tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3407647291438191993.post1399460092692432282..comments2023-09-28T00:11:30.919+08:00Comments on 1911 Photography & Chronicles: Microstock: Poor Composition1911http://www.blogger.com/profile/02877649545745924746noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3407647291438191993.post-76007283656791434282008-03-20T10:27:00.000+08:002008-03-20T10:27:00.000+08:00I'm picking on a detail, but I wouldn't say the Dr...I'm picking on a detail, but I wouldn't say the Dreamstime reviewer was "right" to reject this photo. As you say, it's subjective, so there's no right, wrong, good or bad. That's why the rejections use the word 'poor composition' in place of 'bad composition' or 'wrong composition'. <BR/><BR/>If the sales this image achieved at Shutterstock are, as you say, "low" rather than 'no sales', then you could argue the Shutterstock reviewer's decision was more commercially sound, as the image has earned commercial value by appealing to a buyer enough for them to download it.<BR/><BR/>There are many photos that are considered masterpieces by the art world which fail all the guidelines of 'good' or 'right' composition. Such images probably wouldn't sell well in the microstock market as their commercial value is so much lower than their artistic value. <BR/><BR/>I'd like to know how to tell what makes a photo artistically brilliant, but I'm finding it much easier to tell which photos are commercially appealing. Hopefully the inspectors can tell what's commercial too.<BR/><BR/>-LeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com