MicrostockGroup

Hi

I am very new to this forum. I have had only good experience with DT until recently, when suddenly they started rejecting all of my photos for low color profile.
My camera settings are good, checked and double checked, I shoot in RAW only, and convert to max quality jpg.

Neither have I. And I do not know about the fact they could reverse their decision about accepted images later... What would happen if some of the "on the second thought" rejected images were added to a lightbox or worse - sold in the meantime?

This is on DT's message boards.

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7736

Yes , and when you search for landscape with most downloads you get this:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=lanscape&oldtext=landscape&textDisambiguation=&oldTextDisambiguation=&majorterms=&fileTypeSizePrice=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22Image%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22All%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%221%22%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Illustration+%5BVector%5D%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22Vector+Image%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22None%22%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Video%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22None%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A1%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Flash%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22Flash+Document%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22None%22%7D%5D&showPeople=0&printAvailable=0&exclusiveArtists=0&extendedLicense=&illustrationLimit=Exactly&flashLimit=Exactly&showDeactivatedFiles=&membername=&userID=&lightboxID=&downloaderID=&approverID=&clearanceBin=&color=&copySpace=&orientation=7&minWidth=0&minHeight=0&showTitle=&showContributor=&showFileNumber=1&showDownload=1&enableLoupe=1&order=Downloads&perPage=&within=4


Every single one strait from the camera 

with Rebel Xti or Canon 40D what is better to do to make colors more vivid ?

1. to increase saturation via camera functions
2. to make images more vivid in LR, or CS, or software that came with the camera
3. to do both: camera and software adjustments

I think there's reason to be a bit concerned about this. It seems like some microstock agencies follow all kinds of trends, even if they only last for a few months, while our photos are supposed to be online for years (or at least, that's what I've thought until now).

This month, it's over-saturated photos are apparently the thing, next year, it may be something else. But while over-saturated photos may sell well for some purposes, they are unusable for others. I think the whole thing looks a bit amateurish.

Excuse my ignorance, but is there any point in increasing saturation and contrast in the camera settings when I shoot in RAW format and do the postprocessing then? Would it affect the picture in any way?

So am I correct in understanding that camera settings of saturation etc do NOT affect the picture in RAW format. Or am I missing something?

Over saturated green is an April Fools joke? Right?

Its frikin snowing here, going down to minus 8 celcius, and there is a flood advisory everywhere here because it was 11 degrees C here today and all this frikin, (did I say Frikin again?) snow (4 feet) of snow is melting - Yah!  Lets get some "Extreme" temperature fluctuations goin??? NO GLOBAL WARMING MY *SS?

I would kill for some over-saturated green right now. 

(sorry for the rant... very frustrated Canadian (Ontarian) right now) -

I feel like I'm shooting in gray scale.

Poop!

or option 4, the ideal (at least for real looking images):
Spend lots of $$ of L lenses with fantastic saturation and contrast before the light even strikes the sensor.  I didn't really believe there was that big of a difference until I got a 17-40.  Unless I'm doing B&W, I've never had a shot with my 50 or tele that couldn't use some saturation or contrast, usually a lot is needed, however with my 17-40, I occasionally have to reduce the contrast from the RAW file, and the saturation is almost nuclear as is, rarely are any adjustments necessary (especially greens, blues, and reds, the yellow can be a bit flat at times though).

Even with that though, those top sellers all must be right at the posterization point, wow what a lot of saturation, kinda ridiculous to my eyes.

I wonder though...does the posterization point shift higher when using better glass that is more highly saturated to begin with (ex all images given the exact same scene and lighting will posterize at +20 saturation irregardless of lens) or does it remain equal (ex same scene and lighting, dull glass can take +20 while the more highly saturated glass can only take +10, at roughly the same overall saturation for the posterization point)? 

I would assume that the better glass can take more simply because of the nature of signal amplification, that overamplification (and the inherent noise that is introduced) is the culprit of the posterization moreso than simply too much saturation.  If it isn't overamplification noise, though, it possibly could be that you begin to flatline parts of the image at the limit of the gamut (basically overblown color) which leads to the posterization?  Hmm... question of the day.

Surprising point madelaide! Is there anybody here able to judge it? Otherwise I would have to shoot  series of pictures with different settings and try to work it out for myself over a free weekend. The only problem in this solution is I have had NO free weekends recently!

Thanks for the explanation, Waldo!  Now, when one opens the RAW converter, does he see the "untouched" image or the "filtered" one?  Is there a switch to turn on one or another?

Yeah, it's about time I install Canon's RAW converter and see what I shot last year in RAW!

Regards,
Adelaide

I have L-lenses. So I will be doing color adjustments on the computer, if I understood waldo correctly.