pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "artifacting". Always "artifacting".  (Read 11590 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2010, 09:35 »
0
I think it's so odd a lot of people qualify iStock as being consistent in their inspections!
I have over 90% AR on all sites i submit to (SS, DT, BigStock, FT and even Veer) and find those all very consistent, only with iStock i never can guesstimate whether my files will make it in and only have a mere 54% AR there. I just don't get their reviewers...


« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2010, 10:19 »
0
Quote
I think it's so odd a lot of people qualify iStock as being consistent in their inspections!

I do too. I have never found that to be true. They are just as "human" as the reviewers on the other sites, IMHO.

« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2010, 10:35 »
0
I think it's so odd a lot of people qualify iStock as being consistent in their inspections!
I have over 90% AR on all sites i submit to (SS, DT, BigStock, FT and even Veer) and find those all very consistent, only with iStock i never can guesstimate whether my files will make it in and only have a mere 54% AR there. I just don't get their reviewers...

I understand your frustration, everywhere else I use to have 95-100% acceptance and something like 70% for iStock. Most of the time, those iStock rejected ones, I would manage to fix them fairly quickly  and get them accepted thereafter. But I knew how they were and I knew that some of my images had a 50 50 chance to make it. iStock are very strict on technicalities and they have been consistent on that. I think in the long run this is good for the photographer because it forces you to learn and perfect your skills. Since I got a 5D Mk2 a few months ago, my acceptance with iStock went to almost 100%. I even have 800 ISO images accepted which was unthinkable before for iStock. The 5D Mk2 is very "low light" friendly which make it less difficult to get away from noise and artifact. Denis

« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2010, 12:22 »
0
Thanks for your reply and heads up Denis!
Since i switched from a Nikon D100 to the D700 a couple of months ago my technical rejections on istock are history as well. It's just the darned 'overfiltering' i keep getting so often. It must be something i'm missing because i never hear other peeps complaining about it.... the biggest issue with it is that it's such an unclear reason (i very rarely to never use filters, try not to overdo saturation and don't use noise reduction ) making it pretty difficult to guess what needs fixing...
I hosted a pretty typical (for me) overfiltering rejection here:
http://users.telenet.be/missLounge/exemple.jpg

If you colleagues have tips on whats wrong and how to avoid the overfilterings in the future you have my eternal grattitude :D
(sorry for hijacking OP...)


« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2010, 12:37 »
0
If you colleagues have tips on whats wrong and how to avoid the overfilterings in the future you have my eternal grattitude :D

Smudge?


Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #30 on: January 23, 2010, 12:51 »
0
With me it is FT and IS that are having a contest as to who can reject the most.  FT won last month , but I believe IS will win this month - if their upload application ever gets fixed. ;D

I figure they just don't like what they see, because I do everything I am supposed to.  If they claim artifacts it doesn't matter to me.  I very rarely resubmit.  I only resubmit to SS if the reviewer indicates I should do something and directs me to resubmit.  Otherwise I find resubmitting is a waste of time for me.  Others may do well by resubmitting.  I have five sites accepting 75% to 90% on most submissions.  IS and FT rarely accept more than 10 or 20 percent and often accept 0.  I'm not worried about FT as I manage to get a couple of payouts per year - even with a very small portfolio.  IS is another bear - I have been trying to give them what they want for nearly two years and don't expect a payout for at least 10 years or more.  So their reasons for rejecting my images no longer means anything to me.  I figure IS just doesn't care for whatever I submit.

Newbes should just look for sites that accept their work and keep plugging to build up their portfolios.  By the end of two years you will know where your efforts will be rewarded.  I never let one site or person ruin my day.  Now if every site rejected my work the way IS does, I would find something else to do with my spare time.

« Reply #31 on: January 23, 2010, 13:08 »
0

I understand your frustration, everywhere else I use to have 95-100% acceptance and something like 70% for iStock. Most of the time, those iStock rejected ones, I would manage to fix them fairly quickly  and get them accepted thereafter. But I knew how they were and I knew that some of my images had a 50 50 chance to make it. iStock are very strict on technicalities and they have been consistent on that. I think in the long run this is good for the photographer because it forces you to learn and perfect your skills. Since I got a 5D Mk2 a few months ago, my acceptance with iStock went to almost 100%. I even have 800 ISO images accepted which was unthinkable before for iStock. The 5D Mk2 is very "low light" friendly which make it less difficult to get away from noise and artifact. Denis

yes, so right cybernesco.
I too have to confess that with the other Big 6 most of my submission is done with less care for detail. And yes too, they get higher approval there as well.
But when it comes to IS for the same image, I still find myself going back to eyeball every single inch with a fine tooth comb before submitting them to IS. IS and StockXpert are always last in line for my work submitting because like cybernesco points out so correctly, it has to be impeccable.

And you know what? many times whatever the rejection is , are all with CAN RESUBMIT
and sure enough, the spot I forgot or missed is there, and after I corrected that, it is Approved.

If that is not consistent, I don't know what is.

« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2010, 13:12 »
0
If you colleagues have tips on whats wrong and how to avoid the overfilterings in the future you have my eternal grattitude :D

Smudge?



Whoea, sharp eye! Cut out like that it definitely looks like smudge indeed...but then again, when i look at the picture and the shoe behind it, it looks like DoF falling away (haha bending my head in all possible directions here trying to catch if its smudge or DoF)... not saying you're wrong though, it does look odd... if it is smudge i wonder how it got there, i didnt do anything on the shoes apart from lighting up the shadow under the heel...
Thanks mister FD! 1 down and with tweaking ready to resubmit; another 99 or something to go ;)

Roadrunner, i was just wondering how many pictures you have on istock? I'm asking because i also started a little longer than a year ago and didn't sell a thing on iStock for the first 6-8 months, until i hit the magic 100 pics online. From that moment sales keep rolling in steadily and iStock now each month makes up for 60-70% of my MS income, with a portfolio much smaller than most other sites...
I totally understand your frustrations with them though, i've cursed so much at them and still do once in a while...it's just their money tastes so sweet (at least as long as i dont think about the 20% thing)

ETA: you're definitely right FD-amateur; checked the RAW and it's not there. Maybe it happened with cloning some dust out. Now at once we have the reason for the frequent overfilterings i get : "not enough eye for detail"... ;)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 13:27 by Artemis »

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2010, 14:06 »
0
Artemis - I only managed to get 16 images accepted on IS.  I'm not blaming them; I just could never see the artifacts or noise they say I have.  Even at 200 % I can't see it.  On Lucky Oliver they would give me a hint as to where they found something they didn't like.  I don't bother to put the images on the forum because I don't need to get slaughtered.  I did post a couple of images on SS forum early on, and did get some great help.  After applying those tips my acceptance on both SS and DT went up significantly.  I doubt if I can do any better so I don't put images up any more.  I just take my lumps.

I think my sales on IS is around $24.73 or something like that.  On other sites I have between 180 to 300 images.  That is realy small considering what you guys and gals have, but I don't get around much as I used to and don't want to get involved with models.  So my work is quite limited.  I try to submit objects, travel type shots and historic buildings/sites.

So I do know it's my fault, and I really shouldn't bother the reviewers at IS.  Might be time to give up the ghost.  I'll make that decision after my next submission.  If they reject 8 out of ten, I'm going to throw in the IS towel.  There is no sense applying so much effor for no results in a positive light.

Roadrunner





« Reply #34 on: January 23, 2010, 14:29 »
0
Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors.  It's the way they operate.  I've also noticed the same with Fotolia lately.  I used to have the highest acceptance rate at Fotolia and now they seem to be following iStock's pattern.  I hope it works for the both of them in the long run, because they are turning down some great images.

« Reply #35 on: January 23, 2010, 14:37 »
0
Just one short, clear note from a reviewer would clear up so much confusion.  This endless guessing game wastes their time and ours.

For example, 2 rejections I just experienced:  in one case the reviewer attached a clip of the "artifacting" area.  It was a tiny illegible smudge where I'd done a less than perfect job of cloning out a trademark.  Easy to fix. But, IS won't let me resubmit that one. Why not? And why attach the clip?

In the other case, I can find no banding, posterizing, fringing or objectionable noise, anywhere; I suspect the actual texture of the subject is confusing the reviewer. A clip, or a single sentence from the reviewer  would be sooooo helpful - but I got nothing.  And this one they'll let me re-submit..

[sound of hair being pulled out...]


« Reply #36 on: January 23, 2010, 15:13 »
0
Roadrunner: i understand completely...iStock is definitely a VERY nitpicky, time and energyconsuming site (to some of us at least) Then again if you keep submitting to SS and DT your skills and photographic eye will grow along, without putting a lot of effort in.

stockastic: i'm pulling hairs along with ya! communication with the reviewers sometimes works, but takes even more time. A recent example:
Rejected for overfiltering -> resubmit with note: "please can you elaborate? no filters or colorboosting has been performed" -> reject with note: there are some artefacts in the sausage -> resubmit with note: sausages have been toned down, artefacts should be gone -> reject with note: overfiltering; the isolation has strayed areas -> resubmit with note: cleaned up isolation -> accepted!

It does work and most reviewers really are willing to provide some extra info which i truly appreciate (although i can imagine them sighing behind their computers thinking 'geez pitbull, let it go already!'), but it's so time-consuming i only bother with pictures i really really can't let go ...
it's an option to get more clarity though!





« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2010, 15:23 »
0
ETA: you're definitely right FD-amateur; checked the RAW and it's not there. Maybe it happened with cloning some dust out. Now at once we have the reason for the frequent overfilterings i get : "not enough eye for detail"... ;)
You're welcome. Glad I could help you out on this one. I appreciate you put up the image full-size, since I read so many rants without even a port link or the image in question.
I saw immediately it's not like the lens bokeh of a shallow DOF, since it's not the same everywhere. It just "feels" different. It looks more like you tried to burn the edges of the shoe with the burn tool/medium tones.
Yes you need to go over your shots always at 100%. The eyes of the iStock inspectors are razor sharp  ;)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 15:27 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2010, 15:52 »
0
Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors.  It's the way they operate.  I've also noticed the same with Fotolia lately.  I used to have the highest acceptance rate at Fotolia and now they seem to be following iStock's pattern.  I hope it works for the both of them in the long run, because they are turning down some great images.

I don't believe that for one minute. That would definitely be detrimental for the buyers, the sites, exclusive contributors and ultimately nonexclusive contributors if they were to accept substandard images from their own exclusives. In addition, in the last few months I had near 100% acceptance rate at both sites FT and IS. Denis
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 17:20 by cybernesco »

« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2010, 16:19 »
0
In a few cases I've appealed to "Scout" and was approved each time.  But it takes ages.

Artemis, your account of back-and-forth messages is illuminating, I didn't realize we could dialog with IS in that way.  I'll try it in the future.

I should point out that in some cases IS has rejected me for "artifacts" that actually were present.


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2010, 18:15 »
0
Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors.  It's the way they operate.  I've also noticed the same with Fotolia lately.  I used to have the highest acceptance rate at Fotolia and now they seem to be following iStock's pattern.  I hope it works for the both of them in the long run, because they are turning down some great images.

Where did you get this info from? I'm exclusive and I haven't seen any difference in rejection patterns from before I was exclusive.

KB

« Reply #41 on: January 23, 2010, 18:26 »
0
Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors.  It's the way they operate.  I've also noticed the same with Fotolia lately.  I used to have the highest acceptance rate at Fotolia and now they seem to be following iStock's pattern.  I hope it works for the both of them in the long run, because they are turning down some great images.

Where did you get this info from? I'm exclusive and I haven't seen any difference in rejection patterns from before I was exclusive.
And I'm not exclusive, and I don't believe it either. The part about iStock. I'll buy it for FT.  ;D

« Reply #42 on: January 23, 2010, 20:37 »
0
Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors.  It's the way they operate.  I've also noticed the same with Fotolia lately.  I used to have the highest acceptance rate at Fotolia and now they seem to be following iStock's pattern.  I hope it works for the both of them in the long run, because they are turning down some great images.

Where did you get this info from? I'm exclusive and I haven't seen any difference in rejection patterns from before I was exclusive.
And I'm not exclusive, and I don't believe it either. The part about iStock. I'll buy it for FT.  ;D

 and baby makes 3..   :D
 Like KB I am not exclusive, and I three...agree with Paulie  8)
And yes, FT is now getting pretty close to IS's stringency.
Which as I mentioned before, the approval will still be consistent when you pay close attention to detail and be more careful as to which work to send them.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2010, 20:44 by PERSEUS »

Caz

« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2010, 09:01 »
0
Just one short, clear note from a reviewer would clear up so much confusion.  This endless guessing game wastes their time and ours.


The inspection queue would grow beyond belief if every inspection came with a hand holding personal note about what exactly is wrong with your image. They assume you've self inspected your image to a professional degree, and so the general pre-done rejection reasons should therefore point you in the right direction and you ought to be able to pick it up from there yourself. Inspections are there to filter submissions, not to teach photography (although those who are open minded do learn from their rejections)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 09:05 by Caz »

ShadySue

« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2010, 09:42 »
0
Unless you are exclusive with iStock, you will have a much higher percentage of rejections, especially if your images compete with exclusive contributors.  It's the way they operate.
I have encountered no evidence of this. Can you provide any clear proof that this is so? (Obviously, when I had loads of rejections at the beginning I had lots of conspiracy theories, but when I cleaned up my act, I found that my acceptances magically increased. Now my only regular rejection issue is 'flat light'. I can testify that they're no more lenient when you become exclusive.
And do you really think that every time you upload an image, the inspector does a search to see if you're competing with exclusives. I've had rejections, before and after exclusivity, even when it was the only photo of that topic on the site (except that as they were rejected, they're not actually 'on the site').

« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2010, 11:55 »
0
The inspection queue  would grow beyond belief if every inspection came with a hand holding personal note about what exactly is wrong with your image. They assume you've self inspected your image to a professional degree, and so the general pre-done rejection reasons should therefore point you in the right direction and you ought to be able to pick it up from there yourself. Inspections are there to filter submissions, not to teach photography (although those who are open minded do learn from their rejections)


  LOL   Well E-X-C-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-S-E  ME!   ;D


« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 12:03 by stockastic »

« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2010, 16:02 »
0
ETA: you're definitely right FD-amateur; checked the RAW and it's not there. Maybe it happened with cloning some dust out. Now at once we have the reason for the frequent overfilterings i get : "not enough eye for detail"... ;)

This doesn't look like cloning mistakes... but it looks very familiar to me.

Usually those smudges came when I blurred the background (which appears to be the case in your image as well). Even when you select only the background, the blur moves in the colors from outside the selected area. The only safe way I have found to blur the background is to put background and foreground in separate layers and then only blur the background and move the foreground on top of it. Since I'm doing it this way, I haven't seen any "Isolation" nor "Overfiltered" rejections.

Apologies if my guess about your workflow is wrong, this is only based on the mistakes I made myself.

« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2010, 17:29 »
0
Thanks MichaelJay! I did not blur the background though...(if i do i also always work on separate layers with layer masks).
The only thing i did to this shot (it was shot on white) was adding a low opacity lightblue gradient overlay ...and removing the blue parts on the shoes and skirt, so that's probably where it went wrong... and maybe also why istock likes to reject for overfiltering. I like photoshopping, they not so much :/
(then again i also get overfilterings for very little to no photoshop)

« Last Edit: January 24, 2010, 17:30 by Artemis »

« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2010, 18:07 »
0
The only thing i did to this shot (it was shot on white) was adding a low opacity lightblue gradient overlay ...and removing the blue parts on the shoes and skirt, so that's probably where it went wrong.
Overwhites sell better than overblues.

« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2010, 18:57 »
0
True, but i like variation once in a while :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3352 Views
Last post June 11, 2007, 07:55
by Bateleur
0 Replies
2018 Views
Last post June 22, 2007, 22:44
by rjmiz
1 Replies
3220 Views
Last post July 06, 2007, 19:41
by HughStoneIan
0 Replies
2421 Views
Last post July 08, 2007, 04:06
by rjmiz
2 Replies
4276 Views
Last post September 11, 2007, 02:14
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results