MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Puzzled by video rejection  (Read 2788 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 01, 2018, 07:13 »
0
I have a very small portfolio on Adobe Stock consisting of a mix of photos and videos. ive noticed that generally, the reviewers are more strict with photos compared to videos. Ive had a fair few photos rejected there but Ive never had a video rejected until now.

It's a 4k time lapse video and it's supposedly been rejected due to a technical issue. "Unfortunately, during our review we found that it contains one or more technical issues, such as unintentional shaking, empty black or white frame, compression and/or audio issues."

My video doesn't really contain any of those issues as far as I'm aware. And it was accepted on Pond 5. And a HD version of the clip was accepted on SS.

Interestingly, I used to have a different copy of the same video on AS in the not too distant past. I use Shotcut software these days for rendering stock videos and I used the prores codec for that particular 4k time lapse video which was subsequently accepted by AS. Later, I found out that Shotcut uses a fake / non-genuine prores codec which can cause issues during editing on Mac computers. So I removed that video from AS and the other stock agencies. Not long ago, I exported the same video again but this time, used the h264 codec and this is the copy that was rejected.

I do find it kind of ironic that AS accepted a video with a fake codec but rejected another copy of the same video that had a genuine codec.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2018, 07:17 by dragonblade »


« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2018, 07:22 »
0
All this text without showing us the video? How are we supposed to judge the situation?

« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2018, 07:51 »
0
Very good point. I can't link it from AS since it's been rejected there but here it is on Pond 5.

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/94241365/time-lapse-sunset-over-water.html

« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2018, 07:57 »
0
Thanks, yeah it looks perfectly stable, so I would assume it's an auto rejection because it gets so dark. I would make it a lot brighter if the RAW material allows for it.

« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2018, 08:13 »
0
Usually when I shoot sunset time lapses, I slightly overexpose at the very beginning because I factor in that it will get darker later on. And I used that same approach on this one too. I'm happy though with the amount of brightness at the beginning of the clip. It is actually pretty bright at the very beginning but it's extremely brief. If it's the darkness at the end that caused the rejection, it's odd that they accepted the previous copy of the clip.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2018, 08:20 by dragonblade »

« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2018, 11:06 »
0
Reviewers do all sorts of mistakes all the time. If you resubmit it it will probably get accepted
With reviewers it is pretty much like flipping a coin, although Fotolia rarely refuses clips for technical reasons, they generally do it for copyright infringement and they are quite good at that.
I like your clip, but it gets indeed very dark, I suppose you did not do any ramping.
From the P5 preview I cannot tell if there is noise in the shadows, but it is likely

« Reply #6 on: September 01, 2018, 11:48 »
0
Usually when I shoot sunset time lapses, I slightly overexpose at the very beginning because I factor in that it will get darker later on.

And there is your problem...

Get LRTimeLapse, and it will raise the  quality of your time-lapses during dawn/dusk into a whole new sphere.  (I have no relation to the software other than a happy user -- it is a life changer for doing time lapse)

« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2018, 12:18 »
0

I like your clip, but it gets indeed very dark, I suppose you did not do any ramping.
From the P5 preview I cannot tell if there is noise in the shadows, but it is likely

Thanks. Though yea I do admit it gets dark pretty quickly. I doubt there would be much in the way of noise in the shadows because I didn't bump up the brightness in post. I basically left it as is.


And there is your problem...


There is no problem. I deliberately maintained a fixed exposure setting during shooting so that the sunset would transition to darkness, simulating a natural fade out. That's how I film all my time lapse sunsets.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2018, 12:27 by dragonblade »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2018, 04:49 »
0
I think the video getting darker looks like it's an unfinished fade out rather than a sunset. Probably no technical issues, but it does look a little weird to me, and not really useful either.

« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2018, 05:07 »
0
but it does look a little weird to me, and not really useful either.

I think we'll let the buyers decide that.

« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2018, 05:16 »
+2

I like your clip, but it gets indeed very dark, I suppose you did not do any ramping.
From the P5 preview I cannot tell if there is noise in the shadows, but it is likely

Thanks. Though yea I do admit it gets dark pretty quickly. I doubt there would be much in the way of noise in the shadows because I didn't bump up the brightness in post. I basically left it as is.

I would probably raise the exposure (or just the shadows) in the beginning just before clipping, and gradually raise the exposure by 1-2 stops until the end, if your DSLR files can handle it. That is more natural.


And there is your problem...

There is no problem. I deliberately maintained a fixed exposure setting during shooting so that the sunset would transition to darkness, simulating a natural fade out. That's how I film all my time lapse sunsets.

The thing is that the camera cannot capture a "natural fade out", as we see it. Not without changing the exposure settings. Our eyes and brain adjust for the light, which means that an exposure adjustment as it gets darker will look more natural.

Now, I wouldn't use ramping if you want the natural look, but raising the exposure 1-2 stops in post is definitely usable.

However, on a scene like this, where there's a city with lights, it would look really nice WITH ramping, and would probably sell a whole lot more. Any buyer can fade to black if they want to, but they can't raise the exposure much on a compressed h264 file.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 05:19 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2018, 08:45 »
0
The thing is that the camera cannot capture a "natural fade out", as we see it. Not without changing the exposure settings. Our eyes and brain adjust for the light, which means that an exposure adjustment as it gets darker will look more natural.

A natural fade out can be accomplished easily by setting the camera to a fixed exposure setting for sunsets. And Ive done just that very thing on previous time lapse sunsets. Obviously, this is not a complete fade out with this particular clip because I didn't allow the camera to shoot long enough for that. Yes, our eyes and brains adjust for light in real world scenarios but with photography, our exposure settings determine how dark or how light a captured scene will look which can be very different to what we saw with our own eyes initially. With the example of a sunset, the light intensity will gradually decrease over time. Hence the 'correct' exposure settings for a sunset at say 6.30pm will result in a darker image when taken several minutes later. And several minutes after that, the next exposed image will be even darker. Eventually, after more time has passed, we'll get a photo that is essentially black if the exposure settings remain unchanged.

However, on a scene like this, where there's a city with lights, it would look really nice WITH ramping, and would probably sell a whole lot more. Any buyer can fade to black if they want to, but they can't raise the exposure much on a compressed h264 file.

Ah the so called 'holy grail' of time lapse shots. I admit those day to night city TL clips look really amazing. Though with this particular clip, rather than a city, what we see is a few lights from a far away little town. And it's not really prominent within the frame. So it wasn't really my intention to do ramping here. My main focus was capturing the natural landscape - eg the silhouette of the headland on the left.

« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2018, 08:54 »
0
A natural fade out can be accomplished easily by setting the camera to a fixed exposure setting for sunsets.

What I meant was that this is not actually natural. Natural as in what we, as humans, perceive. A camera cannot capture big "natural" light changes with a fixed exposure.

but with photography, our exposure settings determine how dark or how light a captured scene will look which can be very different to what we saw with our own eyes initially.

Exactly, so NOT natural then.  :)

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's also important to consider that a fixed exposure on an environment that changes a lot in terms of light does NOT produce a natural result. It just shows the limitation of a camera. That's why a post-production exposure ramp can produce a more natural result.

To sum up: A fixed exposure on a sunset or sunrise does not produce natural results - it will get too dark or light to look natural. A holy grail with ETTR settings does not necessarily produce natural results either. The answer is somewhere in between.

Your clip does not look natural because it's too dark. That is not how a human present on that location would experience the scene, which is what I would define as "natural".

« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2018, 09:59 »
0
Looks like we discussing two different objectives here!

A camera cannot capture big "natural" light changes with a fixed exposure.

Correct. And it wasn't my intention to do so.

it's also important to consider that a fixed exposure on an environment that changes a lot in terms of light does NOT produce a natural result. It just shows the limitation of a camera. That's why a post-production exposure ramp can produce a more natural result.

In my case, I'm not replicating or reproducing what our eyes would normally see in real life. And it wasn't my intention to do so. I'm intentionally using that camera limitation you spoke of to my advantage - to let the sky go darker. As the underexposure gradually increases, the colour saturation in sunsets really intensifies which is what I really enjoy about this particular approach. Ramping is all good and well but that would produce a completely different result to what I set out to do here.

To sum up: A fixed exposure on a sunset or sunrise does not produce natural results - it will get too dark or light to look natural.

But the whole point of a fade out is to let the scene darken which is what is happening here. Though once again, I admit it's not a complete fade out (I didn't let the camera run long enough.)

That is not how a human present on that location would experience the scene, which is what I would define as "natural".

Yes, a person present at that location would indeed see a very different 'interpretation' of that sunset. Though remember, I'm not replicating what our eyes see. I'm effectively performing a fade out with the help of nature. One way of looking at this is that it's nature that is executing the fade out (aided by the limited dynamic range of the camera.) All I need to do to achieve this is a fixed exposure setting on the camera and nature will take care of the rest.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 10:02 by dragonblade »

« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2018, 12:08 »
+3
@DragonBlade - I think you are missing the entire point of the discussion.  Your video was rejected by the reviewers.  Like it or not, they are the gatekeepers.

We are trying to give you an idea of WHY that reviewer probably rejected your video. You keep being defensive on what you wanted to do -- which doesn't matter one whit to the reviewer.

You say "we will let the buyer decide" but no you won't -- the reviewer decides what the buyer will see.

You can "shoot for yourself" or "shoot for the market." You have plenty of feedback now on why the market does not want this clip. If you want to "shoot for yourself," then that is completely fine. Just don't expect to get it on an agency where you might find some buyer who happens to agree with you.

« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2018, 18:34 »
0

You can "shoot for yourself" or "shoot for the market."

It can work both ways. There have been videos that Ive shot for myself that have sold on SS. There was also a video that I shot specifically for stock that sold through SS.

You say "we will let the buyer decide" but no you won't -- the reviewer decides what the buyer will see.

And thanks to the reviewers, this video is currently available on two stock agencies (and is also being reviewed on a third.) Actually, it used to be on three stock agencies - when AS previously had the copy with the non-genuine prores codec (which I already stated in my first post.)

Though to be honest, it's not a video that I'm 100% happy with. I'm not bragging about the artistry or integrity of this clip or anything like that. Yea it has it's faults. If a customer finds a use for it and buys it, good for them. If it doesn't sell, I'm not fussed.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 23:22 by dragonblade »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2018, 14:11 »
0
but it does look a little weird to me, and not really useful either.

I think we'll let the buyers decide that.

Who says I'm not a buyer? Besides, you're the one who's puzzled by the rejection and opened a thread about it.

« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2018, 21:59 »
0
Who says I'm not a buyer? Besides, you're the one who's puzzled by the rejection and opened a thread about it.

Ah yes, you could be a buyer. Maybe you are. Different buyers have different needs. What may be suitable for one buyer may be unsuitable for another.

And yes I did open this thread in regards to my puzzlement over this video's rejection (first time it was rejected by an agency.) Also the first time I had a video rejection on AS. To sum up - this particular video has been accepted three times by agencies and rejected one time.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 22:15 by dragonblade »

« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2018, 00:09 »
+3
To sum up - this particular video has been accepted three times by agencies and rejected one time.

Nothing in the least unusual about that.  I have many hundreds of photos that were rejected on SS that are being sold on other sites.  And others that were accepted by SS but rejected by other sites.

It happens.  Just move on to the next media and don't waste time on it.

However, if you do post the video here and ask for feedback on why it was rejected, don't get all defensive about it.  If you can't take honest criticism of your work, then you shouldn't post it (here or anywhere else on social media)...

As is, you are getting awfully close to being blocked, as I really don't want to waste my time trying to help someone who has no interest in actually listening.

To sum up (as you say) a gatekeeper kept it off one agency.  Yawn.  I would have rejected it if I were the reviewer too, for the reasons already stated above...

« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2018, 01:42 »
0

Nothing in the least unusual about that.  I have many hundreds of photos that were rejected on SS that are being sold on other sites.  And others that were accepted by SS but rejected by other sites.

Exactly. That's been my experience too with photos agencies in general - with regards to photos.

It happens.  Just move on to the next media and don't waste time on it.

Agreed.

However, if you do post the video here and ask for feedback on why it was rejected, don't get all defensive about it. 

I don't recall me being defensive. Some have passed judgement on my clip and they are free to express their opinion. I can see their point. I openly admitted previously that there are some flaws with this clip and once again, I'll say that I'm not 100% happy with it. Though there are also some aspects of the video that I like. There's a lot of subjectivity involved. 

If you can't take honest criticism of your work, then you shouldn't post it

If some poor soul couldn't, yea I would agree. Though for me, I have no problem with the criticism. Though I notice some people seem to get upset when I use logic.

As is, you are getting awfully close to being blocked, as I really don't want to waste my time trying to help someone who has no interest in actually listening.

I think this is where some confusion got thrown into the mix. Initially, you suggested the use of post production software when I was discussing a shooting technique that has worked well for me in previous time lapse sunsets. In other words, what I did during shooting was deliberate to obtain a particular effect and post production software wasn't really necessary to alter the effect. After all, it's all done in camera. Though I'm sure that LR Time Lapse is great software regardless and would be a powerful and versatile tool to have. I do admit though that the effect I was going for (the fade out) wasn't overly effective in this particular clip. I'm happy with the beginning but it gets dark way too quickly and it's not a complete fade out also. Woops!

However, there was another sunset time lapse I did a few years ago in which I used the same technique and I showed it to another individual and she really liked it. And she commented that she liked the darkening at the end. To her, it was like it was day turning to night. Though with that video, it remained decently well exposed for a longer time before the darkening / fade out.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 02:25 by dragonblade »

« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2018, 11:23 »
0
I just had another 4k video rejected for technical reasons. Hmmm coincidence? All of my previous videos submitted to AS have been HD and none of them were rejected. I contacted support and asked them to find out if it was possible to identify the specific causes for both of these 4k video rejections. Shortly afterwards, I got a reply. Apparently, both video files were corrupted after upload and won't play back properly. They encouraged me to resubmit this sunset TL video and the other 4k video.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 20:36 by dragonblade »

« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2018, 17:47 »
+1
For me stock, both still and moving iarea bit like retail one never knows what will get approved and what will get accepted.
Perhaps AS uses software to check images and not a human being.

As I was told a longtime ago, don't worry about an individual image, if your images are being accpted other places. "JUST keep shooting and uploading".

The more we shoot the more we learn about our craft, just a shame the people that have control of our images are not as passionate as us.

David May


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2022 Views
Last post February 22, 2009, 13:55
by hroe
20 Replies
5207 Views
Last post August 25, 2009, 11:59
by tobkatrina
8 Replies
2631 Views
Last post April 09, 2010, 06:18
by Sean Locke Photography
4 Replies
1634 Views
Last post July 04, 2016, 08:14
by Mantis
1 Replies
663 Views
Last post May 27, 2018, 16:21
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors