I see your points, thank you for your feedback. I don't know however how much is actually artifacting and how much is the orchid's texture - it does have a specked and velvety aspect, as seen in this excerpt from a close-up (another shot, unedited).

http://www.geocities.com/adelaide.geo/img_7486.jpg

I'll try to edit them later.  First I want to finish some New Year's images that I did much in delay. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Quote from: madelaide on November 19, 2007, 21:48
... I don't know however how much is actually artifacting and how much is the orchid's texture ...

I frequently get "artifact" rejects from IS - I think in my case it's because I shoot with such a hi-res camera that reviewers aren't accustomed to seeing stuff so close up. I shrug it off and try again ... that's about all you can do, I suppose.

I never get IS rejections for noise or artifacts.  Never ever.  Mind you I am a fanatic (as most people here know).

However in the last ten days or so I have had five rejections due to 'artifacts'.  I know those pictures don't contain any artifacts, but the image inspectors seem suddenly to be on a 'let's find anything that might remotely look like artifacts' campaign.

Unfortunately there are many things that without detailed scrutiny can indeed 'look' like artifacts; examples being a close weave on clothing, the 'grain' of stainless steel or other metals, even a texture finish on ordinary paper (particularly in shadows).

The queue at IS has grown again so I'll put these rejections down to 'reviewing too fast, too keen to get to the next image etc'....

I don't have sharply's problem of ultra high resolution (my D200 only produces 10.2mp), but I can see that the higher the resolution the greater the potential problems (and presumably the more time needed to examine everything in fine detail).

Too bad about the rejections, hatman - I know it must drive you nuts. I guess you have your rather high IS sales of late as consolation. (wink)

My theory: Long queues = hire more inspectors;
hire more inspectors = inspectors must be trained.

I run a (different type of) site that has an approval process for it's membership. The first reaction of most inspectors is to reject about 50%, where on my site the real goal is about 5% -- after a few nudges they learn...

I can only assume that microstock sites have a review process for their inspectors, and that as decisions are reversed the training takes place.

They often make an issue of paper texture as artifacting (*sigh*).  I managed to have it reversed in the past, but yesterday Scout took the inspector's side on two images - I have other three in another ticket, which is in fact older (Oct 24th) and must have been forgotten in his mailbox.

Regards,
Adelaide

Scout takes so long that I no longer bother using that service. If I feel strongly about a rejected image I simply resubmit it - sure, it uses up a valuable upload slot, but it (hopefully) gets on the site far quicker that way.

Quote from: sharply_done on November 20, 2007, 19:47
Scout takes so long that I no longer bother using that service. If I feel strongly about a rejected image I simply resubmit it - sure, it uses up a valuable upload slot, but it (hopefully) gets on the site far quicker that way.

Scout is the only way I can get my illustrations (not vector) accepted. They are always rejected for not being stock worthy. Yet they outsell my photos 4:1 and I have 5x as many photos on Istock!

Talk about frustrating...

I waited so long for scout that I was not thinking about anymore...About 3 weeks and the answer was a bit absurd so.

I take it on the optimist side, hoping that Scout can correct inspectors when he checks they have taken a wrong decision.

About illustrations, I applied once and also get that not-stockworthy rejection, and I haven't still picked other images for a second attempt.  Mine are not amazing, but they sell ok.

Regards,
Adelaide