over exposure, editorial only

over exposure, editorial only

did editorial. as for overexposure, personally don't think so and so did four other microstock agencies which accepted the batch. but thanks for your feedback though.

Six times???  I admire your persistence.   But I have to ask, why on earth are you wasting time re-submitting this?  Life is too short and by re-submitting even once you are most likely wasting more time than you will ever earn back.

first, because as my experience with SS showed me, resubmitting at SS can be quite successful. And secondly, from purely mercantile reasons: SS (unfortunately) generates the most for me as of today, and I want my good (subjectively) pictures to be available in their search.

[quote ]
first, because as my experience with SS showed me, resubmitting at SS can be quite successful. And secondly, from purely mercantile reasons: SS (unfortunately) generates the most for me as of today, and I want my good (subjectively) pictures to be available in their search.
[/quote]SS is I think the biggest revenue generator for many of us.  But if they reject one of mine I move on and shoot something else.  I have on occasion re-submitted after correcting an image and I've complained and re-submitted whole batches when they rejected in mass.  But to go back six times?  You should take the hint and move on.  As to other agencies accepting it, so what?  Means nothing.

As to critique, honestly I would never have submitted that image in the first place.  I am astonished it was accepted anywhere.   (maybe I should adjust my standards:) )  The building has areas of overexposure, it looks like some motion blur or maybe just soft.  I suspect there would be copyright issues as well.  No reason not to give it a shot if you have the time but if they rejected it, move on.  Just my humble opinion of course but as others have said I agree with the reviewer.

Resubmit next month when the new batch of reviewers are hired and those that are harassing us now are fired or quit. 

Hi all,

This photo and few others from the batch has been rejected 6 (!) times at SS, due to various reasons every time (all except for legal ones, since the pictures were submitted as editorial with all the rules adhered to). I've given up with SS for this batch, but will appreciate your feedback, to improve in future, as perhaps I'm missing something...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2g9dxtgw3e47hs4/IMG_7027.jpg?dl=0

Thanks a lot.

P.S. Needless to say, this photo has been accepted at all other major agencies from the top and middle tier. SS is such an SS...

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on January 03, 2016, 22:42

one thing i can tell you about ss...
if they reject it... it won't sell. 

I have some images that I have re-uploaded and they sell very well. It really depends on the rejection reason. But it's hard to understand SS rejections.

That said, maybe your strategy of discard the file and move on could be the most efficient in terms of productivity.

yes, in terms of productivity this is the work method i use , like the other person who advised before me the same.  the thing is , i believe , we are working against robots 
you cannot fool the robots;
you change this, you change that, .. the robot sees it in the workflow ..
as i mentioned in the other thread, (re: spam)... you beat the robot with marijuana , tomatoes, apples.. because the robot of ss will review all that as perfect histogram, sharp, white white,
no blur in the foreground, no cut off zebra b*tt or man's tail etc  (this will get you rejected
on bad composition or blur).  blue sky , and no creative lighting, (this will get you rejected
as unfavorable lighting or whatevr they call it in their disposition).

that is why a good image get rejected by experienced contributors
and marijuana and tomatoes get approved 100% by the millions each day 

robot (like human) love marijuana and tomatoes

It just looks fine to me. I don't see any special tech/compo issue either.
And definitely not overexposed.

I guess the rejection reasons were mainly softness and noise. Their technical quality requirements are ridiculous high. Some lens + camera combinations can't even meet those requirements. For the night shots anything handheld and with higher ISO than 200 is rejected in my experience. I'm using Olympus OM-D system. I upload my Shutterstock rejects to Getty Moment. They accept most of it, however income is lower.

*for me this image looks as bad executed composite of Cologne dome, Rhine river promenade, lighting equipment for ice skating, with disproportions.
 i'm not saying that is the case, image is too small, but i'm saying my impression.
 

I think if you look to the left sky above the buildings it does look pretty noisy. (remember they are going to review this at 100%)

Editorial allows for some adjustment, I would check the rules on shutter stock for which adjustments are allowed if you could NR and maybe darken the skies a little, and reduce the file size as much as possible, I would say its good..as others have said maybe a little soft and i am not sure of the market for long exposure editorials..

....but its a nice pic regardless

Always expose on the lights and in post lighten up the dark parts.

Wrong advice. Always expose to the right (ETTR) and reduce the exposure in post, to avoid having to lighten up the shadows and get your photo rejected for noise.

Otherwise, following the SS standard (as I understand it), the photo is rather soft and borderline from the noise point of view.
You might need a sharper lens and/or a better tripod.

Quote from: Zero Talent on January 08, 2016, 12:06

Quote from: hansenn on January 08, 2016, 09:36

Always expose on the lights and in post lighten up the dark parts.

Wrong advice. Always expose to the right (ETTR) and reduce the exposure in post, to avoid having to lighten up the shadows and get your photo rejected for noise.

Otherwise, following the SS standard (as I understand it), the photo is rather soft and borderline from the noise point of view.
You might need a sharper lens and/or a better tripod.

isn't that sort of the same? concentrate on the lighter parts, without loosing the details? Just like we did in the old days with slide film.
Also easier to understand for the poster than ETTR (I had to check wikipedia for it).

ETTR is the opposite. You "overexpose" when you take the shot and reduce the exposure in post. When you reduce the exposure, you also reduce the noise.

Besides, the analog-digital quantisation is not liniar, but logarithmic. The sampling is denser for the highlights. So you get more details in the shadows, if you push the histogram to the right and compensate in post.

Your advice, to push the histogram to the left and lighten up the dark parts, will amplify the noise. It is a good advice for negative film, but not for slides or digital.

Maybe this is why we can notice the noise in the photo presented by the OP, despite being taken at ISO 100.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk