PHOTO: Taj Mahal: Lighting

I uploaded two images with this description, hopefully it explains why I uploaded them both:

"The Taj Mahal is an entirely symmetrical building. The appearance of the white marble can vary greatly depending on the light. This photo and the related image are taken within minutes of each other from opposing sides (180 degrees) of the structure. They starkly demonstrate this light effect. There has been no significant colour manipulation in post processing."


This image was accepted



This one rejected



full size here:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42833680/Nailzchap/test-1191.jpg


It was the standard "We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved" rejection.
Yes the sky is bright, but it isn't blown, the building detail is good, there's no shadows. I appreciate you can't just accept it because I want them both available, but given the context of the description being all about the light is it worth a scout ticket?

I guess it depends on how strong you feel about the second picture. Personally, on a pure aesthetic level, I like the first one much more.


Whenever one of my pictures get rejected, I usually try to understand why but then just move on, however frustrating it might be. I assume it wasn't working, even if the reason might not be clear to me at the time. There are pictures of mine which got rejected years ago that now look awful to me too. I find it hard to believe how I could have uploaded them in the first place. Now I feel grateful I was spared the public embarrassment ,-)

I agree with you, I'm not precious about getting rejections. In this case I thought it was interesting for them to be available as a pair, to demostrate the light effect on the colour of the marble and the symmetry of the building. Perhaps the fact I find it interesting has got nothing to do with a decent stock image


 

I've tried that myself with landscapes at different times of the year... I've never figured out an effective way of linking them together though. I mean, the whole takes up a new layer of meaning which wasn't in the parts which constitute it....


Am I making any sense lol

I get why you took it and what you were hoping to demonstrate, but you still have a very flat and dull image of a common subject that's unlikely to sell. I think if iStock were to start accepting alternative versions of shots, to demonstrate how they look in lousy lighting conditions, we would have a lot of poor images choking up the search results.

I think there may have been better ways to illustrate your point, better times to take the pair of photos. Maybe this is a great shot to stick in your book about the Taj Mahal, but it doesn't look like a stock image to me, so I'd just move on.

Fair play