In my opinion I would assume those would be very good stock simply because of all the concerns with global warming. You don't really see alot of those energy source windmills. Don't quite understand where they were coming from on that one.

Yes, I'll give you that it may be 'stockworthy', but this looks like a snapshot to me - like you were driving along the highway, saw the turbines, stopped the car, and made a few camera clicks. Looking at it even closer leads me to think that because the turbines aren't all facing the same direction, some of them aren't working - not exactly ideal conditions, don't you think? The minimal effort put into this image is easily apparent, and given the number of almost identical images to this available, as a reviewer I'd have rejected it. Sorry to be so harshly critical, but in my eyes you don't have a leg to stand on by complaining that images like this are rejected. If you want to increase your income, you'll need to put in more effort than you've shown here.

Yes, I'll give you that it may be 'stockworthy', but this looks like a snapshot to me - like you were driving along the highway, saw the turbines, stopped the car, and made a few camera clicks. Looking at it even closer leads me to think that because the turbines aren't all facing the same direction, some of them aren't working - not exactly ideal conditions, don't you think? The minimal effort put into this image is easily apparent, and given the number of almost identical images to this available, as a reviewer I'd have rejected it. Sorry to be so harshly critical, but in my eyes you don't have a leg to stand on by complaining that images like this are rejected. If you want to increase your income, you'll need to put in more effort than you've shown here.

You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?

What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

You want to say that IS, SS and DT accept snapshots?

Yes, I'd say most agencies accept (what I would call) snapshots.
As you well know, just because they're accepted doesn't mean they'll sell, and selling is the name of the game. I know you'll probably come back with something like "I've already made $10 with this", but I'll be surprised if this image earns much more. Count yourself lucky if it does.

Quote from: Whitechild on March 01, 2010, 13:00

It is already most popular image in my port, even tho its uploaded seveal days ago.

You should really remove your portfolio links before making a statement like that  

Quote from: Whitechild on March 01, 2010, 13:00

It's of course accepted at IS, DT and all other sites I work with. And I am sure no one can say this is not stock worthy image.

I'd say it has an editorial stock worthiness but agree with sharply_done it has the appearance of a roadside grabshot which is fine for editorial,did you take any others from different perspectives/angles?
To be totally honest I'm surprised you had it accepted at iS and SS as RF without a property release DT however I'm not surprised about.

Ok, today it's second popular after dinosaur footprint (which was also rejected by FT , and accepted by IS, SS...

There is another ugly image that Ft rejected

Quote from: Whitechild on March 01, 2010, 15:45

What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

They should have also added that birds shot in captivity require a property release.

Just having a rare subject does not qualify an image as being a good stock image, it's shot sitting on it's perch in a cage using what looks like an on camera flash.

My God...Who said it was in cage? It was outside, in the garden, totally free.

You should have captured it.  I hear they're endangered, and likely very valuable!

lol
No, I adore birds.
I raised few crows, one eagle, one awl, one dove and few sparrows when I was a kid, but I let them fly away when they grew enough.

My God...Who said it was in cage? It was outside, in the garden, totally free.

Nobody said it was in a cage, but your shot certainly suggest that it is, there's no wildlife environment included in the shot and these birds are not known for their patience while a photographer walks around taking shots using a flash. If this was shot in the wild why did you use such a harsh flash setting?

Quote from: Whitechild on March 01, 2010, 15:45

What about this image. This species of hummingbird is endangered.
It was rejected for: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality."

Yes, I'd agree with that reviewer's sentiment, too.

The shot of the bird itself is fine, but the image as a whole needs work. If it was me I'd crop and rotate the image so that the bird was vertical with his beak pointing to the top left - this would give him a reason to be placed where he is. Next I'd get rid of the other branches and clone out the distracting spots on the remaining branch. As a finishing touch I'd make the sky light blue and use levels to make the branch a dark green, which would give the image a nicely strong graphical element. Here's what two minutes in Photoshop can do:

Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.

Quote from: Whitechild on March 01, 2010, 16:23

Nice work, but I think it's just a matter of taste. Someone could do it another way. I didn't want to touch-up sky, because it was cloudy, and IS sometimes doesn't like this kind of manipulating.

That is where you are wrong - it's not simply a matter of taste, it's a matter of understanding the commercial photography marketplace, and what differentiates a commercial image from a snapshot. Had we been there together and made this same shot, I can say with confidence that my (more commercial) version would outsell yours by a wide margin.

I'm not sure IS would accept the image with so green branch. It looks oversaturated, you must admit it