to the image. It's inclusion does create "uneven lighting" I think. I'm on my work computer so I can't really tell you about any white balance issues but I bet if you lopped off that dark strip on the left they'd be fine with it.

[kevin99989]

Yup agreed.

I thought they could have been talking about the dark shadows behind the rocks on the upper part of the image above the waterfall, but i quite like those the way they are. I will remove that strip of black and resubmit. Thanks for your input!

This submission was for part of my application to join Shutterstock - so i don't know yet. I heard they had a good income potential... Didn't make it. So I'll have to re-try in 30 days...

[Marko]

As far as my knowledge goes lately and some pros I've been speaking to...keep your expectations VERY VERY VERY low with stock. Especially if you are just starting out.

(Sorry to be a killjoy but digital has killed the stock photography market for almost all pro photographers)

It's fab for consumers though because you can buy great images that used to cost loads...for peanuts.

[Mad Aussie]

They are idiots. Yes, you could dodge the dark parts of the rocks up on the cliff face, but don't they know photography is subjective? Actually, they probably don't.

They did pick the white balance correctly, your water is too blue, but it's not grossly out.

[kevin99989]

Thanks Marko - I've actually been on CanStock for the past year with about 25 photos in my portfolio and made about $1.50.
My intent was to bring up my portfolio to about 100 or so (which i have with CanStock recently) in a few agencies, and just move on to other things - kind of a "set it and forget it" philosophy. Shouldn't take too long, and maybe I'll get $20 a year!!

MA - Shutterstock seems to be very specific on what they want (don't know what it is yet), but they have their own idea on what sells and what doesn't. They say that you need cater to every agency's tastes. But I'm not so sure - i'll just throw a whole bunch of photos in and see what gets accepted.

But i value all of your opinions on the technical and compositional aspects and what makes a good image. That's why i post here