Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 10:49

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Top Tier - Big 4 » iStockPhoto.com » Artifacts at full size rejections at iStock

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: 1 2 [3]

Topic: Artifacts at full size rejections at iStock

(Read 6918 times)

alias

« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2010, 12:19 »

#link

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 11:15

If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it. It has been a number of files over several months.

These symptoms suggest a problem with your workflow.

Many photographers who came to digital from having been previously shooting transparency film still have tendency to under expose IMO. Because they got used to a slightly under exposed transparency looking right.

And a general point re anyone who says that they have not done any post processing: there is no such thing as an image which has no post processing. And the default post processing settings in whatever software program you use to convert from RAW are not always going to be right for the image.

Quote from: lagereek on March 31, 2010, 10:48

"overfiltering" is a much funnier comment, which really means, " havent a clue of whats wrong with this file, but its gotta be wrong"

I disagree. It means that the image has been too obviously over cooked.


	Logged

stockastic

« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2010, 12:35 »

#link

Neither "too filtered" nor "over cooked" conveys anything without a definition. "Filtered" is of course an anachronistic term - hardly anyone still uses actual filters.

We all have our own ideas of what constitutes over-processing, and they're all different. One person sees excessive saturation, another sees too much smoothing, or sharpening. Who knows what a particular IS reviewer didn't like. IS's policy is to just let contributors keep guessing until they submit something that IS wants.


	Ignore \| Logged

alias

« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2010, 13:48 »

#link

Quote from: stockastic on March 31, 2010, 12:35

IS's policy is to just let contributors keep guessing until they submit something that IS wants.

If you want to understand your rejections better you should post the rejected images for peer discussion over on the excellent IS critique forum.

It's a fantastic facility for helping us all better understand where we sometimes go wrong with our workflows and ideas.

Even the greatest writers need editors.


	Logged

stockastic

« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2010, 14:51 »

#link

Quote from: alias on March 31, 2010, 13:48

Even the greatest writers need editors.

Of course.

If I thought posting on the forum would give me an accurate idea of why a photo was rejected, I'd do it. My experience has been that you get swamped with conflicting opinions about things like noise and sharpening, and it becomes a game of 'how many things can you find wrong in this picture'.


	Ignore \| Logged

danhowl

« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2010, 17:37 »

#link

Quote from: alias on March 31, 2010, 12:19

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 11:15

If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it. It has been a number of files over several months.

Not to harp, but if you go back to my entire post, I mention inconsistency in rejection. What brought it up are images that have been accepted on other sites but not IS or images from within a larger set of photos that are rejected when similar images with different poses are accepted by IS (in my best estimation--same lighting, same post-processing). While I do have a number of years experience of shooting transparency for publication, I have been exclusively digital for several years shooting for magazines and advertising. I understand where you are coming from regarding under-exposure. That sentiment explains the preponderance brightly lit, shadowless images within microstock.


	Ignore \| Logged

stockastic

« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2010, 18:05 »

#link

Actually I am doubting that it's possible for the same people to fairly and objectively review both vector renderings and actual photographs. My gut feeling is, they no longer really "like" photos of real objects, they'd rather have idealized renderings.


	Ignore \| Logged

Susan S.

« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2010, 21:19 »

#link

Quote from: stockastic on March 31, 2010, 18:05

istock have totally different teams inspecting vectors and photos. Raster artwork (3D and scans/photos of traditional media illustrations) still get lumped in with photos although they do have separate admins in charge of those areas, but they aren't, as far as I know, treated any differently in inspection.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2010, 23:10 »

#link

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 22, 2010, 08:50

I prefer to play the game openly till the end. I just resubmitted the "feathering" rejects downsized from 21MP till 2MP. I want the original reviewer to lose his face. I also refeathered the originals up to 3px. ... They are game.

Update: 7 rejected for feathering again at 2MP, 1 accepted. Since it's a series, 1 only is pretty useless so I deactivated it. End of game. No resubmits any more.


	Ignore \| Logged

Lagereek

« Reply #58 on: April 01, 2010, 02:01 »

#link

Quote from: alias on March 31, 2010, 12:19

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 11:15

If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it. It has been a number of files over several months.

Quote from: lagereek on March 31, 2010, 10:48

"overfiltering" is a much funnier comment, which really means, " havent a clue of whats wrong with this file, but its gotta be wrong"

I disagree. It means that the image has been too obviously over cooked.

Hi!

No, it means, they dont really know.

best.


	Ignore \| Logged

alias

« Reply #59 on: April 01, 2010, 05:10 »

#link

Quote from: danhowl on March 31, 2010, 17:37

I understand where you are coming from regarding under-exposure. That sentiment explains the preponderance brightly lit, shadowless images within microstock.

Stock in general. Not just microstock. You want some detail in the shadows. Pure black can be difficult and nasty to print. It can end up as an inky or blotchy mess. I think Corbis used to specify that '5' on the histogram should be as black as black gets. But that should not mean arbitrarily clipping off the shadows.

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 31, 2010, 23:10

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 22, 2010, 08:50

Update: 7 rejected for feathering again at 2MP, 1 accepted. Since it's a series, 1 only is pretty useless so I deactivated it. End of game. No resubmits any more.

You should post your rejected images for peer review in the IS Critique forum. This will help you understand where you are going wrong and maybe solve the issue, whatever it is.


	Logged

stockastic

« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2010, 10:12 »

#link

Quote from: Susan S. on March 31, 2010, 21:19

istock have totally different teams inspecting vectors and photos.

Interesting... thanks.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3]

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	iStock rejections « 1 2 » iStockPhoto.com	ichiro17	34	5017	November 20, 2007, 17:03 by madelaide
	iStock rejections - again... iStockPhoto.com	leszek	9	2101	January 24, 2008, 15:21 by ALTPhotoImages
	Portfolio Size of Microstockgroup users on IStock « 1 2 3 4 5 » iStockPhoto.com	michealo	107	11461	November 30, 2009, 17:39 by bcnewell
	My View on the future of IStock as a full-time non-exclusive microstocker « 1 2 ... 6 7 » iStockPhoto.com	kosmikkreeper	172	24432	May 05, 2009, 21:50 by DanP68
	Artifacts at full view? Try a 26 GPx photo. General Photography Discussion	FD	16	2638	February 01, 2010, 10:17 by FD

Microstockgroup Sponsors

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.7
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7

Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.3
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7

Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	4.1
Zoonar	3.5
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.8
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.1
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
AllYouCanStock	0.1
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
DrawShop
ClipDealer
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
iRockStock
Vivozoom
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-26

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]