MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Dreamstime.com => Topic started by: srugina on March 31, 2008, 07:39
-
Hi
I am very new to this forum. I have had only good experience with DT until recently, when suddenly they started rejecting all of my photos for low color profile.
My camera settings are good, checked and double checked, I shoot in RAW only, and convert to max quality jpg.
-
Do you ask them what was "low color profile" rejection? Because I never heard that
-
Neither have I. And I do not know about the fact they could reverse their decision about accepted images later... What would happen if some of the "on the second thought" rejected images were added to a lightbox or worse - sold in the meantime?
-
I haven't heard of this either!
I don't blame you for being frustrated, specially when they culled some of your already approved images. (not so nice that!)
-
This is on DT's message boards.
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7736 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7736)
-
I find it very interesting that DT wants edited images that are highly saturated, while IS wants images right out of the camera with no editing.
-
I find it very interesting that DT wants edited images that are highly saturated, while IS wants images right out of the camera with no editing.
Yes , and when you search for landscape with most downloads you get this:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=lanscape&oldtext=landscape&textDisambiguation=&oldTextDisambiguation=&majorterms=&fileTypeSizePrice=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22Image%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22All%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%221%22%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Illustration+%5BVector%5D%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22Vector+Image%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22None%22%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Video%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22None%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A1%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Flash%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22Flash+Document%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22None%22%7D%5D&showPeople=0&printAvailable=0&exclusiveArtists=0&extendedLicense=&illustrationLimit=Exactly&flashLimit=Exactly&showDeactivatedFiles=&membername=&userID=&lightboxID=&downloaderID=&approverID=&clearanceBin=&color=©Space=&orientation=7&minWidth=0&minHeight=0&showTitle=&showContributor=&showFileNumber=1&showDownload=1&enableLoupe=1&order=Downloads&perPage=&within=4
Every single one strait from the camera ;D
-
I find it very interesting that DT wants edited images that are highly saturated, while IS wants images right out of the camera with no editing.
Yes , and when you search for landscape with most downloads you get this:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=lanscape&oldtext=landscape&textDisambiguation=&oldTextDisambiguation=&majorterms=&fileTypeSizePrice=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22Image%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22All%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%221%22%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Illustration+%5BVector%5D%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22Vector+Image%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22None%22%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Video%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22None%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A1%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Flash%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22Flash+Document%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22None%22%7D%5D&showPeople=0&printAvailable=0&exclusiveArtists=0&extendedLicense=&illustrationLimit=Exactly&flashLimit=Exactly&showDeactivatedFiles=&membername=&userID=&lightboxID=&downloaderID=&approverID=&clearanceBin=&color=©Space=&orientation=7&minWidth=0&minHeight=0&showTitle=&showContributor=&showFileNumber=1&showDownload=1&enableLoupe=1&order=Downloads&perPage=&within=4[/url]
Every single one strait from the camera ;D
That's hilarious :D ;D :D ;D
On second thought, it's pretty sad because every time I submit an edited image it is shot down at IS, even though they are some of my best sellers at other agencies.
-
with Rebel Xti or Canon 40D what is better to do to make colors more vivid ?
1. to increase saturation via camera functions
2. to make images more vivid in LR, or CS, or software that came with the camera
3. to do both: camera and software adjustments
-
Every single one strait from the camera ;D
I dream of finding places in the planet with skies and green fields like that! ;D
Regards,
Adelaide
-
I think there's reason to be a bit concerned about this. It seems like some microstock agencies follow all kinds of trends, even if they only last for a few months, while our photos are supposed to be online for years (or at least, that's what I've thought until now).
This month, it's over-saturated photos are apparently the thing, next year, it may be something else. But while over-saturated photos may sell well for some purposes, they are unusable for others. I think the whole thing looks a bit amateurish.
-
I think there's reason to be a bit concerned about this. It seems like some microstock agencies follow all kinds of trends, even if they only last for a few months, while our photos are supposed to be online for years (or at least, that's what I've thought until now).
This month, it's over-saturated photos are apparently the thing, next year, it may be something else. But while over-saturated photos may sell well for some purposes, they are unusable for others. I think the whole thing looks a bit amateurish.
Yes I agree with you.
Well I followed their instructions and resubmitted
-
Excuse my ignorance, but is there any point in increasing saturation and contrast in the camera settings when I shoot in RAW format and do the postprocessing then? Would it affect the picture in any way?
-
Excuse my ignorance, but is there any point in increasing saturation and contrast in the camera settings when I shoot in RAW format and do the postprocessing then? Would it affect the picture in any way?
I think it is much better to process the raws
-
So am I correct in understanding that camera settings of saturation etc do NOT affect the picture in RAW format. Or am I missing something?
-
Every single one strait from the camera ;D
I dream of finding places in the planet with skies and green fields like that! ;D
Regards,
Adelaide
Ah Blue skies, I remember them. An Australian friend of mine tells me that we never have "proper" blue skies here in the UK. However I know different, I took a photo of one last year :D
Green are pretty saturated here too, generally saturated up to about the ankle.
-
Over saturated green is an April Fools joke? Right?
Its frikin snowing here, going down to minus 8 celcius, and there is a flood advisory everywhere here because it was 11 degrees C here today and all this frikin, (did I say Frikin again?) snow (4 feet) of snow is melting - Yah! Lets get some "Extreme" temperature fluctuations goin??? NO GLOBAL WARMING MY *SS?
I would kill for some over-saturated green right now.
(sorry for the rant... very frustrated Canadian (Ontarian) right now) -
I feel like I'm shooting in gray scale.
Poop!
-
peep, you are correct. Saturation etc doesn't have any effect on the raw file. All that has to be done in post processing. The in camera settings only effect the jpeg etc, not raw data.
-
with Rebel Xti or Canon 40D what is better to do to make colors more vivid ?
1. to increase saturation via camera functions
2. to make images more vivid in LR, or CS, or software that came with the camera
3. to do both: camera and software adjustments
or option 4, the ideal (at least for real looking images):
Spend lots of $$ of L lenses with fantastic saturation and contrast before the light even strikes the sensor. I didn't really believe there was that big of a difference until I got a 17-40. Unless I'm doing B&W, I've never had a shot with my 50 or tele that couldn't use some saturation or contrast, usually a lot is needed, however with my 17-40, I occasionally have to reduce the contrast from the RAW file, and the saturation is almost nuclear as is, rarely are any adjustments necessary (especially greens, blues, and reds, the yellow can be a bit flat at times though).
Even with that though, those top sellers all must be right at the posterization point, wow what a lot of saturation, kinda ridiculous to my eyes.
I wonder though...does the posterization point shift higher when using better glass that is more highly saturated to begin with (ex all images given the exact same scene and lighting will posterize at +20 saturation irregardless of lens) or does it remain equal (ex same scene and lighting, dull glass can take +20 while the more highly saturated glass can only take +10, at roughly the same overall saturation for the posterization point)?
I would assume that the better glass can take more simply because of the nature of signal amplification, that overamplification (and the inherent noise that is introduced) is the culprit of the posterization moreso than simply too much saturation. If it isn't overamplification noise, though, it possibly could be that you begin to flatline parts of the image at the limit of the gamut (basically overblown color) which leads to the posterization? Hmm... question of the day.
-
peep, you are correct. Saturation etc doesn't have any effect on the raw file. All that has to be done in post processing. The in camera settings only effect the jpeg etc, not raw data.
Funny, I had a colleague explain me differently. He said saturation would be registered in the RAW, and that I should see it as a film choice (like picking Velvia for saturation). I had imagined otherwise (just like you explained), that RAW was only influenced by ISO, aperture and shutterspeed, but he insisted it wasn't ike that.
I still have to install the RAW converter... Now that my PC is stable, I might.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Surprising point madelaide! Is there anybody here able to judge it? Otherwise I would have to shoot series of pictures with different settings and try to work it out for myself over a free weekend. The only problem in this solution is I have had NO free weekends recently! >:(
-
Any in camera settings are usually passed into the raw editor, but not actually written to the file. Saturation could be at full blast in the camera. Open it in a raw editor and the saturation is at full blast, however the raw file still has the native saturation that the lens captures written to it, exif data records the in camera settings and applies them to the RAW file once it is opened in an editor. This is why when a RAW is opened and saturation for example is set to high in camera, the RAW editor shows the saturation as being high, instead of at 0 (where PS sees it when it is set to high in camera when shooting .jpeg).
In camera settings are remembered, however they do not affect the pixels in the RAW file, in camera setting are simply instructions telling the RAW editor what to do with the file, something that can just as easily be done manually with greater results, hence most RAW shooters like to start zeroed out in everything, but it need not be that way.
-
Thanks for the explanation, Waldo! Now, when one opens the RAW converter, does he see the "untouched" image or the "filtered" one? Is there a switch to turn on one or another?
Yeah, it's about time I install Canon's RAW converter and see what I shot last year in RAW!
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Update:
After sligh color boost, they seem to not mind the images anylonger.
So be careful with those colors on DT! :)
Good luck everyone and good sales!
-
I have L-lenses. So I will be doing color adjustments on the computer, if I understood waldo correctly.
-
I have L-lenses. So I will be doing color adjustments on the computer, if I understood waldo correctly.
Sorry if I came across as directing that at you, I just wanted to complete the list of the 4 different ways to that saturation is affected for a given scene, the glass, in-camera settings, RAW settings, and general photo editing software. (your list was missing a very important point IMO)
If you shoot in .jpeg, in-camera settings are vital to the final product.
If you shoot in RAW, the data captured in the RAW file itself is what you get from the glass, camera settings are recorded as metadata and passed into the RAW editor (Canon's RAW program is a mirror of the camera settings).
The RAW programs color adjustments are made before the image is assembled into a standard RGB image (or if none are done it just uses the in camera settings, if there were any), when chromanance and luminance are still separate and discrete. If any noise reduction is used in the RAW editor, this is applied as the image is assembled, generally superior to applying noise reduction after the image is assembled (especially for chromanance noise) Hence you can boost the saturation and filter the noise resulting from the boost before it is combined with the luminosity.
The RAW editor takes the place of the portion of the camera's processor that assembles the image, adjusting settings prior to image assembly yields superior results in almost all cases, this is why in camera adjustments are vital for .jpeg shooters, it is done prior to the initial noise reduction (noise reduction is almost always applied to a .jepg in-camera).
Complete photo editing software though has it's advantages as well. RAW programs and camera settings lack features. You can fine tune individual color channels (and derivatives) much moreso in editing software. And with the full PS you can convert to LAB mode which mimics a RAW file in structure (separating Lum and Chrom), but have the full features of the software at your disposal, including adjusting the tone curve of the applied saturation (adjusting the curve for half of a Chr channel), point or area saturation (as opposed to global changes, using masked layers), and individual saturation channel control, features lacking in a RAW editor or camera.
For every image the best means of boosting color are different, it really depends on the initial capture, the desired end product, and the means that you have. If a global single slider is the best way to go, nothing beats the RAW editor (especially since exposure can be tuned with the saturation). If fine tuning would yield superior results, even if a little noisier (and the extra time spent is justified in the results, not always the case for little minor differences), image editing software is the way to go. If editing time is at a premium or you shoot in .jpeg, in camera is the way to go.