MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another Confusing IS Rejection  (Read 4445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« on: August 22, 2007, 10:37 »
0
I usually don't complain about rejects on IS; but, I had one the other day that has me wondering what next.  Mentioned it on the iS forum, but no response.

A few weeks back, I submitted an image of a woman jumping in an open field with a row of trees in the background.  Image was accepted, no problem.  A bit later, I thought the image may do better if the woman were completely isolated from the background.  Erased the background and resubmitted (nothing done to the woman's image, all work in TIFF).  Came back rejected as too soft.  OK, I can live with that.  Reduced the image (originally 11 mp) to 4 mp and resubmitted again.  You guessed it, rejected for being over sharpened (camera sharpening zero, RAW conversion sharpening zero, and no sharpening in post processing).  Besides, it had just been rejected for being too soft.

OK, now I have an image of a woman that is too soft, too sharp and just right.  I'm feeling like Goldilocks and IS is the three bears.  I could submit this to Scout, but I'd like a reply somewhere in my lifetime.  I could make an image in-between 11 and 4 mp and see if that's "just right", but who knows.  Or I could forget the whole thing as the image is selling elsewhere.

Any thoughts and/or suggestions?


« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2007, 10:54 »
0
now I have an image of a woman that is too soft, too sharp and just right. 

Sounds like real prize to me... :)

« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2007, 12:46 »
0
I never heard an image is to sharp. sharp sounds good  :). Maybe the mean your isolation.
When you downsized it to 4MP, the edges became too sharp and not smooth enough anymore?

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2007, 15:29 »
0
I probably didn't use the proper term here.  The actual rejection is "Image appears over filtered from the original.  It appears oversharpened."  Usually when oversharpening, you can end up with noise, artifacts and other debris on the image.  Not the case here, so I don't know what's going on.  At 200%, the edges look fine (not sharply cut out).

« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2007, 15:55 »
0
well this may very well be a good example of different reviewers and how fine a line things get sliced on.  Some thing it is too sharp, some not sharp enough.. i suppose it IS somewhat personal opinion or different opinions of what Istock is looking for.  If i were you I would just try uplaoding it again if i wanted it in. 

I don't really think it is good practise to keep resubmitting the same shot, but in this case where you have gotten two different opinions on the same shot which are opposite eachother, i think that may be the only option.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2007, 16:04 »
0
Yeah, I finally decided to give it a go again, this time with an image half way between the first and second sizes.  I put a note in the description explaining 11 mp too soft, 4 mp over sharpened and new image half way between should be just right.  It will be interesting to see what sort of response this one gets.  ???

« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2007, 11:18 »
0
Here's my strange rejection at iStockphoto(Stockxpert accepted it):

http://stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=view&id=3109461

Apparently, this requires a model release. I know it's some type of mistake, and I emailed support about it(a week ago, still no response). Personally, I like iStockphoto the best out of all the agencies so far. But this rejection was ... interesting.  :)

« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2007, 15:58 »
0
Here's my strange rejection

Are you sure?!

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2007, 20:00 »
0
Of course you need a model release.  That's the invisible man behind those glasses.  Don't you see him?   ;D

« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2007, 20:20 »
0
Wouldn't he need an invisible model release? Which I am sure was provided?  ;D

« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2007, 22:11 »
0
Erm ... sorry ... I think I got confused between all these rejections ... *blush*

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2007, 17:04 »
0
Yeah, I finally decided to give it a go again, this time with an image half way between the first and second sizes.  I put a note in the description explaining 11 mp too soft, 4 mp over sharpened and new image half way between should be just right.  It will be interesting to see what sort of response this one gets.  ???

Well version 4.0 was finally accepted.  Something I'll need to keep in mind for the future.  Don't downsize too far or it may look oversharpened.  Shoot for that Goldilocks size ... just right ... about half way between the original and the minimum.  7 mp or so.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
11057 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 08:57
by leaf
12 Replies
5339 Views
Last post June 15, 2009, 20:14
by LSD72
2 Replies
1380 Views
Last post February 18, 2015, 23:29
by Jo Ann Snover
1 Replies
2303 Views
Last post February 07, 2017, 08:51
by alno
26 Replies
8003 Views
Last post November 26, 2018, 01:53
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle