MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "artifacting". Always "artifacting".  (Read 11585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 20, 2010, 21:46 »
0
<rant>

After being away from microstock for a couple of months, I decided to submit some more images to IS.  I picked a few that I already had on SS, DT and FT, that had sold reasonably well.   You guessed it. IS rejected 3 out of 5 for "artifacting".

With the usual helpful hints about saving at higher JPG quality - hey, my slider is at 10, but apparently they have one that goes higher (remember Spinal Tap's amps?).   Yes I've done the noise reduction, the minimal sharpening.  There's no place left to go here, folks.  This is what digital photos of real objects look like.

Why can't these people simply say "not what we're looking for" and leave it at that? Why the endless obfuscation?

</rant>









« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2010, 21:47 »
0
My PS .jpg slider goes to 12 :) .

Wanna post an example?

« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2010, 21:57 »
0
Wanna post an example?

No, just let me rant in peace.  Posting examples leads to endless arguments about 'color noise', fringing, sharpening etc.  and some people inevitably find something they think could be better.  Bottom line, these images were good enough for SS, DT, FT and StockXpert, they're good enough for their intended purpose, and they're just good enough, period.  And thank you Stuart Smalley.


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2010, 22:05 »
0
<rant>

After being away from microstock for a couple of months, I decided to submit some more images to IS.  I picked a few that I already had on SS, DT and FT, that had sold reasonably well.   You guessed it. IS rejected 3 out of 5 for "artifacting".

With the usual helpful hints about saving at higher JPG quality - hey, my slider is at 10, but apparently they have one that goes higher (remember Spinal Tap's amps?).   Yes I've done the noise reduction, the minimal sharpening.  There's no place left to go here, folks.  This is what digital photos of real objects look like.

Why can't these people simply say "not what we're looking for" and leave it at that? Why the endless obfuscation?
</rant>

No place left to go? How about no sharpening or noise reduction? Or software with a higher jpg slider. "These go to 11!"

Would you like tto post the image for some guidance or have you already decided IS is the problem?

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2010, 22:07 »
0
Wanna post an example?
No, just let me rant in peace.  Posting examples leads to endless arguments about 'color noise', fringing, sharpening etc.  and some people inevitably find something they think could be better.  Bottom line, these images were good enough for SS, DT, FT and StockXpert, they're good enough for their intended purpose, and they're just good enough, period.  And thank you Stuart Smalley.

That's what I figured.

« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2010, 22:26 »
0
Maybe the reviewer is right.  We can't judge or express an opinion if you don't post an example.

And sjlocke is right: PS .jpg slider goes to 12

« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2010, 22:28 »
0
And thank you Stuart Smalley.

... and people like you.

« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2010, 22:32 »
0
I'm very relieved to hear its not just me who always get the "artifacting" denial from I-Stock.  Most every image I submit there gets rejected for this reason.  I've been reading and gathering as much information as I can find regarding this subject.  Below are my observations and finding:

1.)  I guess Nikon Cameras are known to ALWAYS produce artifacting - so if you shoot a Nikon, like I do, just expect every image you shoot to have this problem.  (I shoot RAW - doesn't seem to make a difference).

2.)  I think I-Stock basically says they aren't interested in your photo when they don't allow you to correct the issues and resubmit the photo.  If they allow to to correct your problems, than that says your photo has redeeming qualities, fix the artifacting problem and we will accept it.  If there is not a RESUBMIT button available - then they aren't likin' what they see, so don't bother fixin' it.

3.) I have a REALLY difficult time seeing the artifacting they speak of.  So, I totally feel handicapped when it comes to fixing the issue.  However, I did run across a really COOL tutorial which uses an EDGE Mask technique and Lab Color to help rid the photo of the artifacts.  I just corrected some photos with this and plan to submit.  I will sure let others know if I was successful or not.  Here the link: (Its a two part tutorial) http://photos4u2c.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/how-to-remove-artifacts-and-avoid-istock-rejection-part-1/

« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2010, 22:50 »
0
For the record, PhotoShop is not used by every sentient lifeform in the galaxy. I create my JPGs with the very capable Nikon Capture NX, with JPG quality set to maximum, which is actually a value of 100 in their dialog. . But JPG quality is not the issue here.

I think what is happening is that the reviewer is finding (at 100%) some tiny dark corner of the image where a bit of banding or posterizing has crept in.  In an exhaustive search of one of my rejected images, I eventually did find such a defect.   But it would have no real impact in any expected use of the image.  Even printed full size on a magazine cover, these images would look fine.   All the other big sites are happy to sell them.  Is IS's allegedly higher quality really impressing buyers?  I have no way of knowing.  But there is a thing called "the point of diminishing returns", both for contributor and agency.

In another rejected image, I can find nothing wrong.  The subject is some glass objects, I think the "artifacts" the reviewer is claiming to see are actually just tiny flaws in the glass.

Basically these images are no better and no worse than all the ones that IS has previously accepted. Same process all the way. I think the unusual subjects just threw off the reviewer.

I honestly believe that if they were hot "business success" shots featuring good looking ethnic models with perfect white teeth in $800 suits, somewhat looser standards would be applied.






« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 23:03 by stockastic »

« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2010, 23:55 »
0
For the record, PhotoShop is not used by every sentient lifeform in the galaxy. I create my JPGs with the very capable Nikon Capture NX, with JPG quality set to maximum, which is actually a value of 100 in their dialog. . But JPG quality is not the issue here.

I think what is happening is that the reviewer is finding (at 100%) some tiny dark corner of the image where a bit of banding or posterizing has crept in.  In an exhaustive search of one of my rejected images, I eventually did find such a defect.   But it would have no real impact in any expected use of the image.  Even printed full size on a magazine cover, these images would look fine.   All the other big sites are happy to sell them.  Is IS's allegedly higher quality really impressing buyers?  I have no way of knowing.  But there is a thing called "the point of diminishing returns", both for contributor and agency.

In another rejected image, I can find nothing wrong.  The subject is some glass objects, I think the "artifacts" the reviewer is claiming to see are actually just tiny flaws in the glass.

Basically these images are no better and no worse than all the ones that IS has previously accepted. Same process all the way. I think the unusual subjects just threw off the reviewer.

I honestly believe that if they were hot "business success" shots featuring good looking ethnic models with perfect white teeth in $800 suits, somewhat looser standards would be applied.



That is right, photoshop is not used by every sentient lifeform in the galaxy, however it is used by most professionals and serious amateurs. That is true that bit of banding or posterizing would probably not be seen on a magazine cover. Your argument is a very old one amongst submitters getting rejections. However, that is Istock rules and I dont mind as I rarely get rejections for artefacts anymore as I have learned to do it without. We are competing against each others and if somehow by coincidence you submit the same subject and/or similar composition as mine I would hope that the one kept is the one without those bits of banding and posterizing. We are all competing against each others to get the dollars and there are thousands of us producing millions of images. Istock is only doing it right by accepting only images that are, amongst other things,  technically perfect.  From my own experience, I really dont believe that looser standards apply to hot "business success" shots featuring good looking ethnic models with perfect white teeth in $800 suits.

Denis
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 23:57 by cybernesco »

« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2010, 03:34 »
0
In another rejected image, I can find nothing wrong.  The subject is some glass objects, I think the "artifacts" the reviewer is claiming to see are actually just tiny flaws in the glass.

I try to play it on the safe side and scan every image i submit to IS at 100% and correct even small flaws in the material or skin. If I get a rejection for artifacts and can't find them, I usually resize the image from 24mpx to 12mpx and, more often then not, it goes through fine.

« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2010, 04:41 »
0
In fact, this is something quite easy to address if you apply a systematic approach. I am getting nearly 0 rejects for artifacts for the last +/- 10 months if not longer:

* shoot exclusively in RAW , not too high ISO
* good exposure, particularly no underexposure, and no pulling shadows up
* very little or no sharpening when processing RAW
* if converting RAW to separate file before opening in photoshop use TIF not jpeg

in result you should see very little artifacting (BTW check on the edge of shadows at 400%-500% zoom).

What I am doing next with 100% of my pictures is applying TopazLabs DeJPEG filter (photoshop plugin). There is an old free version and there is up to date commercial one which isn't expensive. The "official" purpose of the plugin is different, but it helps very nicely to remove that little artifacting. The key is to apply DeJPEG at very low settings, don't overdo it. I made several presets for different degree of artifacting/noise; and I am thinking about making a tutorial about that when I have some time.

When applied at minimal settings, DeJPEG filter smoothens areas without detail while keeping details sharp, and adds a very little noise. This is an example (crop enlarged to 300%):

the version "more DeJpeg" not only smoothened stronger, but also has more noise added.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 05:06 by MikLav »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2010, 07:15 »
0
But JPG quality is not the issue here. <snip> I honestly believe that if they were hot "business success" shots featuring good looking ethnic models with perfect white teeth in $800 suits, somewhat looser standards would be applied.

In my experience IS looks mainly at technical issues. I still see a lot of brick walls on the newest uploads list so they can't be too picky about subject.

I'd be interested to see what some of these shots are that get in other places but not IS.

« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2010, 08:17 »
0
<rant>

After being away from microstock for a couple of months, I decided to submit some more images to IS.  I picked a few that I already had on SS, DT and FT, that had sold reasonably well.   You guessed it. IS rejected 3 out of 5 for "artifacting".

With the usual helpful hints about saving at higher JPG quality - hey, my slider is at 10, but apparently they have one that goes higher (remember Spinal Tap's amps?).   Yes I've done the noise reduction, the minimal sharpening.  There's no place left to go here, folks.  This is what digital photos of real objects look like.

Why can't these people simply say "not what we're looking for" and leave it at that? Why the endless obfuscation?

</rant>


I understand it's always fun to rant, but if you're getting lots of rejections for similar reasons and you want to do something about it, your best bet is the iStock Critique forum...


« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2010, 14:27 »
0
If I get a rejection for artifacts and can't find them, I usually resize the image from 24mpx to 12mpx and, more often then not, it goes through fine.

Interesting.  I have one image I just refuse to give up on.  I think I'll keep on smoothing it out, dialing up the noise reduction, and resubmitting it every couple of months.  Maybe I can figure out what they really want to see.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 14:36 by stockastic »

« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2010, 15:15 »
0
If I get a rejection for artifacts and can't find them, I usually resize the image from 24mpx to 12mpx and, more often then not, it goes through fine.

Interesting.  I have one image I just refuse to give up on.  I think I'll keep on smoothing it out, dialing up the noise reduction, and resubmitting it every couple of months.  Maybe I can figure out what they really want to see.

If you keep smoothing it out at one point they'll switch from 'artefacts' to 'overfiltering' rejection ;)
I've had a big dose of 'artefact' rejections as well... they completely vanished when i switched to a D700....
(still stuck with overfiltering rejections though. they seem to use it on every pic they don't like and it's always guessing what they mean with it since they use it for bad isolations, use of filters or noise correction sofware, too much saturation etc etc.. my little rant ;))

« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2010, 15:22 »
0

If you keep smoothing it out at one point they'll switch from 'artefacts' to 'overfiltering' rejection ;)
I've had a big dose of 'artefact' rejections as well... they completely vanished when i switched to a D700....
(still stuck with overfiltering rejections though. they seem to use it on every pic they don't like and it's always guessing what they mean with it since they use it for bad isolations, use of filters or noise correction sofware, too much saturation etc etc.. my little rant ;))


good point Artemis.
re your new overfiltering problem. could it be that your new camera is over filtering ?
i remember reading some reviews of certain digital cameras that tends to over filter.

or maybe you've been shooting in JPG as opposed to shooting RAW perharps?.
just a guess.

« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2010, 15:35 »
0
All this confusion - and a lot of the frustration - could be cleared up if there was just a way to get a sensible explanation of a rejection, instead of these vaguely worded canned emails.  In my experience "overfiltering" has no defined meaning. I've had images accepted that were heavily reworked, and others rejected as "overfiltered" when hardly any significant editing was done.   It's a totally dumb, retro-sounding term anyway. No one is using filters.  If they think it looks "too PhotoShoppy" why not just say so?





« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2010, 16:18 »
0
well stockastic,
at least you're honest enough to abbreviate your post as RANT,
so it's not like you wanted an opinion other than yours  :D

i think we all have our favorite and not so favorite sites or even like and dislike to a site we like.
my only dislike for iS is the long wait for getting my work approved.
this far, i feel the reviewers are objective and fair, as they approve even my rejections as soon as i corrected the problem.

but yes, as i said, i have my works approved really fast with Alamy, StockXpert , FT,
and certainly IS , and DT must be the slowest of them all.

other than that, i don't think i can find any fault with IS.  but yes, i do wish the reviewers would spend less time at the pub in Calgary, and approve my work a whole lot faster  :D

« Last Edit: January 21, 2010, 16:20 by PERSEUS »

xst

« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2010, 15:22 »
0
I enjoyed quite high acceptance rate on IS for quite a while.
Last couple of weeks Im getting much higher then usual number of rejects.
If somebody want to help me find artifacts on one of the images give me your e-mail. I dont want openly post images since they are NSFW, 18+ type

« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2010, 17:55 »
0
1 - I almost never get rejects for Canon 5DII images, but I do for 200D and earlier Sony images (when I shot in JPG only). iStock got very critical as to technical quality. There is no way you can pump up the quality of a lesser cam, not by sharpening and not by noise reduction. Even with a 5DII, make sure the exposure is totally OK and only shoot at 100 ISO. I never used my noise reduction again since I have my 5DII. In borderline focus cases, I sharpen very lightly in the RAW.

2 - iStock will not reject for LCV as long as the image is technically perfect. But when the image has high saleability, they will approve if, even if there are some minor technical flaws.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2010, 02:39 »
0
"I guess Nikon Cameras are known to ALWAYS produce artifacting - so if you shoot a Nikon, like I do, just expect every image you shoot to have this problem.  (I shoot RAW - doesn't seem to make a difference)."

I use a D90, I'm very much a beginner photo wise ( I'm basically a vector contributor) and hardly ever get artifacting rejections now. If you use Capture rather than PS it's pretty easy to spot artifacting when it occurs and also easy to remedy.

« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2010, 04:47 »
0
I wanted once to see the difference between jpeg compression at levels 10 and 12 because files saved at level 10 are much smaller, and honestly, there is a difference, but I'm sure one can see it only by comparing the same file saved at both settings. If reviewers don't pay attention at file size I am sure the error of guessing at which level the image is saved will be huge. I am still sending images saved at level 12, but I really don't think there is a problem of choosing level 10 as default.

But artifacting....hmm...yes, it is one of favorite IS rejections, and it happens for many reasons. I checked 4 of my images made in strong sunlight that were rejected for artifacting and the only wrong thing about them was some kind of halo around few very brightly lit lines or spots. I guess IS count that as artifacting too, not only jpeg artifacting.

« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2010, 06:14 »
0
I haven't seen any mention here yet of just the differences between the reviewers...  When I went through the shutterstock process of submitting 10 images it was a nightmare.  The first time I got 6 images out of 10, so the next time I replaced the 4 they didn't like with 4 others.  Those 4 got accepted, but 5 of the original 6 got rejected.  Totally frustrated, I submitted the EXACT SAME 10 the next month and 8 of the 10 were accepted.

In every rejection it was issues with artifacting or focus or lighting (these were all CG, no photos).  Issues that made no sense when I looked at them.

In the end I chalked it all up to different people seeing different things.  These days if I get a rejection, I'll look at the image to see if I can find what they're talking about and if I can't, I'll make some minor tweak and resubmit.  Most of the time it gets through on the second try.

It's just the world of stock now...  I've learned to stop getting angry about it and move on to other stuff.

« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2010, 06:46 »
0
istock reviewers are very consistent, and istock makes much effort to keep them aligned.

« 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 :)

« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2010, 21:14 »
0
True, but i like variation once in a while :)
Well the main reason is that overwhites (or overblacks) are much easier to clean up by dodging/burning than other colors. After you made a perfect overwhite this way, you can easily isolate the object on a new layer and fill the original layer with your desired color, even a gradient. The only thing you will have to watch out are the few feathering pixels at the edge.


 

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
4275 Views
Last post September 11, 2007, 02:14
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results