This image was recently rejected from a stock photography group. They told me it was due to be over-processed. I would like to see someone else's opinion on this one. I get it that maybe they don't like selective saturation and buyers wants to do it themselves but then I'm one of those smart asses who says, "Duh...it's selective saturation on purpose." So other than a few messy lines around the leaves, please rip this apart and show me what I can't see.

THanks!

It's my understanding that "stock photos" are largely not processed, in fact it's my understanding that some won't accept even "in camera" processing of JPEGs, they want RAW unprocessed default images from what I've heard and read. I don't have a lot of experience with it though.

Having said that, I'm not a huge fan of selective saturation. I don't mind some subtle de-saturation or re-saturation of images, but in general I'm not a big fan of selective coloring.

Personally I think the rich tones of wood like this are very complimentary if played well with proper color balancing and curves.

Ooops...I wanted to mention that it doesn't seem quite "tack sharp" to me which I think is probably also quite important for a stock image. Sorry.

No need to be sorry, you're giving me what I asked for. This particular company doesn't take anything but jpeg, which is weird to me - I'm like you, I thought they'd want RAW or tif or png or something but no, they wanted jpeg. I see what you mean with the tack sharpness...my fault from desaturating it...:):) Thanks for looking and for the feedback!!!