Author Topic: Attila the reviewer strikes again in DreamsTime (Read 10716 times)

rubyroo · « **Reply #25 on:** October 03, 2011, 06:50 »

Ah! There you go then. I would have thought that clean 'pluckability' ultimately trumped 'purity of background' in the criteria for isolations (even though they are commonly on pure white backgrounds).

Live and learn... live and learn.

Thanks MikLav

viorel_dudau · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2011, 04:33 »

Not necessarily black or white. The background can be green, yellow - whatever, as long as it is a plain, solid color and there are no shadows or reflections.
More info: http://blog.dreamstime.com/2011/07/27/isolated-in-stock-language_art35755

Cheers,
Attila

rubyroo · « **Reply #27 on:** October 04, 2011, 05:26 »

Attila! We meet at last!

Thanks so much for the clarification

Paulo M. F. Pires · « **Reply #28 on:** October 04, 2011, 09:57 »

Only tried one or two shoots "isolated", but one was rejected and I get a warning on DT, about "too much white background" or something like that. And yes, was accepted by other agency's and already get some sales and no buyers complaints.

But each agency with own rules, which i respect, but just in case of someone forget about subject on photo like me... ( too much "isolated" )

RacePhoto · « **Reply #29 on:** October 04, 2011, 11:23 »

Quote from: CoisaX on October 04, 2011, 09:57

Only tried one or two shoots "isolated", but one was rejected and I get a warning on DT, about "too much white background" or something like that. And yes, was accepted by other agency's and already get some sales and no buyers complaints.

But each agency with own rules, which i respect, but just in case of someone forget about subject on photo like me... ( too much "isolated" )

Seems that on DT it is clear enough, whether I agree or not, and whether anyone here agrees.

White Space: We are trying on our end to deliver to our clients what is advertised. If we say our minimum file is 3MP, then we make sure the buyers get their 3MP. If you isolate an object, then it should be cropped closely around the boundaries of the object, in order to not make the designers pay for empty space. There are always exceptions though - if the image is useful and it is on the borderline of minimum MP when properly cropped, we allow for some white area just to make it into the minimum. Always try to compose these objects in such a way, that they will fill most of the frame (diagonally, in this case), and/or get as close as you can. (sell pictures not inflated puff fill to make them bigger)

Isolated: "Isolated" in Microstock Language means plain, shadowless, easy to remove background. So, when you're using this word in your title, description or keywords, you must ensure that you have submitted a well-lit and good contrast subject on a plain, solid color background. (my opinion this means on DT, no shadows, no reflections, isolated object on a plain background)

I don't agree with the second one, the strict Catholic (or is it Orthodox Druid?) version of Isolated... but so what. I don't run their agency.

We don't make the rules and appealing for Attila to change the rules or DT to change it's mandate, is fairly useless. They have made the decisions for a reason, not just something that they decided at the water cooler a few minutes ago as an new idea. It's strict because that way, it's easy to understand, clear and simple. Nothing most people hate more than vague decisions and guidelines. DT has spoken! Good for them.

As for the similars, I think they have gone overboard. I do agree that every angle and elevation of that isolated sliced tomato is too much, their view that one is all, no landscape and portrait, seems a bit severe and extreme. Maybe more people should consider square so they have two options for buyers, or wait, will we get, too much white space rejections then? $:-\$ But for people who want to remove the wasted non-sellers, the first place to look is the redundant inch by inch, similar images that could be filling a buyers need with a few, not a dozen of the same set-up.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #30 on:** October 07, 2011, 05:52 »

Quote from: csproductions on October 02, 2011, 14:14

Quote from: Mantis on October 01, 2011, 15:46
Quote from: csproductions on September 28, 2011, 18:02
Out of a recent batch of 26, DT refused all of them and SS accepted all of them. It's my first 100% rejection at DT, and the first time ever I've had the same batch rejected 100% on one site and accepted 100% on another. Figure that one out!

WOW!^ What was the rejection reason on DT?

"The subject of this image is not isolated. Please do not use words in title, description or keywords that are irrelevant for your image. The same is valid for the category Objects > Isolated.
This image is overfiltered. Its use for the potential designers is limited because of this, therefore the image is disqualified as a RF stock-oriented image. Please upload the original instead.
- Poor background removal. There are strange artifacts left on the background / The margins of your subject(s) are distorted or look unnatural against the background."

Note: There was no background removal. The background in the photo is the background that was used in the studio. Also interesting is the fact that this was the first photo from the batch to sell, and it sold the on the same day that it was approved on SS.

TBH, I strongly dislike the light-coloured background blots.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #31 on:** October 07, 2011, 06:12 »

It's hard to tell - are those blobs on the wall specular highlights from the flash? If so, the overlay doesn't really work too well with them. Also they accentuate that her face is underexposed while her hand is very hot. And you've got something in the bottom left.

I hate to say it, but there are much better versions of this kind of thing out there.

lthn · « **Reply #32 on:** October 07, 2011, 06:17 »

Quote from: csproductions on October 02, 2011, 14:14

Quote from: Mantis on October 01, 2011, 15:46
Quote from: csproductions on September 28, 2011, 18:02
Out of a recent batch of 26, DT refused all of them and SS accepted all of them. It's my first 100% rejection at DT, and the first time ever I've had the same batch rejected 100% on one site and accepted 100% on another. Figure that one out!

WOW!^ What was the rejection reason on DT?

"The subject of this image is not isolated. Please do not use words in title, description or keywords that are irrelevant for your image. The same is valid for the category Objects > Isolated.
This image is overfiltered. Its use for the potential designers is limited because of this, therefore the image is disqualified as a RF stock-oriented image. Please upload the original instead.
- Poor background removal. There are strange artifacts left on the background / The margins of your subject(s) are distorted or look unnatural against the background."

Note: There was no background removal. The background in the photo is the background that was used in the studio. Also interesting is the fact that this was the first photo from the batch to sell, and it sold the on the same day that it was approved on SS.

She's not very well lit to be honest... very flat, and too much saturaion for such flat lighting. High saturation for skin works if you got some contrasty shadows on it, or if its on a pure white background.