The document provides feedback on rejected photographs for the front cover, contents page, and double page spread of a magazine. Several images were rejected because the lighting was too bright, the poses were not relaxed or appropriate for the intended page, or the subject's face was obscured or their eyes were closed, preventing a direct connection with the viewer. Overall, the reviewer found that some shots lacked professionalism or did not clearly feature or identify the intended subject.

1. Rejected Photographs

2. Front Cover imagesIn this image, I felt what she was wearing didn't compliment her skin texture.(1)I thought the pose that the model is doing is not fit for a front cover. (1)In both images I realised there was too much lighting and the shots were not medium close-ups.

3. Front Cover imagesIn this image, I noticed the model wasn’t standing in a relaxed position, this could put potential buyers of my magazine off.Clearly not ready.

4. Contents page imagesI thought in this image looked messy, as you can see wires and violin cases. This makes the image look un-professional.Here we can clearly see the models eyes are closed. This preventing direct mode of address.

5. Contents page imagesThe rocks are more focused then the model playing the cello. Again, direct mode of address is prevented as models eyes are closed.

6. Contents page imagesThis picture doesn't allow the audeince to identify with anyone, as the models face cannot be seen.Picture looks unprofessional as models hair is in her face.

7. Double page spread imagesOnce edited I thought I could maybe use one of these pictures for my double page. However, I found you couldn’t see the face of the featured artist and I believe that is an important convention for the main image on the double page spread.