MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: they either have to clean their computer screen or accept my file  (Read 1220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 15, 2017, 13:59 »
+2
hello, i get this this message all the time "file declined, reason: grain/noise problem"
this is the main reason i get a lot, but i don't see any grain and noise with my eyes
maybe their eyes see in infra-red or ultra violate and you should either accept my file for sale
or clean your computer screen with a towel and a soapy water.


« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2017, 14:14 »
+6
If you get it "all the time" the chances are that the message is correct and you are not reviewing your files rigorously enough.
Sorry, but that's how it usually turns out.

« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2017, 14:15 »
+2
hello, i get this this message all the time "file declined, reason: grain/noise problem"
this is the main reason i get a lot, but i don't see any grain and noise with my eyes
maybe their eyes see in infra-red or ultra violate and you should either accept my file for sale
or clean your computer screen with a towel and a soapy water.
Well if you get it a lot maybe there is a problem with your images...guess a wild guess!

« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2017, 14:19 »
+3
hello, i get this this message all the time "file declined, reason: grain/noise problem"
this is the main reason i get a lot, but i don't see any grain and noise with my eyes
maybe their eyes see in infra-red or ultra violate and you should either accept my file for sale
or clean your computer screen with a towel and a soapy water.

Of course it isn't your fault?

Of course your monitor has been calibrated.
Of course you shoot in ISO 100 only. 
Of course you use the blur tool too reduce background noise in your select focus images.
Of course you have your images converted from Adobe RGB (1998) to sRGB IEC6199-2.1.
Of course your lighting is course.   

Of course it isn't your fault...

« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2017, 15:15 »
+1
If you want to be serious about us helping you than send us a link of your rejected images for us to view and critique them.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2017, 16:45 »
+5
"They either have to clean their computer screen or accept my file"
Actually, they don't 'have' to do either. They can reject any files they want to. It's their ball, and their rules.

Grain (film) and noise (digital) have nothing at all to do with a dirty computer screen. Indeed, a really smeary screen would be more likely to hide noise.

Noise is something you need to 'get your eye in' to be able to see. Although it doesn't matter for most uses, the agencies like to keep usages for each file as broad as possible.
BTW, the fact that you might see gritty, noisy images in commercial use is neither here nor there.

« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2017, 18:06 »
+2
hello, i get this this message all the time "file declined, reason: grain/noise problem"
this is the main reason i get a lot, but i don't see any grain and noise with my eyes
maybe their eyes see in infra-red or ultra violate and you should either accept my file for sale
or clean your computer screen with a towel and a soapy water.

Post a full resolution example.

« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2017, 19:08 »
0
Review your images at Photoshop Zoom 200%. If you see no noise there then you are good to go.

« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2017, 02:25 »
+2
Review your images at Photoshop Zoom 200%. If you see no noise there then you are good to go.

200%? LOL

100% is just fine

« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2017, 03:21 »
+1
Just resubmit. 90% of the times you will get them accepted.
If they still refuse them all for the same reason, there might be a problem.
As said before, analyse them in LR of PS at at least 200% (I use 300%), or post them here for us to see

« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2017, 03:29 »
+4
Just resubmit. 90% of the times you will get them accepted.
If they still refuse them all for the same reason, there might be a problem.
As said before, analyse them in LR of PS at at least 200% (I use 300%), or post them here for us to see

What is it with 200% or 300%?

You only see pixelation at those resolutions

« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2017, 03:51 »
0
they either have to clean their computer screen or accept my file

I doubt they will do either.

« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2017, 07:34 »
+1
100%, 200%, 300%? I think it depends on the monitor and the person viewing. Way back when iS was tight on their acceptance criteria, I learned I had to view at 200% to see the things they rejected. I couldn't see them casually at 100%. These days I view all of every image at 200% and then again at 100% for my inspections. Different flaws are more obvious at different magnifications. I retouch fine details at 300% and check at 200% and 100% to see that my edits are not obvious. I figure if inspectors check at 100% then I need to be better than that.

« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2017, 07:43 »
+3
100%, 200%, 300%? I think it depends on the monitor and the person viewing. Way back when iS was tight on their acceptance criteria, I learned I had to view at 200% to see the things they rejected. I couldn't see them casually at 100%. These days I view all of every image at 200% and then again at 100% for my inspections. Different flaws are more obvious at different magnifications. I retouch fine details at 300% and check at 200% and 100% to see that my edits are not obvious. I figure if inspectors check at 100% then I need to be better than that.
How times have changed ;-)

« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2017, 08:29 »
+2
100% is just fine for checking CA and focus
Gawd, I cant beleive the amount of effort/time some spend on stock photos for pennies

But to each his own - its your time

« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2017, 08:54 »
+2
100%, 200%, 300%? I think it depends on the monitor and the person viewing. Way back when iS was tight on their acceptance criteria, I learned I had to view at 200% to see the things they rejected. I couldn't see them casually at 100%. These days I view all of every image at 200% and then again at 100% for my inspections. Different flaws are more obvious at different magnifications. I retouch fine details at 300% and check at 200% and 100% to see that my edits are not obvious. I figure if inspectors check at 100% then I need to be better than that.

Funny, I had an inspector actually write in his note back to me to start viewing at 200%, it's more common than you think. I have always viewed certain editing at 200-300%, specifically cutouts and isolations where I am cleaning edges.  I think zoom amount depends on what you are doing.

« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2017, 09:25 »
0
100% is just fine for checking CA and focus
Gawd, I cant beleive the amount of effort/time some spend on stock photos for pennies

But to each his own - its your time

thank you all for replays but i had to replay to this because it provoked me
the effort and time we make in stock photography is to make high quality
and high resolution content and when we click the shutter button on a camera
we expect that photo to sell at least a thousand to a million times
i work with Fotolia and i get at least a dollar per download
unlike shutterstock when they give you couple of cents per download.


« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2017, 10:07 »
0
Also keep in mind that in certain applications (After Effects for example) on a retina/high resolution screen 200% is actually 100%.

« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2017, 10:10 »
0
100%, 200%, 300%? I think it depends on the monitor and the person viewing. Way back when iS was tight on their acceptance criteria, I learned I had to view at 200% to see the things they rejected. I couldn't see them casually at 100%. These days I view all of every image at 200% and then again at 100% for my inspections. Different flaws are more obvious at different magnifications. I retouch fine details at 300% and check at 200% and 100% to see that my edits are not obvious. I figure if inspectors check at 100% then I need to be better than that.

Funny, I had an inspector actually write in his note back to me to start viewing at 200%, it's more common than you think. I have always viewed certain editing at 200-300%, specifically cutouts and isolations where I am cleaning edges.  I think zoom amount depends on what you are doing.

For what it's worth, Neat Image noise reduction plugin defaults it's view at 200%.

« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2017, 10:41 »
0
100% is just fine for checking CA and focus
Gawd, I cant beleive the amount of effort/time some spend on stock photos for pennies

But to each his own - its your time

thank you all for replays but i had to replay to this because it provoked me
the effort and time we make in stock photography is to make high quality
and high resolution content and when we click the shutter button on a camera
we expect that photo to sell at least a thousand to a million times
i work with Fotolia and i get at least a dollar per download
unlike shutterstock when they give you couple of cents per download.
Well my RPD is pretty  much the same on those sites. If I expected a minimum of a thousand sales I would wind up quite disillusioned.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 03:46 by Pauws99 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2017, 11:34 »
+1
... when we click the shutter button on a camera we expect that photo to sell at least a thousand to a million times ...
Wow - that's your sales rate and now you're getting rejections for noise?
I suspect you must need specs, if you formerly did that well and now so badly.

« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2017, 12:43 »
+3
... when we click the shutter button on a camera we expect that photo to sell at least a thousand to a million times ...
Wow - that's your sales rate and now you're getting rejections for noise?
I suspect you must need specs, if you formerly did that well and now so badly.
When I buy my lottery ticket I expect to win a million...doesn't mean it will happen ;-)

« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2017, 01:38 »
0
unlike shutterstock when they give you couple of cents per download.

If you are going to lie about Shutterstock's payments and ridiculously exaggerate your sales on Fotolia, while not being brave enough to let us see your remarkable, noise-and-grain-free images I think we can assume that your initial post was bunk.
Btw - I forgot in my initial response that iStock had pretty much given up on quality control in their effort to inflate the collection. You should probably be congratulated for managing to achieve a quality level that fails to meet iStock's current quality standards. Not a lot of people can do that.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
1979 Views
Last post September 06, 2006, 16:48
by IRCrockett
13 Replies
4361 Views
Last post October 16, 2008, 14:23
by Snufkin
12 Replies
2333 Views
Last post July 11, 2010, 19:57
by FD
11 Replies
3335 Views
Last post November 13, 2012, 11:35
by mtkang
7 Replies
1507 Views
Last post June 16, 2013, 01:37
by jsfoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors