MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Well...I am about to give up on Istock...  (Read 21446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2008, 00:08 »
0
Just adding - on my callibrated 20 inch imac monitor it also looks very oversharpened and the stem looks odd even at fifty per cent view - this would be regarded as a fail for me even as a personal use for printing shot (it's a gorgeous composition - the thumbnail is very striking but it just doesn't bear looking at larger than 25 per cent.)


« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2008, 00:13 »
0
Susan - thanks :)

What you wrote makes sense - except that I would never do any "heavy processing" on a JPEG file, no matter what the quality settings for the saved file had been. But - it makes sense, so I will try to figure out what it is that makes my pics not acceptable at Istock.


« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2008, 00:15 »
0

No problem with inspecting at 100% or 200% if need be, but...this is not how the image is being used/viewed. So, while inspection at 100% is a chosen method to ensure quality (I have no disagreement with that) - there should be also a sellability aspect considered.  If there are minor defects at 100%, but in the opinion of the reviewer the image is going to sell - why, for instance, not introduce something like "conditional" acceptance: the image gets say 1 or 2 month grace period in which it has to sell in order to stay listed - or it gets deleted. Let the customer decide.

Microstock sites do not exist to promote quality (although it is a vital factor in their continuing existence and sales) - but to sell images. At least this is my (maybe misguided) opinion.

But...I am getting away from the main subject of this thread, which wasn't my intention.
Actually its not entirely getting away from the subject at hand. In my experience, istock are pretty good at making allowances for image quality in hard to get, available light photographs. They are entirely unforgiving in set up studio type shots, and subjects like flowers where there are millions of them. Although your flower shot has a very good composition and colour, it's a little soft and not perfect quality, especially given the calibre of your equipment. I'd expect it to get rejected, as there is no excuse for not having everything perfect with this sort of set up. (Been there got the rejections to prove it!)

« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2008, 00:18 »
0
Hey - no problem :)

I will reshoot this pic, and will double check the settings in the RAW converter - or, better still, use RAWShooter and PS7 with which I am 100% familiar - which is not something I can say about CS3...

« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2008, 01:19 »
0
...If there are minor defects at 100%, but in the opinion of the reviewer the image is going to sell...
And there is the problem. iStock does make allowances for images that have technical defects if the image is of something unique and salable. When it comes to images of dime-a-dozen isolated objects they have gotten very picky over time.

Microstock sites do not exist to promote quality (although it is a vital factor in their continuing existence and sales) - but to sell images. At least this is my (maybe misguided) opinion.
You're right that they don't exist to promote quality, and you're right that quality control is important to continuing existence (hence my tragedy of the commons reference). Some how you're agreeing we me and yet missing my point. Adding your photo won't increase iStock's sales, only yours. iStock has hundreds and hundreds of photos of isolated glasses and flowers that don't have any defects no matter how minor. When the subject matter is already heavily covered in iStock's collection then any added images just take downloads that would have gone to the already existing images by showing up higher in the best match search. From iStock's point of view it doesn't make sense to except images that have "minor" defects at 100% when they already have defect-free images in the library of the same subject matter.

To continue the tragedy of the commons reference, right now iStock is close to the carrying capacity for isolated images of everyday items. Without strict quality controls on  isolated dime-a-dozen photos, Hardin's famous quote would come true. "Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all".
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 01:21 by yingyang0 »

« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2008, 01:49 »
0
Nice composition...

I can see a lot of spots in the green however that could easily be mistaken for sensordust. Perhaps they are air bubbles in the glass?

« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2008, 03:08 »
0
No problem. Thanks everyone for contribution and explanations - there is a lot of sense in what has been said - from my perspective it is simple: I will just need to lift my game a notch.

« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2008, 03:10 »
0
The quality of your picture is appallingly bad, and worse than the output from even the most inexpensive point and shoot camera.

Either this entire thread is a joke or you are somehow managing to produce mediocre results from one of the world's best and most expensive cameras.

The fact that you do not appear to be able to see the problem should worry you.

No agency should have accepted this picture.

If it was genuinely shot with the camera you describe and in the manner you describe you should return your camera to Canon for servicing.

Edit:  btw, the rest of your portfolio is excellent and a fascinating collection of varied images.  However hardly any of them would be accepted by iStock due to heavy manipulation and processing.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 03:18 by hatman12 »

« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2008, 04:27 »
0
Well - I wouldn't call it "appallingly" bad - but following the discussion, I think that I can see at least some of the shortcomings. The biggest was probably the light, which was (intentionally) set up to provide basically shadow-less and reflection-less lighting, which in turn produced very flat image. Following that - I still need to figure out what some default settings in CS3 RAW converter really do. As I said before - until this happens, I am back to RAWShooter.

My problem is not so much with defects at 100% or 200% magnification - but rather with the fact that that none of the 15 (so far) images submitted at iStock was accepted - while all these pics have been accepted and sell on other sites. To me it is a bit puzzling - particularly that (as also said before) no one ever uses the pic at 100%, nor even at 50% magnification.

Having said that - I accept the fact that it is not my place to argue reason, but rather learn the rules of the game and play by them.
Which I am going to do.

Regarding the use of my camera - I also think that part of the problem could be not using MLU, since the pic was shot at 1/10 sec or so - that is at shutter speed where mirror lockup should be used. I usually remember about this - but,alas, not this time...

Anyway, I will shoot this setup (with some mods) again in a day or two and submit the results. I may not terribly like what most of you guys are saying - but I am listening.

« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2008, 04:57 »
0
Hatman12: also - one or rather two things I want to add:

First - thanks for the kind word regarding my other pics. It is true, I tend to take some liberties  ;) with my photos - which is obviously a bad habit where stock images are concerned.

Second - I said in the original post: "3)   They may actually be right which is why I am posting this.
Maybe someone more experienced and critical than me can give me some feedback ?"

From this perspective - the really helpful thing would be a 100% from the image and a comment clearly indicating "This is something which should not be there"...

« Reply #35 on: February 07, 2008, 09:29 »
0
There is definitively a problem with your photo. For me, the artifacts look like JPEG compression artifacts: the plastic/smudge look could be explained by heavy JPEG compression IMHO.

The problem is that if you cannot see those artifacts, you are in big troubles because you cannot fix something you don't see  :-\


« Reply #36 on: February 07, 2008, 09:46 »
0
Here is a suggestion... go get the RAW file for those great landscape shots in your photo.net portfolio. Reprocess them with minimal manipulation. Studio shots face way more scrutiny than landscape, plus it's easier to hide some noise in them. Make sure everything is shot at 100 ISO and on a tripod... If I can get a few pictures accepted to IS with a lowly Canon Powershot A620 (I shoot mainly with a Rebel Xti and film cameras), then there is no excuse with your talent for that setup you have to get past the inspectors at IS.

« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2008, 12:30 »
0
I see an even bigger problem if someone dishing out photoshop tutorials thought it was ok
« Last Edit: February 07, 2008, 12:33 by thesentinel »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2008, 12:42 »
0
Allow me to be the one to tell you... I think your image is just fine.
If it's any constipation to you, If I were a reviewer, it would have gone up on the site I was reviewing for.

Now that's my opinion... and I'm sticking to it!
I would also comment on the exposure. It's just right.
Also, I like the idea of the long vertical slender glass, capped with the horizontal flower....(good move)

The MIZ's personal RATING SYSTEM (1-5)

Composition 5
Exposure 5
Focus 5
Framing 3
Color  4

Artistically pleasing to look at 5
Attention to details 5
Mood Value 4

I give this a STAR Rating of 4.5

Be well my friend and good luck,
The MIZ

I agree the rest of the image is great but the technical quality is a 1 or 2 .

« Reply #39 on: February 07, 2008, 12:49 »
0
Having looked at the original & having read the thread, let me follow up on the issue of focus (and some of you commented on the fact that there is an out of focus problem - in the stem area, etc):

where SHOULD the focus be in this picture? I think, imho, it should be, most importantly, in the middle of the flower, and it seems there is none there - artifacty and washed out... Thoughts?

« Reply #40 on: February 07, 2008, 13:51 »
0
 if there is somebody who still  can make me nervous - is reviewers (some of) are surely one of these..
 but
 if this is really photo from camera you said that it is - that's really bad camera.
 i am nikon user for  years (from film age, and last century :) ).., but i'm sure that canon with number 1 is not bad camera at all, what's more - i'm pretty convinced this is actually very good camera.
 so
i make conclusion - about this specific image - that you luck some photographic skill. -i mean - i can be a hypocrite, and tell you that everything is o.k. ... but - i do not mean this. i mean right that what i said.
 here is my sunflower - you can zoom the image.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4262732_sunflowers.php?id=4262732

-you can see that white can be 255 255 255 - that's "isolated" 254 254 254 is not an isolation - that's "white background"
 in other words - my opinion is that for this specific image reviewer is mostly right than wrong. and of course - don't give up.

« Reply #41 on: February 07, 2008, 13:53 »
0
Having looked at the original & having read the thread, let me follow up on the issue of focus (and some of you commented on the fact that there is an out of focus problem - in the stem area, etc):

where SHOULD the focus be in this picture? I think, imho, it should be, most importantly, in the middle of the flower, and it seems there is none there - artifacty and washed out... Thoughts?

The whole image should be in focus. There isn't that much depth in the image...

« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2008, 14:08 »
0
I agree with the reviewer.

The image looks very bad at 100% and looks like it was taken by a compact camera. I shoot with 20D (and now 40D) and your camera should be just as good.

I think if you go out today and shoot some decent landscapes of your town and upload the Jpegs straight from the camera you should get into iStock.

I am not sure what happened during post-processing but I would look at the Jpegs if I were you.

« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2008, 14:11 »
0
I looked at your portfolio on photo.net and you have great images. I think after you figure out what went wrong in your technique you will have a bright future at iStock.

« Reply #44 on: February 07, 2008, 14:14 »
0
i am nikon user for  years (from film age, and last century :) ).., but i'm sure that canon with number 1 is not bad camera at all, what's more - i'm pretty convinced this is actually very good camera

Come on, let's be serious. Any Canon or Nikon DSLR is able to produce outstanding photos. We are not talking about compact cameras here: whether it is the $$$expensive$$$ 1D serie or my cheap 350D, the camera is not the problem here (unless a high JPEG compression is used, but this one use RAW format).


i make conclusion - about this specific image - that you luck some photographic skill.

Definitively not: the problem is not linked to any photographic skill but to a post-processing issue.

IS rejected the photo due to artifacts and there are MANY artifacts indeed.

« Reply #45 on: February 07, 2008, 15:03 »
0
....I have just received another rejection and an invitation to try again in 90 days but I will most likely just give up.

Please don't give up getting into IS, it is well worth the effort.  I had a couple of applications rejected for artifacts, mainly down to the camera I was using at the time. Although four of the rejected photos were later accepted after my application was accepted.

Good luck.

« Reply #46 on: February 07, 2008, 15:47 »
0
The problem is that if you cannot see those artifacts, you are in big troubles because you cannot fix something you don't see  :-\

That's true.  I still can't see most of what you pointed, except for two of them.  That would explain some rejections I get in one site or another.  :D

I'm pretty sure most of my images (using Canon Powershot A620) have much more noticeable flaws and they still get approved.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #47 on: February 07, 2008, 16:20 »
0
Araminta: Thanks for actually posting something which addresses the main issue. I do not think these are JPEG artifacts I saved with highest available quality. I agree with the stem it is out of focus (more about it later). The remaining red arrows nothing to do with JPEG (or other) artifacts also more about it later.

Now, to summarize:

1)   Thanks to all for looking at the image, for the kind words and for the critique. It really helped and focused my attention on things which I probably was too eager to overlook.

2)   I do not think that the image has too many artifacts if any, but most definitely it has issues, and in the end I think that I have botched this one up rather badly. The final result is not what it could be and artifacts is a convenient scapegoat here. I put this vase on the table, plyed with lighting and most of people refer to as artifacts are actually there mostly internal reflections and distortions due to rapidly changing thickness.

3)   So what is really wrong with the picture ?
-choice of subject: the glass changes thickness from about 1/8 to 1. This produces a lot of internal reflections and distortions (some of those Araminta referred to). It could work with different lighting, though.
-no sharp edges in the glass so it may look worse than it really looks
-lighting: no shadow/contrast, which produces very plain looking image
-no MLU: 1/10 to 1/15 of shutter speed, so MLU should be there: I inspected RAW file and sure, there is a indication of lens shake (the camera was on a tripod with cable release)
-focus: the stem out of focus, the centre of the flower not in focus, and the glass well there is nothing there to really focus on, is there ?. I should have checked it better. I have an explanation (not an excuse, mind it): I have to change my glasses 3-4 times a day to follow the changes in blood sugar level. But, having said that I obviously havent looked close enough, and since only minimal processing was appliedthe rest is history. I usually do not screw up focusing to that extent.

4)   Was iStock reviewer correct in this case?
Yes, as much as I dont like admitting that. It still does not explain why NONE of my images found acceptance although I like my images processed rather heavily at times and iStock does not. Still, these are their rules after all it is ME trying to get accepted at THEIR site so I have no argument here.

All in all I think that:
a)   it is quite a constructive discussion
b)   it focused me in the right direction
c)   I can and I will do better (for starters, I will re-shoot this image, to stop people from further dissing the camera, which was an innocent participant here :)

« Reply #48 on: February 07, 2008, 16:34 »
0

2)   I do not think that the image has too many artifacts if any, but most definitely it has issues, and in the end I think that I have botched this one up rather badly. The final result is not what it could be and artifacts is a convenient scapegoat here. I put this vase on the table, plyed with lighting and most of people refer to as artifacts are actually there mostly internal reflections and distortions due to rapidly changing thickness.


I fear with this you have not seen what some of us are, glass is smooth and there are jagged artifacts which just should not be there at 100% percent, period.

« Reply #49 on: February 07, 2008, 16:43 »
0
thesentinel: please cut a 100% sample from the image and put a red arrow on it. Good diagnosis is half of the cure - and I am not going to follow something i know is not there - unless you are able to point it  more precisely than this (it is possible that I really can't see it: so be so kind and show it to me).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
4850 Views
Last post June 13, 2010, 18:05
by mangostock
31 Replies
12732 Views
Last post July 01, 2010, 16:43
by cathyslife
26 Replies
10807 Views
Last post November 30, 2010, 15:53
by lisafx
6 Replies
8394 Views
Last post May 04, 2013, 14:29
by Microstock Posts
5 Replies
3236 Views
Last post March 11, 2017, 17:54
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors