I mean we all know how unspecific are fotolia rejection reasons.  Especially technical ones.
I got rejected a photo that has been accepted on 6 other stocks: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=43128544

http://strony.aster.pl/paulamozdrzewska/msg/IMG_5572.jpg

I got the usual 'technical issues' rejection reason that includes I think all possible technical issues.

So my first question is if you can suggest me what could they didn't like here, and second if there's a good way to find out what is wrong with photos rejected by fotolia? Maybe there's some place on their forum or a procedure to ask them what exactly is there to fix?

You need to post a link to the full size image for people to judge the technical quality.

Quote from: fullvalue on December 21, 2010, 13:55
You need to post a link to the full size image for people to judge the technical quality.

http://picasaweb.google.com/missdaredevil/CCBAG?authkey=Gv1sRgCNOW8qLOr9X1xQE#5553135116143294402

You need to download the photo to get full res file. (Obviously the submitted one doesn't have the watermark if someone will point it out. )

It does look crudely over-saturated to me but, as FV has already said, you would need to link a full-size version for us to see.

My guess is that FT really rejected it for lack of saleability and then found a 'technical' issue to give. From a commercial point of view images of peacocks are huge in supply and very low in demand. We all like taking photos of peacocks and they make great subjects. Unfortunately very few buyers have a need for them and therefore only the truly exceptional images gain significant sales.

FT already has 3500 images that correspond to a search on 'peacock bird' and of those the best-seller has only 76 sales after 4 years.

My first impression was over saturated. That's not a green found anywhere in nature. Dial down the Saturation 15-20 clicks.

If it was accepted by 6 other sites, you failed to mention if iStock was one of them. They have the hardest inspectors of the top six.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 21, 2010, 14:13
It does look crudely over-saturated to me but, as FV has already said, you would need to link a full-size version for us to see.

My guess is that FT really rejected it for lack of saleability and then found a 'technical' issue to give. From a commercial point of view images of peacocks are huge in supply and very low in demand. We all like taking photos of peacocks and they make great subjects. Unfortunately very few buyers have a need for them and therefore only the truly exceptional images gain significant sales.

FT already has 3500 images that correspond to a search on 'peacock bird' and of those the best-seller has only 76 sales after 4 years.

You have link to full size in second reply in this thread. As for commercial value, it's selling quite nice on ss. I sometimes really don't understand fotolia, they accepted slightly blurry image of another peacock that was rejected on major stocks. But they decline the photo all my other stocks accepted... 

Quote from: rimglow on December 21, 2010, 14:24
My first impression was over saturated. That's not a green found anywhere in nature. Dial down the Saturation 15-20 clicks.

If it was accepted by 6 other sites, you failed to mention if iStock was one of them. They have the hardest inspectors of the top six.

I'll try with saturation then since two person already have said that.

It's accepted on SS, DS, DP, 123rf, YAY (though maybe I shouldn't mention yay, I got a more and more feelings that it isn't serious stock, however it does look nice... :/)

You think IS is more picky then SS?

As far as my portfolio goes, iStock is the hardest to get into, and Shutterstock is the easiest.

I wouldn't worry too much about saturation, if you can get away with it. We 'purist' photographers may find over-saturated images offensive but a significant number of buyers seem to love them. Do a search on almost any wildlife or landscape subject and you will often find the best-sellers have horrible saturation and/or obvious and crude use of basic filters. That's stock for you.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 21, 2010, 14:47
I wouldn't worry too much about saturation, if you can get away with it. We 'purist' photographers may find over-saturated images offensive but a significant number of buyers seem to love them. Do a search on almost any wildlife or landscape subject and you will often find the best-sellers have horrible saturation and/or obvious and crude use of basic filters. That's stock for you.

Hehe I was thinking absolutely the same! I do put heavy saturated photos do deviantart, and I always feel guilt that they look like 'kodak dreams' even if people prefer very saturated images. I thought that on stocks people are more 'reasonable' and do not accept such saturated photos. But it seems that buyers are mostly only people too, and like these shiny vivid colours.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't download the photo to see at full rez.  I think you have to be a member of that site to be able to download the image. 

You may justify over filtering  all you like, but the bottom line is if the photo can't get past the inspectors, you can't sell it.

Your choice, keep the photo as it is and don't be surprised at rejections from harder inspectors, or change it. Play the game.

Quote from: rimglow on December 21, 2010, 16:55
You may justify over filtering  all you like, but the bottom line is if the photo can't get past the inspectors, you can't sell it.

FWIW, bumping saturation also increases visible artifacting quite a bit, but since I can't see it at 100% pixels I don't know if that's the case here...

Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2010, 16:21
Maybe it's just me, but I can't download the photo to see at full rez.  I think you have to be a member of that site to be able to download the image. 

Silly picasa - I have option 'let everyone download' on and it doesn't let anyone download it!  
How about here: http://strony.aster.pl/paulamozdrzewska/msg/IMG_5572.jpg it should download straight into the browser, does it work?

Quote from: seawhisper on December 21, 2010, 18:24
Silly picasa - I have option 'let everyone download' on and it doesn't let anyone download it!  
How about here: http://strony.aster.pl/paulamozdrzewska/msg/IMG_5572.jpg it should download straight into the browser, does it work?

Ouch __ that hurt my eyes. I'm absolutely amazed that that image was accepted by any agency. Obviously they weren't checking it at 100% (just as well if they wanted to preserve their eyesight). It is horrendous.

I sometimes like images with punchy colors, but this is over the top. Not much, but a bit. The image is also noisy and not quite sharp.
And in a peacock image we usually want to see the tail feathers.

For what it's worth, I don't worry about FT rejections.  They will accept anything with a human in it, I think my humans are about 100% acceptance, and everything else is about 50% acceptance.   I also feel that approval/rejections depend on the mood of the inspector and which refusal button happens to be the closest.  Try not to overthing their strange rejections and just move on.  Your blood pressure will thank you! 

I'm actually surprised SS accepted it considering their fixation with focus . There's also lot of artifacting in the background and those blue spots on the tail look really bad ( blown out colors + noise ) . The eye is way oversharpened .

I like the color but there is motion blur in the neck and head feathers.

Wow, some pretty sharp criticism here!  Thanks for providing the 100% view Paula

I agree with the comments about the noise.  The noise and artifacts are definitely the reason this was rejected. Looks like you applied sharpening along with saturation boost.  It's just too much.

Personally, I think it is a very attractive photo of a peacock.  If you have a RAW and can reprocess very minimally, without boosting the sharpness or saturation, and maybe do a bit of noise reduction in the green background areas, I think you might have a shot at approval. 

Problem is, though, that would be an awful lot of trouble for a shot that ultimately isn't going to sell much even if approved.  As has been mentioned, it's a low demand area.  I even have a shot of a peacock from early in my micro days available in the free section of a couple of sites and it isn't even downloaded much for free. 

Mentioned artefacts and noise, over-saturation, everything caused by high ISO. From my experience, Canon 50D gives unacceptable noise above 200 ISO, and there is no point to take pictures (even in the studio, strobes - visible artefacts in processing software). I understand that there was no chance to compromise good time (1/80) with your wide open lens, but processing it in correct program with noise reduction/downsize should help (Of course, if you have raw file...)

It's a nice looking photo but like some others have said here's what I'm seeing.

Artifacts
Posterization
Overprocessed (noise reduction removed details, oversharpened, etc)
Lighting (blown highlights)

Regarding Istock, I doubt they would accept this because they are ultra picky about technical quality. You can always try and see what happens.

Quote from: a1bercik on December 22, 2010, 07:19
Mentioned artefacts and noise, over-saturation, everything caused by high ISO. From my experience, Canon 50D gives unacceptable noise above 200 ISO..."

Agree.  This was shot at 800 ISO.  Is anyone having much luck submitting at over 400 ISO?  With my D300 I rarely try anything over 200 ISO for stock.

fred

Quote from: a1bercik on December 22, 2010, 07:19
Mentioned artefacts and noise, over-saturation, everything caused by high ISO. From my experience, Canon 50D gives unacceptable noise above 200 ISO..."

Agree.  EXIF shows the OP's shot at 800 ISO.  Is anyone having much luck submitting at over 400 ISO?  With my D300 I rarely try anything over 200 ISO for stock.

fred

Quote from: Fred on December 22, 2010, 13:03

Quote from: a1bercik on December 22, 2010, 07:19
Mentioned artefacts and noise, over-saturation, everything caused by high ISO. From my experience, Canon 50D gives unacceptable noise above 200 ISO..."

Agree.  This was shot at 800 ISO.  Is anyone having much luck submitting at over 400 ISO?  With my D300 I rarely try anything over 200 ISO for stock.

fred

I have pictures with 800 ISO approved and no noise reduction, well exposed we get nice results