Jump to content

kaywelsh

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kaywelsh

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I think the image is lovely and the face in shadow is not too dark. Agree there is a slight purplish colour to the skin, but I think overall it blends with the overall image colour. When you look at some images which have been accepted with totally outrageous and non-realistic colours, this one is tame in comparison and a very appealing image. One customer may not like it, whereas another, like me, will. I think SS should bear differing preferences in mind when reviewing images. There is nothing wrong with this one.
  2. I am finding it more and more difficult to get images accepted, despite having been a contributor for 4 years. More and more are coming back rejected because of 'white balance incorrect' and I am getting so frustrated I am seriously thinking of withdrawing from SS. I think as the photographer (shooting in RAW so can be precise) that I know when the white balance is correct for my image, not whoever happens to be reviewing it. Unless it is crazily off (and I have seen some images with skies coloured impossible colours) they should trust our judgement on what is correct. What with that and o
  3. Many thanks, that was an eye opener. I didn't realise there would be a problem with such things. It's a good job not every building or landmark is so restricted.
  4. I am quite new to this and have just had two photos rejected due to 'Contains potential trademark or copyright infringement - non editorial'. They were photos taken in London and one has part of the London Eye in it and the other all of the London Eye. I have seen photos of this subject on other sites and it is a common enough subject for photographers so am confused as to why mine were rejected.
×
×
  • Create New...