Author Topic: SS back to lousy editors? (Read 6543 times)

tomasfoto · « **on:** August 20, 2012, 18:02 »

This is one of 38 photos, all rejected by SS for "poor lighting". Istock, FT, DT, and 123 have all accepted the images. Wassup? Any thoughts? BTW, this type of shot sells every day for me on SS. That's why I get ticked when some new editor, or an editor in a bad mood, or one who has some prejudices, kills an entire submission for phony reasons. Do you fellow photographers think this is poor lighting?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-21215633-couple-paddling-their-kayak-in-hawaii.php

LSD72 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 20, 2012, 18:17 »

Bad lighting on the storm clouds in the background....lol. Put it up in the critique section on Shutterstocks forum. Show whats happening.

rimglow · « **Reply #2 on:** August 20, 2012, 18:21 »

Use Auto Levels and resubmit. Include a note that it is a resubmission and that you adjusted the lighting. You'll probably get a different reviewer.

Mantis · « **Reply #3 on:** August 20, 2012, 18:42 »

And make sure you state in your note (and maybe in the description) that those are dark thunder clouds in the background because it's something that these "very experienced inspectors" might mistake for poor editing.

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** August 20, 2012, 19:16 »

That's a beautiful photo. Honestly, when I clicked your link, I expected to see something poorly lit, but if that's bad lighting I don't know what good lighting would look like for that situation

Lagereek · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2012, 00:13 »

Quote from: rimglow on August 20, 2012, 18:21

Use Auto Levels and resubmit. Include a note that it is a resubmission and that you adjusted the lighting. You'll probably get a different reviewer.

No I would not use Auto levels here. I would use the curves for highlights and shadows, and move out sampling with the small pipetes, thats the only perfect way, never just press auto, it will just give an average adjustment.

rimglow · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2012, 01:30 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 21, 2012, 00:13

Quote from: rimglow on August 20, 2012, 18:21
Use Auto Levels and resubmit. Include a note that it is a resubmission and that you adjusted the lighting. You'll probably get a different reviewer.

No I would not use Auto levels here. I would use the curves for highlights and shadows, and move out sampling with the small pipetes, thats the only perfect way, never just press auto, it will just give an average adjustment.

If you Google the reviews for PS6 you will find most reviews like this:

Automated image correction
"I know this sounds like sacrilege, but for the first time the auto corrections are really, really, really good.

So good that I found myself rarely touching levels or curves anymore. Adobe achieved this with some help from statistics: first, they made hundreds of people manually correct thousands of images for perfect presentation. Then, they got all the resulting histograms and curves into a database that is built into CS6. Then, they created the logic to apply this knowledge to your images automatically. That way, images with similar information will automatically get the optimal treatment, without the user doing anything all.

I know. It sounds crazy—and I know some fellow Photoshop nutters will slam me for this—but you really have to try this. The new engine works in Curves, Levels, and Brightness And Contrast panels."

source: Gizmodo

Of course if you have a better correction feel free to post it.
This photo is so good, as it is, that it only needs the the slightest simple tweak just to get it in front of a different reviewer.

Wim · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2012, 01:45 »

Danny probably meant that the image already looks well exposed and I share that opinion.
Only a slight adjustment could be made with auto levels or manually with curves to show there was an edit and justify the re-submit (just in case)
I would slightly brighten it up and lose the vignette, which could have been the reason for lighting rejection in the first place.
Overall it's a good one and there is far worse quality on stock but hey, we're talking about SS here, the worst in reviewing consistency so nothing new.

Here is my SS version:

Also, mind you that IS prefers natural looking like yours but others like SS prefer more PP to pop the image so you will have to find a balance to keep both happy or create two versions.
Though I still think this one should have passed, especially with all the crap that gets in, even from very experienced contributors.

Good luck mate, I feel your pain

Wim · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2012, 01:52 »

Quote

If you Google the reviews for PS6 you will find most reviews like this:

Automated image correction
"I know this sounds like sacrilege, but for the first time the auto corrections are really, really, really good.

So good that I found myself rarely touching levels or curves anymore. Adobe achieved this with some help from statistics: first, they made hundreds of people manually correct thousands of images for perfect presentation. Then, they got all the resulting histograms and curves into a database that is built into CS6. Then, they created the logic to apply this knowledge to your images automatically. That way, images with similar information will automatically get the optimal treatment, without the user doing anything all.

I know. It sounds crazy—and I know some fellow Photoshop nutters will slam me for this—but you really have to try this. The new engine works in Curves, Levels, and Brightness And Contrast panels."

source: Gizmodo

Of course if you have a better correction feel free to post it.
This photo is so good, as it is, that it only needs the the slightest simple tweak just to get it in front of a different reviewer.

Even though it has improved a lot with newer versions I still never use auto Danny, never have, and would not recommend using it on a daily base, it makes one lazy and does not add to experience, especially for those new to post processing.
Of course for the more experienced it's a quick fix and justified

rimglow · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2012, 02:17 »

Quote from: Wim on August 21, 2012, 01:52

Quote
If you Google the reviews for PS6 you will find most reviews like this:

Automated image correction
"I know this sounds like sacrilege, but for the first time the auto corrections are really, really, really good.

So good that I found myself rarely touching levels or curves anymore. Adobe achieved this with some help from statistics: first, they made hundreds of people manually correct thousands of images for perfect presentation. Then, they got all the resulting histograms and curves into a database that is built into CS6. Then, they created the logic to apply this knowledge to your images automatically. That way, images with similar information will automatically get the optimal treatment, without the user doing anything all.

I know. It sounds crazy—and I know some fellow Photoshop nutters will slam me for this—but you really have to try this. The new engine works in Curves, Levels, and Brightness And Contrast panels."

source: Gizmodo

Of course if you have a better correction feel free to post it.
This photo is so good, as it is, that it only needs the the slightest simple tweak just to get it in front of a different reviewer.

Even though it has improved a lot with newer versions I still never use auto Danny, never have, and would not recommend using it on a daily base, it makes one lazy and does not add to experience, especially for those new to post processing.
Of course for the more experienced it's a quick fix and justified

Never say never! In this case, it works. There will always be exceptions. It's just one of many options to explore and serves as good starting point.

Wim · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2012, 02:33 »

Sure, hey Danny, I'm the last person to question your skills/knowledge mate.
If it works then sure why not but in my case they may remove it in the next version and I wouldn't even notice.
I correct in LR and Pop/Retouche in PS. I rarely use levels or curves in PS anymore.

Lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:00 »

Quote from: rimglow on August 21, 2012, 01:30

Quote from: Lagereek on August 21, 2012, 00:13
Quote from: rimglow on August 20, 2012, 18:21
Use Auto Levels and resubmit. Include a note that it is a resubmission and that you adjusted the lighting. You'll probably get a different reviewer.

No I would not use Auto levels here. I would use the curves for highlights and shadows, and move out sampling with the small pipetes, thats the only perfect way, never just press auto, it will just give an average adjustment.

If you Google the reviews for PS6 you will find most reviews like this:

Automated image correction
"I know this sounds like sacrilege, but for the first time the auto corrections are really, really, really good.

So good that I found myself rarely touching levels or curves anymore. Adobe achieved this with some help from statistics: first, they made hundreds of people manually correct thousands of images for perfect presentation. Then, they got all the resulting histograms and curves into a database that is built into CS6. Then, they created the logic to apply this knowledge to your images automatically. That way, images with similar information will automatically get the optimal treatment, without the user doing anything all.

I know. It sounds crazy—and I know some fellow Photoshop nutters will slam me for this—but you really have to try this. The new engine works in Curves, Levels, and Brightness And Contrast panels."

source: Gizmodo

Of course if you have a better correction feel free to post it.
This photo is so good, as it is, that it only needs the the slightest simple tweak just to get it in front of a different reviewer.

Yes but. Here is the professional score ( no disrespect at all, just trying to help). The curves tool is the most sophisticated tool in PS and Binuscan, etc. The curves tool have got to be calibrated as well, go into curves and click on the settings, there you calibrate it. typing in the values for highlights and shadows, forget mid-tones and then click OK, then invaribly you also will have to adjust the separate RGB, colors.

OK! I know, this is the pedantic way and the way we operate within the Getty-RM but having said that, many professional landscape and scenery photographers, work like this, since their type of photography demand precision.

This precidiure is a demand, especially when worrking with say something like the Getty-RM and similar.

Dont really want to basun all on a public forum here but youre welcome to mail me on my site-mail here because there are even more sophisticated ways of achieving perfections.

best

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:20 »

Yebbut at one time all you supadupa Getty/Macro types would never have thought you'd ever move off film.

I just discovered via Deke how good the brightness filter isn in PSCS5. Previously, as it still is in ACR6, it was hardly discernibly different to 'lightening'. Now it works from a totally different algorhithm.
It doesn't work with all images (like most processes) but it's certainly worth a try in some cases.

I don't tend to use the Auto features, but their latest incarnations, and particulary combinations of them, can work well, again with certain images more than others.

No point in being too dictatorial. Software moves on. We can use new features, just have to discern the right time to do so.

sharpshot · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:26 »

Might be worth replacing the sky. I do that sometimes and it improves the photo a lot. I'm surprised it wasn't rejected by istock for over saturation

Perhaps they aren't as strict on that as they used to be?

Lagereek · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:31 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 21, 2012, 03:20

Yebbut at one time all you supadupa Getty/Macro types would never have thought you'd ever move off film.

I just discovered via Deke how good the brightness filter isn in PSCS5. Previously, as it still is in ACR6, it was hardly discernibly different to 'lightening'. Now it works from a totally different algorhithm.
It doesn't work with all images (like most processes) but it's certainly worth a try in some cases.

I don't tend to use the Auto features, but their latest incarnations, and particulary combinations of them, can work well, again with certain images more than others.

No point in being too dictatorial. Software moves on. We can use new features, just have to discern the right time to do so.

Yes Sue but Im afraid, the softwares dictates the entire digital world, like it or not? The one thing about the Getty-RM, editors and ADs, they are extremely up to date, lightyears above the rest of the field.
Many of us also use Binuscan and Barco, these are synonymus with the film-world, etc. Dont think you can knock that, can you? Lets take a good example. Most pics in micro are totally rejected if they show the slightest bit of noise, artifacts or haze, right? well in the high-end RM industry, its well accepted, no problem, provided its controlled and in fact even enhance the picture. How do you do that? well, certainly not from PS or any other common software.

Then again, up where you live its always haze and fog, isnt it?

Wim · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2012, 03:38 »

Yeah but lets not fool ourselves into thinking this rejection was justified guys. This is what it turns out to every time there is a thread posted about an experienced user getting hit by these absurd rejections.
We tend to look for minor imperfections but forget every single image out there can still be improved, take a look at your own ports and you will find out.
The OP is talking about how reviewers are not on the same level. On another day these would probably all got accepted and will if he re-submit. I hope he comes back to us when that happens.
Anyway, I'm bored talking about reviews but still try to support those who get hit by this behaviour, so they know they are not alone in this.
Only in micro people, each day it feels more like a kindergarten that we have to babysit then a professional industry.

I need a break from this forum or I'll turn out like Lagerek, take care all

Lagereek · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2012, 04:26 »

Quote from: sharpshot on August 21, 2012, 03:26

Might be worth replacing the sky. I do that sometimes and it improves the photo a lot. I'm surprised it wasn't rejected by istock for over saturation Perhaps they aren't as strict on that as they used to be?

I often do that, replacing the sky, many times thats the safest bet.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:04 »

Quote from: Lagereek on August 21, 2012, 03:31

Then again, up where you live its always haze and fog, isnt it?

Nananana, seldom.
Here it's either (usually) flat overcast or, as at this moment, harsh contrasty.
I've actually been experimenting this week with the current brightness tool (in PS, seems to be different from the one in ACR) and it's generally coming up with better results than my usual go-to tool for flat overcast, the clarity slider in ACR, for boosting mid-tone contrast.
Remember, this is a micro group, and that's what this discussion refers to (SS).

louoates · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2012, 08:34 »

I've had somewhat similar rejections at SS when submitting bright sunlit shots from the desert southwest. My conclusion is that some reviewers have little experience in such conditions and it looks "wrong" to them, leading to a "incorrect white point" or "poor lighting" rejection. I'd resubmit, as is, and hope to get a different reviewer. Lots of post seldom pays off unless you can automate the batch.

fotografer · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:19 »

I've just had a batch refused for 'out of focus' which were all accepted by IS, DT and FOT as well as all the smaller sites. They were from 3 different shoots and the focus is perfect on all but one which is still a much better image than some of the crap they accept.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:58 »

Quote from: fotografer on August 21, 2012, 10:19

I've just had a batch refused for 'out of focus' which were all accepted by IS, DT and FOT as well as all the smaller sites. They were from 3 different shoots and the focus is perfect on all but one which is still a much better image than some of the crap they accept.

I've wondered about that "all but one." It seems that some reviewers do "batch" rejects.
Just a WAG on my part. $:-\$

StockCube · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2012, 13:01 »

If you think about the system then it encourages these sort of rejections. Reviewers are not going to be called onto the carpet for rejecting something they shouldn't have, whereas they might well if they accept something that is later ridiculed publicly (thinking of the famous toilet door lock shot fiasco at iStock Agency Collection).

Nine times out of ten we don't even complain when a perfectly good image is rejected - a lot of us won't even bother resubmitting as it is too much trouble. Shutterstock aren't bothered - they have far too many images to be able to present them properly to the buyers as it is - if your models don't have that toothy 'Yuried' look then why wouldn't they just hit the reject button?

And I agree, I think the reviewer will make up their mind with the first image in a batch and reject/accept accordingly. It is quicker that way. I doubt they are paid much and are probably on what we in the UK call 'piece rate' ie the more they review the more they get paid.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: SS back to lousy editors? (Read 6543 times)

tomasfoto

LSD72

rimglow

Mantis

lisafx

Lagereek

rimglow

Wim

Wim

rimglow

Wim

Lagereek

ShadySue

sharpshot

Lagereek

Wim

Lagereek

ShadySue

louoates

fotografer

WarrenPrice

StockCube

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors