Author Topic: Learned a lesson today, space your submittals (Read 6100 times)

bobkeenan · « **on:** February 21, 2012, 13:16 »

I submitted a batch of images a while ago. It had not gone through QC yet but I had another batch to submit. So I figured I would submit that as well. It looks like one image in the first batch failed so they all failed and it also looks like the second batch failed as well because the first one, in the first batch did. So what I learned is to submit a batch and wait for it to clear QC before you submit a second.

BTW the image that failed was my favorite image. I don't print much of my stuff for personal use but my friends and family liked the image so much that they insisted I print and frame it. That's like one out of 2000 in my portfolio. It also has lots of copy space for commercial space. So it was interesting for ALAMY to fail QC on this one. Note it was also not accepted at most of the other sites that i use.

There is just no accounting for tastes.... Its a shame that they they all all wrong and I am right on this one ;-)

Here is the image that has gotten almost universal rejection:

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2012, 16:25 »

Why was it rejected?

"Focus"?

bobkeenan · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2012, 16:38 »

Yea... "Soft or Lacking Definition"

I focused on the leading fence post at f8. And I was pretty close with a 24-70mm lens at 50mm. My DOF was about 2 ft. I got what I wanted which was a sharp front post drifting to a diminishing softer background. And I know that microstock reviewers can be erratic and finicky about DOF. So you always take your chances when you submit stuff like this I guess.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2012, 16:41 »

Quote from: bobkeenan on February 21, 2012, 16:38

So you always take your chances when you submit stuff like this I guess.

exactly, like Sean says its borderline but actually this one is way way over borderline, you can enjoy etc but not stock

Ed · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2012, 18:51 »

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience. I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. That lens sucks...big time. It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits. I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners. Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners. Is it soft? Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm. I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft. I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2012, 18:58 »

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 18:51

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience. I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. That lens sucks...big time. It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits. I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners. Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners. Is it soft? Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm. I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft. I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

what F you playing with? at F3.5 I dont see any soft corners, its not a sigma... talking about the Nikon 24-70

Ed · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2012, 19:12 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 21, 2012, 18:58

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 18:51
I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience. I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. That lens sucks...big time. It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits. I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners. Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners. Is it soft? Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm. I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft. I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

what F you playing with? at F3.5 I dont see any soft corners, its not a sigma... talking about the Nikon 24-70

My particular image was shot at f/8 at 50mm. It's the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. I had to crop down to 8.7 megapixel to crop out the corners in order to get it into Shutterstock and other agencies. Last month, I got a $28 EL out of it at Shutterstock...I count it as a blessing because it almost ended up getting deleted. I am very interested in the second version of the lens due out in April.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2012, 19:17 »

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 19:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 21, 2012, 18:58
Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 18:51
I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience. I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. That lens sucks...big time. It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits. I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners. Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners. Is it soft? Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm. I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft. I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

what F you playing with? at F3.5 I dont see any soft corners, its not a sigma... talking about the Nikon 24-70

My particular image was shot at f/8 at 50mm. It's the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. I had to crop down to 8.7 megapixel to crop out the corners in order to get it into Shutterstock and other agencies. Last month, I got a $28 EL out of it at Shutterstock...I count it as a blessing because it almost ended up getting deleted. I am very interested in the second version of the lens due out in April.

aren´t you exaggerating? perhaps it would be approved

Ed · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2012, 19:22 »

Luis - no exaggeration...I didn't submit the image to Alamy for a reason...and I cropped it for a reason. The image is currently at Bigstock, Shutterstock, 123RF, and iStock. It was refused at DT.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2012, 19:23 »

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 19:22

Luis - no exaggeration...I didn't submit the image to Alamy for a reason...and I cropped it for a reason. The image is currently at Bigstock, Shutterstock, 123RF, and iStock. It was refused at DT.

at F8 it doesnt make much sense but I believe in you.. it would make on cheap sigma 18 200 per example

bobkeenan · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2012, 20:56 »

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 18:51

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience. I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. That lens sucks...big time. It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits. I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners. Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners. Is it soft? Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm. I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft. I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

I don't think its the lens. This was shot with the 24-70 f2.8 at 50mm and at f8. I have never seen any significant corner problems. Out of the close to 2000 images that I have on microstock sites I bet about 800 are from this lens. Also if you look at all of the reviews for this lens they say that the only problems are when it is wide open or at the fulll ranges of the zoom. This was at 50mm and f8. So I would love to blame the lens but the problem is me and microstock. To do this shot right I should have set it up on a tripod, cranked the iso down to 100, and taken it at f16 and maybe put the focus point a little further back on the fence to maximize the DOF at the beginning of the fence.

BTW if you can't tell I LOVE this lens. My other love is the 70-200 f2.8... then my wife and kids ;-)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2012, 21:44 »

Robert you have some heavy gear

Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 7D
430 EX Flash
Sigma 50mm 1.4
17-55mm f2.8 USM
Canon 100mm f2.8 IS
24-70
70-200 f2.8 L USM
100-400mm
2x teleconverter
4 tripods (1 the gitzo traveler)

wow

qwerty · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2012, 02:01 »

I think that something wrong if people are saying the canon 24-70L 2.8 is not good enough for microstock.

We're not taking photos of the Higgs Boson Partical here.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2012, 02:25 »

Quote from: qwerty on February 22, 2012, 02:01

I think that something wrong if people are saying the canon 24-70L 2.8 is not good enough for microstock.

We're not taking photos of the Higgs Boson Partical here.

Still wasn't good enough for dt even after it was cropped. Now does that surprise anyone

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2012, 03:08 »

Ed must have a rogue lens, because the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is one of the best, sharpest lenses Canon has and performs superbly at 21MP.
I can't tell anything from the small image size in the download. Maybe there is shake or missed focus at 100%. Alamy don't care about whether it is a "stock image" they only check for technical errors.
Another possibility is that weathered wood lacks detail or maybe they thought you just missed the focus.
There is really no way past the one-fails-all-fail rule. If you delay uploading until the previous batch fails you just pile up a backlog and then all those will fail if one of them does.
You will be under closer scrutiny now.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2012, 03:14 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2012, 03:08

Ed must have a rogue lens, because the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is one of the best, sharpest lenses Canon has and performs superbly at 21MP.
I can't tell anything from the small image size in the download. Maybe there is shake or missed focus at 100%. Alamy don't care about whether it is a "stock image" they only check for technical errors.
Another possibility is that weathered wood lacks detail or maybe they thought you just missed the focus.
There is really no way past the one-fails-all-fail rule. If you delay uploading until the previous batch fails you just pile up a backlog and then all those will fail if one of them does.
You will be under closer scrutiny now.

For failing one QC?

lagereek · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2012, 03:17 »

Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 19:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 21, 2012, 18:58
Quote from: Ed on February 21, 2012, 18:51
I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience. I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. That lens sucks...big time. It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits. I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners. Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners. Is it soft? Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm. I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft. I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

what F you playing with? at F3.5 I dont see any soft corners, its not a sigma... talking about the Nikon 24-70

My particular image was shot at f/8 at 50mm. It's the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. I had to crop down to 8.7 megapixel to crop out the corners in order to get it into Shutterstock and other agencies. Last month, I got a $28 EL out of it at Shutterstock...I count it as a blessing because it almost ended up getting deleted. I am very interested in the second version of the lens due out in April.

Forget the 24-70, in fact with higher stuff, forget any zooms, start collecting the best of primes. Next generation of high-res cams will in fact demand the quality of top primes.

best.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2012, 03:33 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on February 22, 2012, 03:14

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2012, 03:08
Ed must have a rogue lens, because the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is one of the best, sharpest lenses Canon has and performs superbly at 21MP.
I can't tell anything from the small image size in the download. Maybe there is shake or missed focus at 100%. Alamy don't care about whether it is a "stock image" they only check for technical errors.
Another possibility is that weathered wood lacks detail or maybe they thought you just missed the focus.
There is really no way past the one-fails-all-fail rule. If you delay uploading until the previous batch fails you just pile up a backlog and then all those will fail if one of them does.
You will be under closer scrutiny now.

For failing one QC?

I think they will look at your next couple of batches more closely and if they are OK they will ease off.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2012, 03:47 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2012, 04:45 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 22, 2012, 03:17

Forget the 24-70, in fact with higher stuff, forget any zooms, start collecting the best of primes. Next generation of high-res cams will in fact demand the quality of top primes.

best.

Check out this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

Or if you want something complicated, this:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1

and then compare it with one of the best of Canon's primes

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff?start=1

And you'll see that the traditional advice about zooms being markedly inferior to primes doesn't really hold any more, at least, not with this lens (it certainly does with the 17-40 f4L, which has corners that don't even make it into the "poor" category on the chart when used wide open at 17). The 24-70 is better than most ordinary primes over its range and close to the L-range primes.

So while you might get very slightly better results by forking out for three or four L-range primes, it's not likely to make any real-world difference and you get a lot more expense and inconvenience to cover the range.

It's interesting that Canon were happy to produce an significantly inferior medium length zoom, the 24-105/4L, many years after coming up with the 24-70/2.8. Obviously, the older lens is well above the minimum requirement for the L range.

Ed · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2012, 10:12 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 22, 2012, 03:17

Forget the 24-70, in fact with higher stuff, forget any zooms, start collecting the best of primes. Next generation of high-res cams will in fact demand the quality of top primes.

best.

I agree with this 100%. I'm also not the only person in the world to notice the issue...

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/headline-i-switched-to-canon-world-still-turns/#more-2583

Quote

For workshops I ended up using the Canon a lot because it was the only camera I had a zoom lens for and I found I could teach with a 24-70 2.8 for just about everything I need to do during a workshop. Being that workshops have been 50% of my work I ended up using that lens a good bit but I hated that lens. At 2.8 the edges and corners are soft and distorted at the wide range of the lens. My studio manager, Dan, had a 24-70 as well and we found it did the same thing. It wasn’t just my copy of it. I’ve talked to many Canon shooters who have found similar poor results with their 24-70. I imagine we’ll see a version II of this lens at some point. My personal opinion is it isn’t worth the money.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2012, 10:33 »

if we are going this way, I would say 50mm F1.8 and you will get the greatest pics for stock/other for 100 euros

how can we say a 1400 eur like 24 70 isn´t good enough

Ed · « **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2012, 10:38 »

Most of my images in studio are shot with either a 50mm f/1.8 (first generation lens with a metal mount) or an 85 f/1.8 I have shot with the 85 f/1.2 and it is just plain incredible but I can't afford it at the moment. I would like a 50 f/1.2 but for stock, the f/1.8 is perfect.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #23 on:** February 22, 2012, 11:21 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on February 22, 2012, 10:33

if we are going this way, I would say 50mm F1.8 and you will get the greatest pics for stock/other for 100 euros

how can we say a 1400 eur like 24 70 isn´t good enough

Cos, everyone is trying to get perfect focus in the corners while shooting stock at f2.8

I sometimes think people just repeat what they read somewhere, without paying attention to their own real-world experience.

It's also nonsense to say the "next generation" of top quality cameras will require prime lenses. First of all, the Canon IDS MkIII and the Canon 5D Mk2 only have a theoretical resolution of about 70lp/mm (and it isn't really that much, because there is more to it than just the pixel density), which is LOWER than some of Canon's crop-sensor cameras. Secontly, if you are cropping something out of the final image you generally crop the central portion, which is sharpest, and if you are downsizing you effectively increase the sharpness of the lens.

I really doubt that the 50/1.8 first version outperforms the 24-70/2.8, even stopped down to 2.8. The new version has to be stopped down to f4 or beyond to overtake the zoom in the corners (that's what the technical charts say, anyway) is the second version worse than the first version?

aluxum · « **Reply #24 on:** February 22, 2012, 11:33 »

The 24-70L is not good for stock. It is a convenient lens but with many problems. Borders are unsharp, many chromatic aberrations and uneven quality depending on the focal length. Primes trump any zoom always. Tele zooms are ok but wideangle ones in Canon territory are of borderline quality to pass the inspection process.