Author Topic: Does anyone know how these reviewers work? (Read 9290 times)

litifeta · « **on:** November 09, 2008, 14:51 »

Really tired lately of getting rejects with claims they have found noise, or purple fringing.

There is no way any of this is viewable at 100%. They must blow up to 200% at least.

DOes anyone know.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** November 10, 2008, 12:49 »

Quote from: litifeta on November 09, 2008, 14:51

Really tired lately of getting rejects with claims they have found noise, or purple fringing.

There is no way any of this is viewable at 100%. They must blow up to 200% at least.

DOes anyone know.

I can't figure out what camera you have and none of your links are complete in your profile, they are all truncated. It would help to see some photos and know what the camera was? The 24-105mm f4 IS L Canon shouldn't be causing the problem and you say you are shooting at ISO 100, RAW? Maybe it's something you do when you are editing that creates the noise. If you would link to some photos, that have the EXIF data, it would helpful.

From your profile http://submit.shuttersto http://www.dreamstime.co

Phil · « **Reply #2 on:** November 10, 2008, 21:58 »

Quote from: litifeta on November 09, 2008, 14:51

Really tired lately of getting rejects with claims they have found noise, or purple fringing.

There is no way any of this is viewable at 100%. They must blow up to 200% at least.

DOes anyone know.

dont really have an answer, I think everyone gets some that you really wonder about.

But how good is your monitor (and how well calibrated) there is a huge difference between monitors, and I have noticed significant difference between what is visible (especially fine detail / artifacts) on different monitors

Phil

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** November 10, 2008, 22:57 »

Quote from: litifeta on November 09, 2008, 14:51

Really tired lately of getting rejects with claims they have found noise, or purple fringing.

There is no way any of this is viewable at 100%. They must blow up to 200% at least.

DOes anyone know.

I'm sure we would all love to commiserate with you, if only you'd post a sample or two so we can see how far off they were.

stormchaser · « **Reply #4 on:** November 10, 2008, 23:26 »

Quote from: clearviewstock on November 10, 2008, 21:58

Quote from: litifeta on November 09, 2008, 14:51
Really tired lately of getting rejects with claims they have found noise, or purple fringing.

There is no way any of this is viewable at 100%. They must blow up to 200% at least.

DOes anyone know.

dont really have an answer, I think everyone gets some that you really wonder about.

But how good is your monitor (and how well calibrated) there is a huge difference between monitors, and I have noticed significant difference between what is visible (especially fine detail / artifacts) on different monitors

Phil

Very true on the monitors. I have an excellent LCD on the PC, but when the same images are viewed on the Apple display, all sins are revealed. You would be astounded by the difference.

litifeta · « **Reply #5 on:** November 10, 2008, 23:54 »

Well my monitor is fine. So basically I need a Mac to sell something for 20 cents

Fred · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2008, 01:53 »

Quote from: litifeta on November 10, 2008, 23:54

Well my monitor is fine. So basically I need a Mac to sell something for 20 cents

Compared to what?

antoniodalbore · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2008, 02:10 »

Hi Lifiteta,

is not a matter of PC or MAC, but just a matter of the quality of the LCD display you are using.

If you are using a PC (like I do) just need a display able to cover at least the sRGB color space + hardware display calibrator + room with low-moderate lighting. The best will be to have one able to display Adobe RGB but this category falls into the high range of the market.

Pleae post your display brand and model, perhaps someone here can help to find out if is doable for microstock.

Antonio

crazychristina · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2008, 05:53 »

My PC monitor is not particularly high end, but I did find a huge difference once I started using a hardware calibrator (Spyder). In fact I wondered how I ever had anything accepted before I started using that.

michealo · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2008, 06:45 »

Quote from: litifeta on November 09, 2008, 14:51

Really tired lately of getting rejects with claims they have found noise, or purple fringing.

There is no way any of this is viewable at 100%. They must blow up to 200% at least.

DOes anyone know.

And yes some inspectors view files at 200%

lagereek · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2008, 03:36 »

Let me tell you! 80% of rejects, everywhere are due to bad In-Camera settings.
Irrespective of camera-make ( which you are not telling us ) you should always make sure that Sharpness is OFF, as with noise-reduction= OFF. This is In-camera you understand.
Further you should shoot in RAW and use appropriate Converter, again stay away from any sharpness etc. After importing the file to PS where you set your whites/blacks, etc parameters, as a final step you convert your TIF file to jpg for uploading.

This is not a monitor thing! its got to do with your camera settings and your PP workflow.
good luck.

stormchaser · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2008, 10:16 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 12, 2008, 03:36

Let me tell you! 80% of rejects, everywhere are due to bad In-Camera settings.
Irrespective of camera-make ( which you are not telling us ) you should always make sure that Sharpness is OFF, as with noise-reduction= OFF. This is In-camera you understand.
Further you should shoot in RAW and use appropriate Converter, again stay away from any sharpness etc. After importing the file to PS where you set your whites/blacks, etc parameters, as a final step you convert your TIF file to jpg for uploading.

This is not a monitor thing! its got to do with your camera settings and your PP workflow.
good luck.

You're absolutely correct on the n camera settings. And getting out as much noise as you possibly can in the Raw stage is of greatest benefit.

But if the OP is not seeing what the reviewer is seeing, he could have monitor problems as well. and as he has not come back with any replies, just hard to comment further. It's all conjecture as there have been no further information posts.

I use a PC with a great LCD for weenie stuff and a Mac for commercial catalog work. A couple of years ago I got the 23" apple Cinema, and as stated previously, it reveals all sins. I'm not saying it is the cure all, but, nor am I saying it is the absolute best out there. If anyone is curious though, just throw some h res images you want to question on a flash drive and head to your local Apple store. The guys there like to play and will usually let you plug in. If you view your images on the apple display and say "oh crap!" it's definitely time to question your display.

The OP also did not say what agency rejected. Shuttestock standards have been a little bit on the slide these days, Bigstock bouncing good stuff in haphazard fashion because the new reviewers are just plain strange, and iStock has very high quality standards. On Shutterstock though, usually if they say there is noise and CA, yes it really is there.

AVAVA · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2008, 11:21 »

Hi All,

Just got 2 out of 10 accepted at Istock today all the rest rejected for noise issues. I have been working with high end digital files since 95' My first was the Sinarcam which in those days sold for the tidy sum of $50,000 dollars. I have been working digital files directly for top clothing companies and also for Macro stock I have never had one of my 8,000 shots at Getty images been rejected for noise. I now shoot on a 1ds Mark 3 and I have a 97% rate at the other Micros and even better at Macro.

I understand that is completely Istocks choice and I am not going to get pissy but I know what the rejected files look like even at 50 mg. file size at 300% and their ain't no noise. Keep on shooting everyone and don't let Istock rejections get you down.

This doesn't mean that some of you aren't sending bad files but for those of you that know the technical side of digital well and have shot for years and are scratching your head over Istock rejections be careful I am starting to get a bald spot.

Best,
AVAVA

Velvia · « **Reply #13 on:** November 12, 2008, 13:31 »

If the overall image content is excellent but has a bit of noise, there`s a good chance it will be accepted.
On the other hand, if the image content is just "ok" but has noise, the reviewer will most likely reject it.

michealo · « **Reply #14 on:** November 12, 2008, 13:56 »

I'm sorry but i think it likely that if IS inspectors say there is noise there is noise.

And I echo the comment about the Apple 23 inch Cinema Display.

litifeta · « **Reply #15 on:** November 12, 2008, 15:21 »

FOr those interested. THe monitor is Chimei CMV938D and I have purchased a calibrator.

As far as the camera. It is a Canon 30d. I use a 24-105 L IS f4 lens.

Not sure if it has noise reduction, but I would not use it. I shoot in RAW, convert in DPP (Canon) and only check the white balance in DPP. I send as TIFF direct to Photoshop.

A bit of history now. With in camera sharpness settings set to default, the reviewers complain the photos are not sharp enough.

Now, I am finding the best results for acceptance is almost always to add another layer > screen > 10% > unsharp mask > then send to Neat Image.

I give up.

One reviewer will complain about noise, the next one wants sharpness. I have entered my stuff in competitions and been told they are super sharp by the judges without tinkering. Yet, that is not good enough for reviewers.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #16 on:** November 12, 2008, 15:22 »

Quote from: AVAVA on November 12, 2008, 11:21

Hi All,

Just got 2 out of 10 accepted at Istock today all the rest rejected for noise issues. I have been working with high end digital files since 95' My first was the Sinarcam which in those days sold for the tidy sum of $50,000 dollars. I have been working digital files directly for top clothing companies and also for Macro stock I have never had one of my 8,000 shots at Getty images been rejected for noise. I now shoot on a 1ds Mark 3 and I have a 97% rate at the other Micros and even better at Macro.

I understand that is completely Istocks choice and I am not going to get pissy but I know what the rejected files look like even at 50 mg. file size at 300% and their ain't no noise. Keep on shooting everyone and don't let Istock rejections get you down.

This doesn't mean that some of you aren't sending bad files but for those of you that know the technical side of digital well and have shot for years and are scratching your head over Istock rejections be careful I am starting to get a bald spot.

Best,
AVAVA

AVAVA,

I started using the scout tickets. I wait until the submission is finished and put all suspect rejections of similar type on a single ticket. It's usually the same rogue inspector. I've had great success in getting images up. The only caveat is apparently it causes a lag in acceptance day to submission day and reduces the placement in best match searches because of the lack of views. I'm not sure what else to do since I'm sure you have way more images to send in than wasting a upload slot on the same image again. Give it a try,

AVAVA · « **Reply #17 on:** November 12, 2008, 17:15 »

Hello up there Mighty Zeus,

Thanks for the tip. I will see if my tech wants to give it a try. I am lucky I don't have to deal with the frustration like he does. He is also to the point of just laughing. It really does depend on what editor you get how well they know the technical side of what noise is and the quality of their monitors and calibrators.
Yea, at this rate I have enough files to upload that my children will be doing the last uploads of work I have already shot long after I am in the ground. I bet those cell phone and laptop shots I've produced will look real by then.

I already experience a 14 day turn around time from upload to inspection at Istock that doesn't help sales from what I am told about the Micro biz. Again thanks for the pointers I love that positive helpful feedback. I will post our results if we get any.

Best,
AVAVA

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Does anyone know how these reviewers work? (Read 9290 times)

litifeta

RacePhoto

Phil

Sean Locke Photography

stormchaser

litifeta

Fred

antoniodalbore

crazychristina

michealo

lagereek

stormchaser

AVAVA

Velvia

michealo

litifeta

PeterChigmaroff

AVAVA

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors