And... If you check you will see that I didn't say there was anything wrong with the lighting in and of it's self. In fact i'd go so far as to say i quite like it. What I pointed out was that the lighting on the photograph of the model, and the lighting on the photograph of the background are inconsistent. As I point out above, the light on the model would have hit the wall if it was real, and then additionally, the streetlight on the background would have given a rim light effect on the model. As I said above, I have had a go at this sort of thing, and it is tricky to do convincingly. My most successful is below, but even to me I think this is pretty obviously a fake (if I did it again I'd warm up the WB on the studio shot for starters) It was put together like this: It was an interesting experiment, and i really enjoyed putting it together. But I did do it in 2009 and have never felt the urge to try it again, even though with 8 years to think about it I can think of several things I could have done much better. To your other point about sales. Quite apart from the comments above pointing out we don't tend to sell our pictures here, so it's a rubbish method of establishing quality. There is a much bigger problem with using sales as a measure: The vast majority of the buying public are not very good photographers, and so are usually unable to assess the quality of a picture they are thinking of buying. My observations from seeing pics my friends and relations have bought of themselves or their families is that any pic that is a bit better than they could take with their camera phone is deemed "good enough" to buy. We amateur photographers have a much higher benchmark when assessing professional pictures!