pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Rejections at SS  (Read 18868 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2014, 20:28 »
-2
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't.  Not in the full resolution images.  In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.


« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2014, 21:14 »
-1
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't.  Not in the full resolution images.  In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

I'm the guy who keeps saying that SS is using software to automate a first-pass review.   Nobody believes me - yet.  But on the other hand, SS hasn't denied it,    In this case, I'd say some fairly mindless piece of code in that 'bot  saw a large area of contiguous pixes that are very dark, all the way down to black, and if an area like that exceeds some size limit, the photo is rejected on the assumption it contains too much shadow.  The difference between your 2 photos is that 'rejected' has a larger area of dark pixels - you can see that in the histograms.  It apparently exceeded the limit.

Both photos, of course, are fine and have no real technical problems.   

This is only speculation, based on just these 2 photos.

« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 21:43 by stockastic »

« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2014, 21:28 »
-1
could be true

« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2014, 21:50 »
+1
This is only speculation, based on just these 2 photos.

Right.  And the full batch of rejections included images with composition similar to the ones that were accepted.  I chose those two as examples of exposure and white balance; there were plenty of closeups and longer shots in both accepted and rejected batches, so I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2014, 21:52 »
+1
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't.  Not in the full resolution images.  In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.

The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos.  The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups.  There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.

« Reply #30 on: January 28, 2014, 21:59 »
-3
... I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

But isn't the idea that of overly-simplistic, half-baked 'automated reviewing' software actually easier to believe than the alternative - that some of the human reviewers are this disengaged, inexperienced or just plain 'weird" in some way?

What's your explanation?

« Reply #31 on: January 28, 2014, 22:04 »
+1
I think image review process is software assisted. This explains  why review time is so quick. Reviewers may sometimes don't even look at our actual images.

« Reply #32 on: January 28, 2014, 22:11 »
+1
... I can't imaging what a reviewing application could have seen that would separate the good from the bad.

But isn't the idea that of overly-simplistic, half-baked 'automated reviewing' software actually easier to believe than the alternative - that some of the human reviewers are this disengaged, inexperienced or just plain 'weird" in some way?

What's your explanation?

It's speculation of course, but I suspect either malfeasance (easier to press a button to reject than to do your job properly) or incompetence (e.g. a misconfigured display or a computer that can't handle my large image files coupled with a scaling program that introduced artifacts).  Once the batch I have in for review is done, I'll resubmit the one that was rejected with a note asking for a more detailed explanation.  My guess is that they won't have one.  Maybe they'll reject as too similar to previous submissions, but I can't see how the lighting rejection will stand.

« Reply #33 on: January 28, 2014, 22:12 »
-1
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't.  Not in the full resolution images.  In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.

The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos.  The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups.  There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.

Sure sure, but there can be surplus spill light from the background. Like if there is too much light on the background and if creeps around the edges of the subject. Im not saying it is a problem, I just noticed a little bit and mistook it for purple fringing.

« Reply #34 on: January 28, 2014, 22:34 »
+2
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't.  Not in the full resolution images.  In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.
Ok its not purple fringing, its just a little backshine from the backdrop.
Which is normal, when you shoot on white. I have images with worse backshine online.
But it can be what they mean, that the background is too hot.
maybe.

The backdrop is solid white on both the accepted and rejected photos.  The subject is isolated perfectly in both groups.  There really is no difference between what was accepted and what wasn't.

Sure sure, but there can be surplus spill light from the background. Like if there is too much light on the background and if creeps around the edges of the subject. Im not saying it is a problem, I just noticed a little bit and mistook it for purple fringing.

Keep in mind that both the accepted and rejected images were taken with the same lighting and the model in the same position.  All the images in the first batch were approved (also the second, third, fourth, and fifth); everything in the most recent batch was rejected.  Probability suggests that something else has to be at work here.  My guess is a different reviewer using different equipment who thought he or she saw something that no one else saw.  I believe that reviewer was mistaken.

« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2014, 00:51 »
+3
To close the loop, I resubmitted the rejected batch with a reference to their earlier batch numbers and a request for a reevaluation or at least an explanation.  Two hours later they were all accepted.  I'd still like to know why they were rejected the first time, but this is still a good outcome.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2014, 01:47 »
0

It is clear to me too a bug or a virus
Or just a lack of RAM

I don't see any problem of lighting or white balance in these images, even if personally I would have preferred the images a little lighter, but this is only a question of personal taste not a question of exposure or WB.
Maybe the inspector likes lighter images too, but does not respect your legitimate point of view/interpretation

This kind of rejection happens continuously (at least to me), at a point that now I upload no more than 5 files at a time.

They're spoiled for choice and be that picky and probably for that.  Had 2 early last year like that so now I just do them a tad lighter.

The fact is that when printing in offset the blacks and darker colors often tend to blacken/darken and lose a lot of details. But I don't know if inspectors consider it.

« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2014, 01:52 »
0
A few of my images rejected.

Agree with the reviewer....

Here is one of my picture initially rejected and accepted by another reviewer 2nd time.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 01:56 by nicku »

ACS

« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2014, 01:56 »
+1
A few of my images rejected.

I think those four images have very low commercial value. Sorry.

(Have you ever applied to istockphoto? Seemingly they hardly reject anything nowadays.)

grey1

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2014, 03:12 »
0
there is purple fringing.

No, there isn't.  Not in the full resolution images.  In any event, that doesn't match the reason for the rejection.  CA doesn't equate to poor lighting.

I'm the guy who keeps saying that SS is using software to automate a first-pass review.   Nobody believes me - yet.  But on the other hand, SS hasn't denied it,    In this case, I'd say some fairly mindless piece of code in that 'bot  saw a large area of contiguous pixes that are very dark, all the way down to black, and if an area like that exceeds some size limit, the photo is rejected on the assumption it contains too much shadow.  The difference between your 2 photos is that 'rejected' has a larger area of dark pixels - you can see that in the histograms.  It apparently exceeded the limit.

Both photos, of course, are fine and have no real technical problems.   

This is only speculation, based on just these 2 photos.

Softwares to determine noise, haze and other technical faults regarding digital capture can easily be obtained by Binuscan and Barco. They have been around for ages.
It would surprise me if they had the time not to use softwares considering they go through over 50000 files per week or whatever it is.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2014, 03:29 »
+1
A few of my images rejected.

Even so little I see noise and artifacts.
(Or it is because you resized and compressed for the forum?)



(Have you ever applied to istockphoto? Seemingly they hardly reject anything nowadays.)

They hardly sell anything too

« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2014, 04:30 »
0
Nicku, I'd say that baby is overexposed, if you move the black slider up to the end of the histogram the exposure looks better.  That's probably what the first reviewer objected to.


« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2014, 04:49 »
-1
Nicku, I'd say that baby is overexposed, if you move the black slider up to the end of the histogram the exposure looks better.  That's probably what the first reviewer objected to.

I find over expose/under expose concept stupid. As long as all details are available i.e. no clipping, it should be fine. This baby image is a absolutely fine. It's called 'style'.

aly

« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2014, 05:25 »
0
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.

Ron

« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2014, 05:28 »
0
Lighting doesnt change on compressed images.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #45 on: January 29, 2014, 05:43 »
+1
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noisy lens, sensor is the one who make noise!
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 10:26 by fritz »

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2014, 06:08 »
+1
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

Neighbors sometime at night too

ACS

« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2014, 06:45 »
0
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

If it is not an AF-S, a lens can make noise when focusing... ( ;) )
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 06:52 by ACS »

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2014, 08:55 »
0
Like my Canon EF 50mm F2.5 Macro guess is the noisiest lens ever had  :)

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2014, 09:59 »
0
Yes I compressed for the forum with shrink pic-may be noise as well as 55-250mm lens is a bit noisy at times even though noise reduced in PS C6 in images.
There is no noise lens, sensor is the one who make noise!

If it is not an AF-S, a lens can make noise when focusing... ( ;) )

Can you explain me that?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6021 Views
Last post April 26, 2020, 10:57
by Uncle Pete
Rejections

Started by PZF Canva

5 Replies
3936 Views
Last post September 16, 2020, 22:55
by PhotoBomb
4 Replies
10203 Views
Last post March 16, 2022, 15:21
by Uncle Pete
5 Replies
5053 Views
Last post August 24, 2022, 05:54
by Mimi the Cat
258 Replies
32609 Views
Last post August 11, 2023, 06:22
by Injustice for all

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors