Author Topic: Artifact police rears its ugly head (Read 4345 times)

ichiro17 · « **on:** July 06, 2007, 08:46 »

Well, I don't really know why, but there's some inconsistency in the iStock process with regards to a certain set of photos.

I uploaded some photos of action shots taken in an ice hockey arena and a lot of them get accepted and some of them don't, which leads me to believe that some reviewers understand the situation and some don't.

Its funny because a lot of the photos are actually very good considering that I have to shoot ISO 640 or higher with a 30D (SS has accepted virtually all of them - so they understand the noise issue) to obtain a fast enough shutter speed. There are very few cameras that will be able to do noise free work in arenas, and its a shame because I'd like to be able to send a note saying that. To top it off, anything that does get accepted sells well, and has the potential to be good for me.

What do you think? Should noise (and that forsaken word "artifacting") be based on situation? I do, because sometimes its just gonna be there.

PS - I downsize my images from 8MP to at least 4 for iStock (unfortunately I won't be able to get into the Large price range) to reduce the artifacting.

vicu · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2007, 10:55 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on July 06, 2007, 08:46

because I'd like to be able to send a note saying that.

You can put a note to the inspector in your item description. That doesn't mean they will care, but at least you will know you did your best to educate them.

Read_My_Rights · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2007, 11:21 »

same complain here. Some reviewer just do not understand the constrains that certain pictures were taken under and do not give credit for an otherewise wonderful and usually rare picture.

w7lwi · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2007, 13:23 »

A concern I've had is, with the increase in use of high rez cameras, small details in an OOF background (or foreground for that matter) can easily be mistaken for artifacts (not noise). I had a series like that recently that were rejected for artifacts. I resubmitted with a note about the higher resolution of those images and that the "artifacts" were instead OOF trees and boulders on a mountainside, about 10 miles away. The reviewer must have agreed with me as the images were all accepted.

But you can't put a note on every image you submit, at least you shouldn't have to, so what to do?

Pixart · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2007, 12:15 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on July 06, 2007, 08:46

I uploaded some photos of action shots taken in an ice hockey arena and a lot of them get accepted and some of them don't, which leads me to believe that some reviewers understand the situation and some don't.

Ichiro, I saw one of your hockey photos is an editors' choice at Dreamstime. Great shot. SPEED! I hope having an EC brings some good exposure.

digiology · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2007, 13:06 »

Funny, but I have the reverse situation. My hockey shots get through pretty much everywhere except SS (rejected for noise). Too bad cause they tend to be my best sellers on other sites.

Congrats on the editors choice on DT!!

ichiro17 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2007, 22:55 »

Thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to see that some of my photos are getting some exposure. I don't really get much due to the fact I'm not overly specialized or my photos in the past haven't had as much
'kick' as others.

Hopefully one day I will be the Photog of the week somewhere

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Artifact police rears its ugly head (Read 4345 times)

ichiro17

vicu

Read_My_Rights

w7lwi

Pixart

digiology

ichiro17

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors