I don’t take rejection of my work personally. I’ve sat through hours of critiques where my work has been discussed, complimented and shredded. So you would think it might be easy for me to have a photo rejected by the submission police at iStock. Sometimes it is. In fact, sometimes it’s a mini “a-ha” moment when I see something I didn’t see before. I learn something from the rejection and try to improve next time. Rejections are part of the learning process and can be a stock photographers best friend.

Then again…sometimes I don’t agree, and it’s frustrating to say the least.

Especially when the reason doesn’t make sense. Just today I received a rejection for the photo shown in this post. The rejection notice stated, “We could not find a clear center focal point for this file.” I understand what those word mean, but I don’t feel like they apply to this photo. I see the focal point…it’s the boy!

Additionally the email said, “We found the overall composition of this file’s lighting could be improved.” So now the composition needs help too. I’m an artist. I know about composition!

I’m not saying that this is the greatest photo ever taken. In fact, it may have very limited application as a piece of stock photography. But what if someone is looking for a photo of a boy emerging from water and they can’t find one on iStock because this photo was rejected!?!

Okay…calm down James…

Let’s read the rejection email again.

We could not find a clear center focal point for this file.

For more information about iStock Focus Standards, please see:

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.1_focus.php

We found the overall composition of this file’s lighting could be improved. Technical aspects that can affect the overall quality of lighting are: flat/dull colors, blown-out highlights, harsh reflection, shadows or lens flares. These can all limit the usefulness of a file.

For more information on iStock Lighting Standards, please see:

http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.2_lighting.php

Wait a second. Maybe I jumped too quickly to conclusions. When it said focus, I thought it was talking about the main subject of the photo. Clearly the link takes me to a page that talks about focus, as in tack sharp. When I look closely at the photo, it is kind of hard to find one area that is without a doubt in focus. Maybe the screener has something there.

Okay, well, what about the composition? The composition isn’t great, but it’s a stock photo not a fine work of art.

Oh, I didn’t notice that at first, it says “composition of…lighting”. Yeah. I can see that. The photo is a little flat. When I look at the histogram, I see a bell shaped curve without anything in the shadows. That’s kind of dull. Still, if it had been tack sharp…who knows, maybe that wouldn’t have been the worst sin.

I guess I better read more carefully next time I get a rejection…which could be any minute now.