what am I doing wrong?

[geordie]

Hi, i have been sending pictures in to a stock site for a couple of years, getting some rejections for different faults but generally getting lots accepted.
the last three batches I have sent have had lots of rejections about 70 - 80% for incorrect white balance. I have attached two of the latest batch. can anyone tell me what they look like on their monitors. on mine they look good. after the first rejection I re calibrated the monitor using the software supplied with it.

[ricktas]

The third and fourth are crooked, the stacks are not vertical but leaning. This would mean a reject to as stock site

[ameerat42]

I don't like to be critical for nothing, but the 1st is tonally flat as well as having little of intrinsic interest. I mean this to be as constructive as possible, and I would probably do no better myself.
Good luck with future submissions, though.
Am.

[geordie]

thanks for the replys, bu the subjects are not being called into question by the stock site, if they were i could understand. the only reason for rejection though is white balance wrong.
I was really curious as to if my monitor is calibrated wrong or i am doing something wrong in the workflow.
the crooked stack is obviously one thing I have done wrong.

[mongo]

agree that 3 and 4 are crooked. Mongo thinks 1 and 2 are muddy (ie lack contrast) and lack sharpness

[ameerat42]

Well, your white balance is set on Auto, so I thought it'd do a reasonable job. I don't think there's any great departure from what I would have expected there. All but the first one (which shows nothing) show AdobeRGB as the color space. Is that what they wanted? Or should it be sRGB? Again, I don't know that there's much difference.
Am.

[kiwi]

The last two are overcooked, its not white balance per se more saturation but I can see they'd say WB

For interests sake - made any sales off the stock sites ?

[ricktas]

When processing photos for stock sites. Think of yourself as the client. If you need a photo of a chimney stack for the cover of say your companies annual report to shareholders, would you buy your own photos, or would you pick another one from the stock site? Search the stock site for 'chimney' or 'chimney stack'. Do your photos compare with the very best on the stock site? If not, then that is what you have to achieve.

Stock sites want the BEST images, and they will reject a lot of uploads for a huge range of reasons. What you need to do is make sure your stock photos are as good as, or better than, every other photo on the site of the same subject matter.

[geordie]

thanks all for the honest critique.
yes the saturation has been boosted in the second one.
the requirements ask for Adobe RGb 1998.
i have a few hundred photos on a few different stock sites and get the same photos accepted onto one and rejected from another, sales are about 45pictures per month so i am never going to retire on the proceeds.
I started on stock sites to see if my picture taking was any good, and to see if they could be used / seen anywhere but on my computer and walls around home.
having photos rejected because of subject matter, or no requirement for this type of image are good reasons to me, I just dont like them being rejected for technical faults which I should have noticed / corrected

[William W]

Hi, i have been sending pictures in to a stock site for a couple of years, getting some rejections for different faults but generally getting lots accepted.
the last three batches I have sent have had lots of rejections about 70 - 80% for incorrect white balance. I have attached two of the latest batch. can anyone tell me what they look like on their monitors. on mine they look good. after the first rejection I re calibrated the monitor using the software supplied with it.

Both are marginally BLUE.
The second moreso, than the first.

Your Profile Request does not allow for posting an edited version of your images.
Judging from only two samples is not a fair sample group.

The blue cast is very marginal in these two, therefore, this leads one to conclude that:

> other images in that 70% to 80% which were rejected have worse WB
OR
> the reason given for the rejection is false in some manner
OR
> the Stock Editor does not know White Balance.

WW