Author Topic: Reviewers (Read 7723 times)

rjmiz · « **on:** May 25, 2008, 11:41 »

FYI

I had a conversation with a reviewer recently, as he is an acquaintance.
During the conversation, I noticed his reference to terms like "Artifacts"....etc
His explanation to me, and my learned definition of those same terms were totally different.

I did not argue my side, and refused to try to explain why I disagreed. I just said nothing.

Although many sites try to give some instruction, orientation, and familiarization to their reviewers,
nothing will ever beat a formal education in graphics arts, design, and fine art.

Another point to keep in mind is the sites have no way to maitain any consistency's in their reviewers
hardware, and how they use it. Reviewing images on a laptop for instance might not be my choice of hardware to
use while reviewing images. It does happen, and there's no way to control it.

What happens behind the scenes as your reviewer kicks back in his/her underwear, sips their coffee and grabs
a few images to review for lack of anything better to do at the moment is totally out of our control.

Cranky MIZ

epantha · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2008, 15:48 »

Quote

I had a conversation with a reviewer recently, as he is an acquaintance.
During the conversation, I noticed his reference to terms like "Artifacts"....etc
His explanation to me, and my learned definition of those same terms were totally different.

I would love to hear the different definitions of "artifacts". Could you share please?

rjmiz · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2008, 16:34 »

Google

Cranky MIZ

epantha · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2008, 16:42 »

Quote

Google

Cranky MIZ

My goodness! Actually, I wanted to hear the difference between your version of artifacts and your acquaintance's. But hey, no problem.

rjmiz · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2008, 16:45 »

That was a one way conversation as I mentioned. I kept quiet.

Cranky MIZ

sharply_done · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2008, 16:53 »

Hmm, isn't a one way conversation actually a lecture?

I'm curious, too, rjmiz. What did you learn about artifacts as seen from the point of view of this reviewer?

fotografer · « **Reply #6 on:** May 26, 2008, 00:29 »

That doesn't sound like you Miz

Quote from: rjmiz on May 25, 2008, 16:45

That was a one way conversation as I mentioned. I kept quiet.

nruboc · « **Reply #7 on:** May 26, 2008, 01:56 »

Quote from: rjmiz on May 25, 2008, 11:41

FYI

I had a conversation with a reviewer recently, as he is an acquaintance.
During the conversation, I noticed his reference to terms like "Artifacts"....etc
His explanation to me, and my learned definition of those same terms were totally different.

I did not argue my side, and refused to try to explain why I disagreed. I just said nothing.

Although many sites try to give some instruction, orientation, and familiarization to their reviewers,
nothing will ever beat a formal education in graphics arts, design, and fine art.

Another point to keep in mind is the sites have no way to maitain any consistency's in their reviewers
hardware, and how they use it. Reviewing images on a laptop for instance might not be my choice of hardware to
use while reviewing images. It does happen, and there's no way to control it.

What happens behind the scenes as your reviewer kicks back in his/her underwear, sips their coffee and grabs
a few images to review for lack of anything better to do at the moment is totally out of our control.

Cranky MIZ

Great post....9/10!!... I must admit you had me there for awhile. I was suspicious at first when you said you have acquaintances, but the capper was when you mentioned that you "said nothing", I was then fully on to your ruse...great one though

What's the real story, you had a bunch more artifact rejections, huh??

rjmiz · « **Reply #8 on:** May 26, 2008, 02:03 »

No, I had no rejections. He is a new reviewer and was just talking shop with me.

Cranky MIZ

josh_crestock · « **Reply #9 on:** May 26, 2008, 07:31 »

rjmiz, this isn't accurate of most agencies.

Using an integrated inspection system and a regularly-calibrated desktop monitor eliminates most inconsistency due to hardware differences.

Your friend needs to upgrade his monitor and put some pants on or his job may be in danger. I trust most agencies go to great lengths to insure a staff of professional inspectors as this is one of the most integral parts of the operation of a stock site.

The much larger majority of inspectors at Crestock have a formal education in design graphics or photography. This isn't a prerequisite for the job of inspector, and in some cases is a negative factor as it indicates a limited or dated knowledge of technical, digital photographic standards, which is relatively new to many professional photographers and teachers. There isn't a formal education for microstock and very few photographic or art schools will even educate their students about JPG artifacts. Ways of avoiding artifacts can be learnt in 5 minutes using the sources available microstock photographers.

Josh
The Crestock Team

rjmiz · « **Reply #10 on:** May 26, 2008, 07:35 »

"rjmiz, this isn't accurate of most agencies. "

Oh it isn't huh? hehehe think again my friend.

Cranky MIZ

suwanneeredhead · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2008, 21:50 »

So Miz are you going to give us your definition of artifacting?

josh_crestock · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2008, 06:02 »

We get daily emails at helpdesk from people wanting to know this. We're going to post an article on Crestock soon to show more specifically examples of artifacts and especially where its different from ISO noise.

For the time being, heres a copy of todays email replies about jeggies:

JPG Artifacts (Jeggies) are small, patterned, distortions that are often most visible in underexposed areas of an image, or areas of a uniform colour. They occur because JPG is a 'lossy' compressed format which discards some of the image data to make the file size smaller. Jeggies shouldn't be confused with noise, which has a different, random pattern with flecks of colour. Jeggies occur in images that have been shot with a lower standard camera that records images at a lower quality level, or from an alright camera but compressed in a way that produces them.

Jeggies can also appear noise-like distortion around edges (e.g. hair on models) or as a smudged areas where it looks like there is image data missing.

When looking for artifacts, make sure you use an image viewer that doesn't do an interpolated zoom on the image (eg Preview on mac). Interpolated zoom doesn't always show the pixels accurately, therefore making artifacts not always visible. Photoshop is ok.

You can fix this by using the following workflow.

1. Turn off any sharpening in your camera's settings. On a Canon DSLR, change the picture styles, and set the sharpening on 0. While you are there, its a good idea to set the saturation on about a +2, which will decrease the chance of saturation banding when you develop from a RAW.
2. Shoot in RAW, shooting in JPG is shooting in a compressed format that highly increases the chances of jeggies.
3. Expose your images well, underexposed areas will probably contain more jeggies.
4. Develop in TIFF for editing. Never edit in JPG, every time you re-save a file in JPG it will increase jeggies.
5. Save the final edited image as a JPG. Saving the JPG file should always be the last step, as it is a compressed file and any re-saving of it will increase jeggies. Always save at the maximum JPEG quality level, a 12 in Photoshop

I'm not sure about the advantages of converting to a 16-bit TIFF file over a 8-bit TIFF. Some people recommend that too though.

Hope that helps,

Josh
The Crestock Team

riffmax · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2008, 12:33 »

Quote from: rjmiz on May 25, 2008, 16:45

That was a one way conversation as I mentioned. I kept quiet.

Cranky MIZ

Greetings, Miz! It's been awhile!!! I just joined up - and I have to agree that this does NOT sound like Le Miz!

suwanneeredhead · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2008, 16:37 »

Thanks Josh...

Do you agree with this, Bob?

C'mon I want to hear what you think. It's not like you to be silent.

runamock · « **Reply #15 on:** May 28, 2008, 18:13 »

I second that post Stacey. Why is The MIZ being so mysterious on this one? Is he trying to reinvent himself? No more Cranky MIZ…is it to be Mysterious MIZ from now on?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Reviewers (Read 7723 times)

rjmiz

epantha

rjmiz

epantha

rjmiz

sharply_done

fotografer

nruboc

rjmiz

josh_crestock

rjmiz

suwanneeredhead

josh_crestock

riffmax

suwanneeredhead

runamock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors