_bixby_

Should have got accepted!!!! We should try a set.

Hello, beautiful Evey!

I'm sorry that your fun rainbow set was not accepted. It certainly wasn't for your lack of sexiness or sense of fun. And it was obvious you had a great rapport with your photographer (Steve, is it?), but if you (and he) don't mind a few comments from a fellow photographer, I did notice a few things that might have contributed to the set's rejection.

First, I have to admit that when I say "fellow photographer", I have certainly never done nudes before (although I'm dying to start shooting some SGs!). I am currently breaking into what most people would consider the boring profession of stock photography, and the even more narrow sub-specialty of macro stock photography! (Believe it or not, I actually enjoy photographing really teeny things.) One lesson I have learned along the way is this: there is a big difference between "artistic" photography and stock photography. Stock photography has very specific parameters that need to be adhered to in order to make it saleable. On the stock sites that I am on, the forums are full of irate people complaining that their gorgeous-by-every-other-standard photo wasn't accepted. A photograph may be beautiful artistically, but have absolutely no value as a stock image.

Even though I only joined SG recently, I've been looking at lots and lots of SG sets . Although all the photos are (and are of course designed to be) artistic, I've noticed that there also seems to be a set of parameters that are desirable by the reviewers, even if they're not specifically stated anywhere. Here are my two-cent theories:

1. Because of the way sets are displayed on the screen (thumbnails displayed in rows and columns), a shot where the subject does not fill the frame and has a lot of negative space kind of gets lost in thumbnail view. Even though the photo may be really rewarding when viewed full-screen, a lot of the glorious detail gets lost at that smaller size, and there may be a concern (or just subconscious perception) that the thumbnail view won't provide a strong initial impression that leaves the viewer hyperventillating at the prospect of clicking to see more.

2. Similarly, I think having a lot of angled compositions (or compositions from a very high height) can give a somewhat choppy, seasick flow to the slideshow. And height-distorted perspectives can create some funky distortion (for instance, check out the curvature of the baseboard in images 5, 38, and 45). Combining both an angle and a distorted perspective, or doing either to an extreme degree, can yield such a dramatic effect that the viewer is distracted from what should be the most prominent feature of the photograph: You! However, I should add that when the subject fills almost the entire frame, either of these effects, used sparingly, can actually enhance the subject and create spectacular results. For instance, I think images 20 and 43 are absolute masterpieces!

3. And finally, there's that pesky "rule of thirds". The majority of the set has you squarely centered in the frame, even when at an angle or when shot by above. Combined with the very blank and symmetrical background, these shots can feel a little sterile, even with your gorgeous self as the subject. The shots that struck me as really polished and drawing the maximum attention to you were the ones that varied from that formula, such as 6, 8, 26 (love the use of the boa there as a balancing element!), 29, 30, and 41. Because of their composition, those shots forced me to move my eyes across the image and thus see and take more in.

Anyway, please take everything I say with as much skepticism as you find appropriate - after all, I'm the one who takes photos of bugs and circuit boards! I hope to get involved in the SGColorado scene (I'm up here in Boulder), and maybe even get a chance to shoot you sometime! Very best wishes.