Hi guys. So it’s my turn to ‘cry over a shoulder’ lol This is my second rejection overall but I didn’t mind the first one a bit. Made my correction (it was a minor thing anyway) and it made it through. But this one seems like a dead end the way they put it. Do you think these don’t belong here under any category? They were rejected because “These items are more towards Stock Photos, we don´t have a section for stock photos yet. If we ever get one”. I can see it for the last two images of the bunch maybe b/c I didn’t give them too much editing (subject didn’t help much to that direction, maybe it was a bad choice to include them), but what about the first 6? Stormy skies cityscapes, I’ve seen enough pics in here (under the textures or backgrounds category) with skies, clouds and city moments.. and since I was preparing even more urban stuff (metro or details from the street) what about these (awesome I might add) urban packs in here. http://graphicriver.net/category/graphics/backgrounds/urban It’s all photos. Heavy edited (some less than others) but still photos of city spots.
Anyway, maybe I got bitter b/c I gave too much time to this stuff (plus the ones I haven’t submitted yet) and I was really excited about them, thought they would be useful. So do you think it’s a legit reason? I’d love to hear some opinions from my fellow authors and an opinion from a buyers pov would be nice too, thank you.
Don’t know if it’s the case, but the link you’ve showed is mainly of urban textures or even urban silhouettes, which I believe are more easily used in generic project. Not saying you work is not gook. I my self loved the photos, but maybe the reviewers argument is right.
My opinion. May be wrong. Cheers!
Your photos are amazing! I loved them and belive me, it was hard to have to reject them. But they are too much to the stockphoto area than a background, sorry, but they are. I asked for a second opinion from my fellow reviewers, they agreed with me. Too much stock for the Background category I’m afraid.
If GraphicRiver would have a category for photos like yours, I would have approved without hesitation. They are amazing after all.
Thanks for the nice comments to both, I honestly appreciate it. But It’s still hard for me to see how this pack http://graphicriver.net/item/urban-backgrounds-pack-iv/45201 (my sincere apologies to the author for the reference again but it’s really the most accurate sample I can get) got through as backgrounds and mine are more to the stockphotos. I can see what okielabs pointed out about ‘silhouettes’ (thanks mate) in the other packs but this one, it’s pure and clear photos of buildings and factories and parking lots. Not altered to being just silhouettes, not generic but full shaped specific buildings and such. With just a lighting color effect and some contrast. How is this pack different than mine as far as the ‘background vs stockphoto’ aspect goes, I simply don’t get.
I’m not trying to be a pain in the **s Patrik, I honestly don’t and thank you very much for getting second opinions from other reviewers. But I’m sadly not convinced when I see that specific pack I mentioned earlier. Anyway, dead end it is. Thank you for responding and for your kind words, glad you enjoyed them at least.
ps: I can’t edit my first post anymore so I don’t know if it’s possible for you to remove my preview link now? Thanks in advance.
We allow heavily edited image under the premise that they are so much manipulated that it’s like using an asset picture. The pack you linked to was a borderline yes.
Your images appear to have modified contrast and colors. We need some real chopping in there.