stefan

"Well lighted". For most people that seems to mean the sun is aimed in a way that either:
- in an angle that lits up the subject equally
- the camera was not aimed directly at the sun
- no shadows fall partially on the subject, creating contrasting spots where large parts of the subject are not well lighted

so basically:
- no places where the subject gets too dark for details to be less or not visible
- no contrasting sides of the subject where certain sides are either underlighted or are too light (basically: the sun in such an angle on side gets either too dark, or too light)

I've seen quite a few photo's of other photographers show up in the approval section and not ending up on the website because of this.

Now an editor has posted this:
"Well lighted does not mean that sun must be on the nose - it means that you can see the details of the subject being displayed. This picture completely satisfies that requirement. "
This was posted while he uploaded a photo with a slightly underlit nose, but a terribly overlighted side. Something that for many would be a sign of a bad lighted photo.

So following this editor's statement quite a few photo's that I've previously seen rejected by quite a few people should have gotten an oppertunity. Yet at that same time, this would mean quite a few crappy pictures should be allowed. And I thought the basic goal was to get decent, or good, quality pictures. Many here in Europe would say having unequally lit angles of a subject, a train, is a poor quality photo. In fact, many magazines here would simply press the delete button.

Summoning this down to one simple question: what are the real qualifications for a picture and what defines quality for this website?

nice one. Were you in a building?