Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none. 

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2011, 08:50
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none. 

They HATE shallow DoF, it's rarely "where we like it to be". They're also very strict about focus in general - I recently submitted some five-year-old shots which were a tiny bit soft, they were good enough for IS and DT but flunked SS. I could see why even though they were perfectly usable. Maybe if your glass is not either a decent prime or an absolutely top-end zoom you could run into trouble.

I've also noticed that they seem to be a lot less keen on heavily saturated stuff than they were, preferring a more natural look.

^ No they weren't shallow DoF and the I only use the best Canon glass available, call me old fashioned but when you submit a photo with a person in it and that person is the focal point I was always lead to believe the eyes were the focus point,  on the shots in question the whole head of the person is within the DoF as is the body.
Another example is where I've submitted a photo with a person in the background that is deliberately and obviously OOF but the purpose of the shot is the item in the foreground that is perfectly in focus and it's obvious that's the focal point of the shot because it's an item with a giant word on it.
And my most recent rejections are for some still life shots with a candle, one candle, the candle is in focus with the focal point being the flame, shot at f11.

More worrying is the fact that the majority of the shots from the same series have been accepted.

Years ago I had a go at reviewing, I only did six batches and hated it but the one thing I did learn is that images containing a lot of information take time to load and at first they look OOF but then when the whole file loads things appear correctly, I'm concerned that because of the amount of extra files SS are getting these days (maybe all the iS exclusives!) the reviewers are rushing things, or even worse the standards of the reviewers is not what it should be.
It wouldn't bother me so much if the support on SS answered emails.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 30, 2011, 10:40

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2011, 08:50
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none. 

They HATE shallow DoF, it's rarely "where we like it to be".

That's absolutely not true. They accept shallow dof even at very wide aperture settings and I only had problems when the supposedly sharp zone was fuzzy (camera shake or something - I also have only good primes). However, a resize to 12 or 8 MP and a bit of smart sharpen on the dof area could be helpful.

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2011, 08:50
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none. 

I have noticed an increase of these rejections as well. And the images are perfectly in focus and accepted everywhere else.

I did a test once (YMMV on this).

I had a theory that the shallow DOFs I had accepted all had their focus on the area that was farthest in the foreground.

I sent in two images of the same scene.  One with focus farthest in the foreground, and one with focus on the area I thought was of primary interest.

Focus in the foreground was accepted.  Primary interest was rejected on the basis that focus wasn't where they wanted it.  

You all might want to try that test too and see what happens.  

ETA:  I find it really strange that agencies don't actually state these rules (if indeed that is a rule).  FT is the worst in this regard, but if they actually clarified these things, the reviewers wouldn't be wasting time on images they can't add to the library.  It's in their interest to make these things clearer, and yet they choose not to.

You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Cheeky. 

[quote author=rubyroo link=topic=11825.msg230178#msg230178 date=132266306
ETA:  I find it really strange that agencies don't actually state these rules (if indeed that is a rule).  FT is the worst in this regard, but if they actually clarified these things, the reviewers wouldn't be wasting time on images they can't add to the library.  It's in their interest to make these things clearer, and yet they choose not to.
[/quote]
Very much correct

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Camera, tripod - Ah now I see, I was using my phone sellotaped to a table 

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2011, 15:36

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Camera, tripod - Ah now I see, I was using my phone sellotaped to a table 

sellotape and table = genius. That should work a lot better than using gum to stick it to my dog

 

Ah yeah, try gum on a cat.  Smoother mover.

(Sellotape/phone... LOL)

ok

Quote from: gostwyck on November 30, 2011, 15:44

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.

Dead right!  forgot that one, although Im surprised someone like RT, forgot the cap, arent you?

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2011, 08:50
Don't know about anybody else but I've been getting quite a few "image is not in focus........etc" rejections recently, and all of the files are perfectly in focus and have been accepted at every other agency, I'm wondering if the reviewers are allowing enough times for the files to load.

Sent an email to support but got the usual response i.e. none. 

Think it boils down to the reviewer and while many of us have complained SS does nothing to correct the situation.  Do some threshold testing, I am sure you can use your review experience to extrapolate!

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 30, 2011, 21:40

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".

You better explain that one to him, wouldn't want him to get the wrong idea and set an oil rig up in flames   

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2011, 21:55

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 30, 2011, 21:40

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".

You better explain that one to him, wouldn't want him to get the wrong idea and set an oil rig up in flames   

Oh I dunno __ I think he'd welcome the stock opportunity of an oil rig fire.

What I think is happening is that over the last year, SS (and others) have tried to raise their standards, and have changed the guidelines for reviewers.  But they probably haven't been totally clear, and have issued new or changed guidelines from time to time, and reviewers have come and gone.  So they've ended up with reviewers all over the place in terms of what they see as the current guidelines and how to apply them.

In short, I don't think they know what they really want any more.

Maybe this will sort itself out over time.

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 16:20

Quote from: gostwyck on November 30, 2011, 15:44

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.

Dead right!  forgot that one, although Im surprised someone like RT, forgot the cap, arent you?

Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   

Quote from: Karimala on December 01, 2011, 00:24

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 16:20

Quote from: gostwyck on November 30, 2011, 15:44

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
You might all wanna go back to the drawingboard and try to get it right in-camera and from the very start. There are photo-schools and colleges, something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy. Spending thousands of bucks on high-res cams, just to downsize to a point/shoot cam is not to recommend.
Take the rough with the smooth boys. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

You forgot one __ take the lens cap off before you shoot. Classic armature (to use Lagereek's language) mistake.

Dead right!  forgot that one, although Im surprised someone like RT, forgot the cap, arent you?

Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   

Was it "blacker than all the others"? I hope you rejected it for "white balance".  ha

Quote from: gostwyck on November 30, 2011, 22:21

Quote from: RT on November 30, 2011, 21:55

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 30, 2011, 21:40

Quote from: lagereek on November 30, 2011, 14:31
something called a Tripod, prevents camera shake, its a kind of three-legged thingy.

So does something called "flash".

You better explain that one to him, wouldn't want him to get the wrong idea and set an oil rig up in flames   

Damned right I would! just imagine, a shot like that would sell its guts out, danger, environmental damage, etc, etc. As it happens, a few years back I actually missed one, outside the Norwegian cost, North Sea, one of the smaller Trolls, had caught fire. Missed it by a day or so.

Oh I dunno __ I think he'd welcome the stock opportunity of an oil rig fire.

Quote from: pancaketom on December 01, 2011, 02:00

Quote from: Karimala on December 01, 2011, 00:24

Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   

Was it "blacker than all the others"? I hope you rejected it for "white balance".  ha

LOL Reminds me that I saw somewhere a totally white conceptual image. I guess it's white balance was correct.

Quote from: Karimala on December 01, 2011, 00:24
Reminds me of when I was reviewing and someone submitted a photo of black.  That's it.  Just black.  Keyworded and described as a conceptual image.   

That was me! So it was you who rejected it. I'm sure it would have been a best-seller __ but then lots of others would have copied it