pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Artifacts at full size rejections at iStock  (Read 24401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« on: December 20, 2009, 18:00 »
0
I have had a big increase in rejections due to Artifacts at full size from iStockphoto recently, and, to be honest, I can't see what they are finding as a problem. I have asked Scout for more details, but no response so far, and so I wondered if the experts here could have a look at three samples and point me to the problem. I have loaded the full size JPGs onto my site:

http://www.backyardimage.com/Photography. The three images are in the gallery called Test-Photos.

The photos are from a Canon 5d Mark ii, processed a little and then exported at full quality jpegs.

Any help gratefully received!

Steve



« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2009, 18:08 »
0
I only looked at the first one, berry sticks, but the sky was full of artifacts.  Never sharpen the sky. 

« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2009, 18:12 »
0
I had the same problem also with Canon 5d mark II.
No sharpen only a bit W/B
But after scouts review they got approved.

« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2009, 18:19 »
0
Sky does seem to have rather more noise than I'd expect - large expanses of blue sky like that are always a bit of a problem.  You could try noise reduction, or perhaps a gaussian blur, with a mask for just the sky.

You'd do better to post in the iStock critique forum.  If you're lucky, an inspector will come by and give you a better idea of exactly what they see as the problem.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2009, 18:23 »
0
Thanks for the comments - I did check the metadata - these were taken at ISO 500 because I was handholding a 70-200 with extension tubes. I wish they had rejected them for noise - I know how to handle that - the artifacts rejection (which includes a lot of detail about compression artifacts) confused me a lot.

Steve

« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2009, 18:24 »
0
Sky does seem to have rather more noise than I'd expect - large expanses of blue sky like that are always a bit of a problem.  You could try noise reduction, or perhaps a gaussian blur, with a mask for just the sky.

You'd do better to post in the iStock critique forum.  If you're lucky, an inspector will come by and give you a better idea of exactly what they see as the problem.

Beat me to it Gannet, +1 for the iStock critique forum.

« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2009, 18:39 »
0
I think the problem is in too much non-selective sharpening, contrast or clarity , maybe it is all from the camera...
Check your sharpness on your camera...

« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2009, 18:43 »
0
Only looked at the first one.
Lost of noise, plus a small dustbun near the right edge, 1/3 from the bottom.
Also, there is some strange streak on the left, not sure what that is.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2009, 19:14 »
0
These are all raw files, processed in Lightroom with nothing other than the normal sharpening that Lightroom applies. Thanks for the advice about the iStock forum!

Steve

« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2009, 07:44 »
0
You have to be really careful about sharpening any photo, sharpening adds noise. Also, try always to shoot at ISO 100. I have never been able to get anything approved at ISO400. I know some people have, and I guess it would depend on the photo. Skies are typically noisy as well as dark areas. Those are two places to look for noise (artifacts) right off the bat.

« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2009, 10:28 »
0
You have to be really careful about sharpening any photo, sharpening adds noise. Also, try always to shoot at ISO 100. I have never been able to get anything approved at ISO400. I know some people have, and I guess it would depend on the photo. Skies are typically noisy as well as dark areas. Those are two places to look for noise (artifacts) right off the bat.

No, sorry but wrong: Noise and artifacts are two completely different things. As a matter of fact, areas with large artifacting can be saved by adding some noise, it makes in image look more natural and reduces the harsh squared artifacts in many cases.

Sharpening is one option to create ugly artifacts. But basically they are generated when the digital image is processed, either during the compressing that happens when you save it as JPG (even at largest quality JPG is a compressing file format) or already during taking the picture when you work on the edge of the dynamic range of the camera sensors.

Some degree of noise is totally acceptable if it fits the image and the base image is large enough - at 21 megapixels from the 5DII, I wouldn't consider the noise in the sky a big problem. Question is why is the image shown here so small? Too much cropping?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 10:31 by MichaelJay »

« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2009, 10:55 »
0
I understand noise.  But when Istock refuses images for "artifacts", it's nearly always for images without large spaces like skies, but with animals in it, furry animals.  They often reject for artifacts and give me "the problem" piece enlarged, so I can see which part of the photo is the problem.  And it's always a part of the animal's fur. 
???   ???    ???

« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2009, 11:21 »
0
Quote
No, sorry but wrong: Noise and artifacts are two completely different things.

Some degree of noise is totally acceptable if it fits the image and the base image is large enough - at 21 megapixels from the 5DII, I wouldn't consider the noise in the sky a big problem.

Here are two different definitions I found online, on two different sites:

Noise is apparent by the presence of color speckles where there should be none. For example, instead of a blue sky, you notice faint pink, purple and other color speckles amongst the otherwise blue sky.

ARTIFACTS - Sometimes spelled "artefacts" - Picture degradations that occur as a result of image-processing tasks, such as compressing an image which can result in an increase in digital "noise".


I have had rejections for both noise and artifacts. And though they may be two different things technically, and caused by two different things in camera, they both result in the same thing...distorted or odd-colored pixels in your photo.

As far as adding noise to reduce artifacting, I will have to try that. I have always added blur. Microstock sites are so paranoid about noise, I have never even thought of adding noise to get rid of something else...to me that doesn't make sense.

Maybe the microstock sites are a little more lenient on noise with photographers shooting with 5DIIs. I have never been shown any leniency when it comes to noise in my photos. Or for artifacts.  :(

« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 11:23 by cclapper »

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2009, 12:06 »
0
Quote
Some degree of noise is totally acceptable if it fits the image and the base image is large enough - at 21 megapixels from the 5DII, I wouldn't consider the noise in the sky a big problem. Question is why is the image shown here so small? Too much cropping?

The images on the site are around 9-10 mega pixels so I cropped them to around half size, but they aren't reduced or downsampled.

Steve

ap

« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2009, 12:28 »
0


Some degree of noise is totally acceptable if it fits the image and the base image is large enough - at 21 megapixels from the 5DII, I wouldn't consider the noise in the sky a big problem. Question is why is the image shown here so small? Too much cropping?

wow, i'm really surprised you find that much noise in the sky acceptable. i don't think it would pass muster if it was one of mine. but where in the photo do you actually see the artifact? i honestly cannot see any when mine are rejected for it. i think i've gone blind from all the post processing work. thanx.  :)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 12:30 by ap »

« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2009, 12:38 »
0
You have to be really careful about sharpening any photo, sharpening adds noise. Also, try always to shoot at ISO 100.

+1.

« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2009, 12:42 »
0
They often reject for artifacts and give me "the problem" piece enlarged, so I can see which part of the photo is the problem.  And it's always a part of the animal's fur!
???   ???    ???
Maybe one of the reviewers has an allergy for cat fur.  ;D

m@m

« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2009, 13:08 »
0
wow, i'm really surprised you find that much noise in the sky acceptable. i don't think it would pass muster if it was one of mine. but where in the photo do you actually see the artifact? i honestly cannot see any when mine are rejected for it. i think i've gone blind from all the post processing work. thanx.  :)

Even though artifact is really a part of some of the technical problems with some images rejected by IS, I've also notice that when they're not interested in the subject matter of the photo they tend to use it as an excuse to reject such, that's why in some cases is impossible to find the artifact they're talking about when you double check the image yourself at a 100%...hey if they found a tech problem, you should be able to see it too right!  ;)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 13:12 by m@m »

ap

« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2009, 13:33 »
0

Even though artifact is really a part of some of the technical problems with some images rejected by IS, I've also notice that when they're not interested in the subject matter of the photo they tend to use it as an excuse to reject such, that's why in some cases is impossible to find the artifact they're talking about when you double check the image yourself at a 100%...hey if they found a tech problem, you should be able to see it too right!  ;)

well, i think that would be true if they also make it not possible to resubmit. however, many times, they offer that resubmit button like a throwdown, if only i can find the artifact...

« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2009, 14:09 »
0
Yes Noise is very critical issue with istock but i have good photos at www.agefotostock.com some of it taken in iso 800 and iso 400 at night also.
(my photographer name @ agefoto is Wael Hamdan.

« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2009, 14:39 »
0
The images on the site are around 9-10 mega pixels so I cropped them to around half size, but they aren't reduced or downsampled.

Yes but for the end use it's important which size the user can start with. If you only upload 10 megapixels, any noisy pixel will make a bigger part of the image rather than in a 22 megapixel image. So an M size image derived from 22 megapixels will hide the noise much more than an M derived from 10 megapixels. I hope I made this clear, at least that's how the content team has explained things several times at iStockalypses.

wow, i'm really surprised you find that much noise in the sky acceptable.

Beware that I'm not an inspector and I have had my share of rejections (and still getting some...).  ;)

But I have found that inspectors are much more lenient on noise if it's in a 22 megapixel image rather than the 10 megapixel I had with my old camera. And believe me, I was exclusive at that time already, so this is not "because it's easier for me as an exclusive to get images through inspection".  ;D

In case of questions or problems with iStock acceptances, I really recommend iStock's Critique Request forum since there are quite a few inspectors around who are willing to help out finding issues and pointing how they can be solved.

« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2009, 08:04 »
0
For the OP: on a snapshot here, I took the JPG (finest, all alterations off) straight from cam (5D-MKII) and blew the most unfavorable part with sky up, 100% and 500% (bicubic smoother). The image is even slightly underexposed with the histogram at the 10% right being flat. 1/512, F8.0, 100ISO.

Compare your bokeh around the flower's stalk which is also slightly out of focus with the bokeh here: it's smooth and gradual. No noise at all in the sky.

My bet is you pumped an underexposed shot up in the JPG. Even pumping up in RAW, distortions like in your shot are hardly possible. Just my 0.01$.


« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 08:12 by FD-amateur »

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2009, 08:41 »
0
It makes me wonder if I have a problem with the camera!  The shots were taken at ISO500 hand held using a 70-200 f4 lens with extenders. They are raw from the camera. I'll load the same files with no cropping and no "development" at all tonight - this is helping a lot, thanks.

Steve

« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2009, 09:05 »
0
It makes me wonder if I have a problem with the camera!  The shots were taken at ISO500 hand held using a 70-200 f4 lens with extenders. They are raw from the camera. I'll load the same files with no cropping and no "development" at all tonight - this is helping a lot, thanks.

iStock doesn't like processing, and I personally would avoid uploading anything above 200ISO. As has been mentioned, they are probably more lenient for images in the native cam resolution than downsized.
Just a sidenote: by using a monopod at less than 1/500, you can win 1-2 stops or bring down your ISO.

Just for a comparison, here another snapshot at ISO400. Same conditions as in the previous one, unaltered JPG straight from cam. F3.5, 1/50 handheld (you can see it on the blur and halo on high contrast edges of the balloons), ISO400, 24-70/f2.8 at 24mm (well outside the lens' optimum). A bit of noise, but no real artifacts. The original histogram is added.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 09:12 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2009, 09:39 »
0
Noise and artifacts are very different, I have some pictures at 800 iso and even 1600 approved at istock and many 100 iso and no sharpening rejected for artifacts with 5D mark II.

RacePhoto

« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2009, 12:02 »
0
It makes me wonder if I have a problem with the camera!  The shots were taken at ISO500 hand held using a 70-200 f4 lens with extenders. They are raw from the camera. I'll load the same files with no cropping and no "development" at all tonight - this is helping a lot, thanks.

Steve

You answered your own question.

In simple terms, the best way to make a great lens into an average lens is add a tele-extender.  :)

What extender(s) are you using?

As others have asked, are these full frame or cropped from larger images?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 17:03 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2009, 12:09 »
0
The images on the site are around 9-10 mega pixels so I cropped them to around half size, but they aren't reduced or downsampled.

Yes but for the end use it's important which size the user can start with. If you only upload 10 megapixels, any noisy pixel will make a bigger part of the image rather than in a 22 megapixel image. So an M size image derived from 22 megapixels will hide the noise much more than an M derived from 10 megapixels. I hope I made this clear, at least that's how the content team has explained things several times at iStockalypses.


But that only works if u want to keep the whole image !  he obviously didn't, as he's already reduced it by 50% !! :)  therfore 22 to M is not a viable issue, in this case !?  If he wanted to keep the whole image he could have rezzed it down by 50%, which would have helped ;-)

« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 12:13 by Stu »

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2009, 12:17 »
0
Quote
Example: if I put a 1.4 extender on a f/5.6 400mm lens and have to tape the contacts to make it autofocus, the EXIF will show 400mm when it's really, 560mm. If it's a non-Canon extender, it may not be reading the data correctly.

What extender(s) are you using?

Sorry - I wasn't very clear - these are extension tubes rather than an extender. I was trying to focus down to about 12 inches or so by adding "air" between the lens and the body! No extra glass in the optic path.

The photos were full frame in the camera as Raw, and then cropped down to 3000 x 3000 (approx). No downsampling at all - just a simple crop to draw attention to the interesting piece of the picture.

I'm still struggling with what is an artifact though, as opposed to noise!

Steve

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2009, 13:18 »
0
OK - I uploaded a full size, non-modified file direct from the original RAW. I converted to JPG to upload it, but used the maximum quality.

Anyone see the artifacts in this one?

Steve
http://backyardimage.smugmug.com/gallery/10708255_7cJAe#748180150_Evx4U

« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2009, 13:48 »
0
Anyone see the artifacts in this one?
No. Just a very shallow DOF.

« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2009, 14:03 »
0
Only looked at the first one.
Lost of noise, plus a small dustbun near the right edge, 1/3 from the bottom.
Also, there is some strange streak on the left, not sure what that is.
So, the strange streak is where you cloned out the OOF branch.
Also, on the one you posted first there is white blob on the left edge, 1/4 from the bottom.
The dustbun, the streak and the blob are all artifacts.
I think I have read somewhere that iS calls noise artifacts too though, not sure about that.

« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2009, 14:20 »
0
Quote
I think I have read somewhere that iS calls noise artifacts too though, not sure about that.

In my experience, a few of the microstock sites use these terms interchangeably when rejecting photos.

« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2010, 13:10 »
0
I have had a number of files rejected from iStock with the 'artifacting' message.  Each of them were shot at 100 ISO w/o any post sharpening.  The files were captured with either a Nikon D3X or a Leaf Aptus digital back.  In every case where they were submitted to other sites the images were accepted like ie. Shutterstock and Dreamtime.  In some cases, other files shot at the same time of the same subject were accepted by iStock.

It very much seems to me that the review process is inconsistent (at best) and that the 'artifacting' message is used when reviewers can't explain their decision.

« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2010, 16:30 »
0
A lot of us have pulled a lot of hair over the "artifacting" thing at IS.   Clearly, they are simply misusing the term and in many cases we don't know what, if anything, they are actually seeing that should not be there.

« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2010, 17:04 »
0
we must not forget that it is not only IS reviewers who have xray eyes and see artifacts where we cannot see at 100%.
other sites have Clark Kent working for them too , lol.

then again, it may not be artifacts, but the reviewer having one too many martinis at breakfast. oops, i forgot, you cannot be an alcoholic and a reviewer at the same time  ;D

p.s.
i think that reviewer with IS who seems to enjoy rejections due to lens flare should stop placing his martini glass too close to the monitor screen. it's not lens flare dude/duda , it's your blooming martini glass casting a reflection on your screen  ;D
« Last Edit: March 21, 2010, 17:09 by PERSEUS »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2010, 02:07 »
0
Most of the protested artifacting rejections, when posted in the IS Critique forums, do have artifacting, it's just that the poster can't seem them. If you're so convinced you're getting this rejection unfairly why not post images in the IS forums?

« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2010, 07:21 »
0
OLD THREAD ALERT!

But I will contribute anyway.

Quote
If you're so convinced you're getting this rejection unfairly why not post images in the IS forums?

I'm going to answer a question with a question. If 4 other sites accept your image, which would indicate there is no artifacting, why bother taking the time to do all of that? Clearly even artifacting is subjective amongst the micro sites. I have had images rejected by IS for artifacting and they attach the affected area and I still can't figure out what they are talking about. It just isn't worth my time to beat my head against the wall trying to figure it out when the image is up and selling on 4 other sites.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2010, 07:30 »
0
I have had a number of files rejected from iStock with the 'artifacting' message.  Each of them were shot at 100 ISO w/o any post sharpening.  The files were captured with either a Nikon D3X or a Leaf Aptus digital back.  In every case where they were submitted to other sites the images were accepted like ie. Shutterstock and Dreamtime.  In some cases, other files shot at the same time of the same subject were accepted by iStock.

It very much seems to me that the review process is inconsistent (at best) and that the 'artifacting' message is used when reviewers can't explain their decision.

I find the review process to be consistent. And the camera doesn't matter. A D3X will most likely only amplify whatever problems you're having.

I saw your IS post questioning artifacting on your World Trade Center picture. It's a great picture but it took me less than a second to see the smoke is loaded with artifacting.  

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2010, 08:15 »
0
"why bother taking the time to do all of that? "

That is a point of view of course, but IS inspections standards are probably higher, and I have lost count of the number of images I've seen in the IS critique forums where an image has been rejected for artifacting, the poster swears there is none, and then fellow istockers point out that in fact there's loads of it. Just because an image is accepted elsewhere does not mean it's artifact free, just that the standards on other sites are lower. Just take a look at the imagery in general on those sites, they're poor relations to IS.

« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2010, 08:16 »
0
iStock can think what it wants. I can think what I want too. They reject for artifacting and feathering, that's fine with me. I just created 2 actions in Photoshop especially for iStock = reduce to minimal size. That is 2MP. Since I never get downloads above medium, most at XS (an insulting 19-30 cents), it won't hurt me nor them. If they will reject Canon D5II 21MP 100 ISO downsized to 2MP shots for "artifacting", I'm just going to make fun at them. I'll probably reupload all my best sellers at 2MP, and see what they say.  ;D
For 19 depreciated dollarcents per download, they can go ...err...  ;)

« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2010, 08:18 »
0
beauty is in the eye of the beholder blah blah blah...
I've had pix rejected by SS  for artifacting and then IS took them
I've had pix rejected by IS for artifacting and then SS took them....
DT, BigStock,   etc...
what kicks me more is  'purple fringing'....  out of my 5D MkII... you can't see it at 100%... but if you push it to 200 or more... well well , there it is.  ..only in super high contrast such as bright snow meets dark blue sky....
I'm not going off the deep end with this being Mr. Babyhead. I've had other photogs look at these pix too... and they agree.  You cant see it...  however, if you blow anything up enough,  there is going to be an  'event horizon'  where the colors are adulterized. ...
My question is... if ya can't see any problem at 100%,  why is it a problem?  8)=tom

...in the long run, it's no biggie to me, I dont make my living on micros... they can take 'em or leave 'em.   Funny thing is,  I've never had any pic rejected by everyone.. one of the big four always take it.

« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2010, 08:22 »
0
................ I'll probably reupload ..................

that's been my argument for years...  I dont know how many times I have waited a few weeks and reloaded the exact same file...... and it is accepted AND it sells.
     There's no hardcore science in the review process... many times it's just a roll of the dice. Accepted/rejected.  Perhaps I should say,  there may be a science, however, you still have humans applying it. And, they are prone to error. 8)=tom
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 08:24 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2010, 08:50 »
0
that's been my argument for years...  I dont know how many times I have waited a few weeks and reloaded the exact same file...... and it is accepted AND it sells.
I prefer to play the game openly till the end. I just resubmitted the "feathering" rejects downsized from 21MP till 2MP. I want the original reviewer to lose his face. I also refeathered the originals up to 3px. Of course it destroys part of the image, but any interested buyers can still find it at DT and SS, full size. IS abuses the independents to subsidize its exclusives. For 20-30 depreciated dollars per month or much less than 10% of my microstock income, I don't care.  ;D They are game.

« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2010, 09:29 »
0
Quote
Just because an image is accepted elsewhere does not mean it's artifact free, just that the standards on other sites are lower. Just take a look at the imagery in general on those sites, they're poor relations to IS.

No, the standards on other sites aren't any lower. I have seen plenty of garbage pass through the front page of IS, too. It's a matter of human subjectiveness and human error. And politics and other factors. If the standards on other sites were lower, I wouldn't be getting any rejections at all from them, but I do. And as mentioned above, rejections on images that IS accepted.

« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2010, 10:06 »
0
IS is using a technical term - artifact - without referencing a proper definition.  If they're talking about compression artifacts in a maximum quality JPG, they're simply wrong.  If they mean banding, they should say "banding".  If they mean color noise they should say "noise".  If they think they're seeing cloning/erasing/retouching/saturation enhancement etc. that is too obvious, then they should send a clip instead of saying "too filtered".   If they're rejecting an isolation as "too feathered" and no feathering was actually done, then maybe they're really talking about photographic techniques and lighting, and again the rejection makes no sense without a clip.

No photograph has ever been produced in which at least some participants on a web forum would not claim to find "noise".   Just about every digital photo contains noise, because of the physical limitations of the sensor cells and associated electronics.  

 
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:01 by stockastic »

« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2010, 11:15 »
0

I find the review process to be consistent. And the camera doesn't matter. A D3X will most likely only amplify whatever problems you're having.

I saw your IS post questioning artifacting on your World Trade Center picture. It's a great picture but it took me less than a second to see the smoke is loaded with artifacting.  

Unless you are suggesting that I faked the WTC picture more recently, it would be obvious that I am referring to different images captured with more contemporary equipment and workflow.  Leaf Aptus was introduced in 06 and the D3X was introduced in late 08.  If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it.  It has been a number of files over several months.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:19 by danhowl »

« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2010, 11:22 »
0
................ I'll probably reupload ..................

that's been my argument for years...  I dont know how many times I have waited a few weeks and reloaded the exact same file...... and it is accepted AND it sells.
     There's no hardcore science in the review process... many times it's just a roll of the dice. Accepted/rejected.  Perhaps I should say,  there may be a science, however, you still have humans applying it. And, they are prone to error. 8)=tom

i agree.
how else do you explain when 3 images from the same shoot bearing the same studio lighting and post processing are approved , with a fourth being rejected . if the reason for it is  "too similar", it's no doubt reasonable rejection. but when the reason is (choose one )..poor composition, no stock potential,  not our ecstatic whatever..lol.. which is more usual with the other 3 never IS..
it has to be a rogue reviewer who just does like  (choose one) your name, your port, his/her life, her/his face,etc..

but in this sense, i beg to differ with some of you who said that IS is inconsistent with their reviews. as for artifacts,etc.. i find IS reviewers the most consistent of the top 4.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 13:47 by PERSEUS »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2010, 12:35 »
0
I find the review process to be consistent. And the camera doesn't matter. A D3X will most likely only amplify whatever problems you're having. I saw your IS post questioning artifacting on your World Trade Center picture. It's a great picture but it took me less than a second to see the smoke is loaded with artifacting.  

Unless you are suggesting that I faked the WTC picture more recently, it would be obvious that I am referring to different images captured with more contemporary equipment and workflow.  Leaf Aptus was introduced in 06 and the D3X was introduced in late 08.  If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it.  It has been a number of files over several months.

I'm not sure where you would get that I'm suggesting you faked the photo.

What I'm getting at is you submitted a photo loaded with artifacts and that you couldn't understand why it got rejected. A D1X should be perfectly capable of excellent quality.

So you either are not seeing the artifacts, don't know what artifacts are, or, and here's my guess, you fall into the "pro" category (been doing this for years, have expensive equipment, etc) and don't agree with their standards. And instead of trying to meet or exceed the standards would rather argue and dispute them.

A D3X is capable of amazing image quality. If youre still having artifacting issues then something during your shooting (e.g. underexposure), workflow (e.g. RAW conversion), or expectations (e.g. out of camera JPEG should automatically lack artifacting) are a bit off.   

« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2010, 13:50 »
0
A D3X is capable of amazing image quality. If youre still having artifacting issues then something during your shooting (e.g. underexposure), workflow (e.g. RAW conversion), or expectations (e.g. out of camera JPEG should automatically lack artifacting) are a bit off.   

agree . many times even with the best camera, the result can less than "pro".. i suspect from poor exposure , higher ISO, wrong glass, zoom lens poor quality vs prime lesn,post processing, etc.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 13:53 by PERSEUS »

lagereek

« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2010, 10:48 »
0
I wouldnt worry too much about a certain degree of artifacting,  often the camera-settings is the culprit.

"overfiltering"  is a much funnier comment, which really means, " havent a clue of whats wrong with this file, but its gotta be wrong"

best.

alias

« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2010, 12:19 »
0
If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it.  It has been a number of files over several months.

These symptoms suggest a problem with your workflow.

Many photographers who came to digital from having been previously shooting transparency film still have tendency to under expose IMO. Because they got used to a slightly under exposed transparency looking right.

And a general point re anyone who says that they have not done any post processing: there is no such thing as an image which has no post processing. And the default post processing settings in whatever software program you use to convert from RAW are not always going to be right for the image.

"overfiltering"  is a much funnier comment, which really means, " havent a clue of whats wrong with this file, but its gotta be wrong"

I disagree. It means that the image has been too obviously over cooked.

« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2010, 12:35 »
0
Neither "too filtered" nor "over cooked" conveys anything without a definition.  "Filtered" is of course an anachronistic term - hardly anyone still uses actual filters. 

We all have our own ideas of what constitutes over-processing, and they're all different.  One person sees excessive saturation, another sees too much smoothing, or sharpening.  Who knows what a particular IS reviewer didn't like.  IS's policy is to just let contributors keep guessing until they submit something that IS wants.   

alias

« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2010, 13:48 »
0
IS's policy is to just let contributors keep guessing until they submit something that IS wants.   

If you want to understand your rejections better you should post the rejected images for peer discussion over on the excellent IS critique forum.

It's a fantastic facility for helping us all better understand where we sometimes go wrong with our workflows and ideas.

Even the greatest writers need editors.

« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2010, 14:51 »
0
Even the greatest writers need editors.

Of course.

If I thought posting on the forum would give me an accurate idea of why a photo was rejected, I'd do it.  My experience has been that you get swamped with conflicting opinions about things like noise and sharpening,  and it becomes a game of 'how many things can you find wrong in this picture'.   

« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2010, 17:37 »
0
If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it.  It has been a number of files over several months.

These symptoms suggest a problem with your workflow.

Many photographers who came to digital from having been previously shooting transparency film still have tendency to under expose IMO. Because they got used to a slightly under exposed transparency looking right.


Not to harp, but if you go back to my entire post, I mention inconsistency in rejection.  What brought it up are images that have been accepted on other sites but not IS or images from within a larger set of photos that are rejected when similar images with different poses are accepted by IS (in my best estimation--same lighting, same post-processing).  While I do have a number of years experience of shooting transparency for publication, I have been exclusively digital for several years shooting for magazines and advertising.  I understand where you are coming from regarding under-exposure.  That sentiment explains the preponderance brightly lit, shadowless images within microstock.

« Reply #55 on: March 31, 2010, 18:05 »
0
Actually I am doubting that it's possible for the same people to fairly and objectively review both vector renderings and actual photographs.  My gut feeling is, they no longer really "like" photos of real objects, they'd rather have idealized renderings.   

« Reply #56 on: March 31, 2010, 21:19 »
0
Actually I am doubting that it's possible for the same people to fairly and objectively review both vector renderings and actual photographs.  My gut feeling is, they no longer really "like" photos of real objects, they'd rather have idealized renderings.    
istock have totally different teams inspecting vectors and photos. Raster artwork (3D and scans/photos of traditional media illustrations) still get lumped in with photos although they do have separate admins in charge of those areas, but they aren't, as far as I know, treated any differently in inspection.

« Reply #57 on: March 31, 2010, 23:10 »
0
I prefer to play the game openly till the end. I just resubmitted the "feathering" rejects downsized from 21MP till 2MP. I want the original reviewer to lose his face. I also refeathered the originals up to 3px. ... They are game.
Update: 7 rejected for feathering again at 2MP, 1 accepted. Since it's a series, 1 only is pretty useless so I deactivated it. End of game. No resubmits any more.

lagereek

« Reply #58 on: April 01, 2010, 02:01 »
0
If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it.  It has been a number of files over several months.

These symptoms suggest a problem with your workflow.

Many photographers who came to digital from having been previously shooting transparency film still have tendency to under expose IMO. Because they got used to a slightly under exposed transparency looking right.

And a general point re anyone who says that they have not done any post processing: there is no such thing as an image which has no post processing. And the default post processing settings in whatever software program you use to convert from RAW are not always going to be right for the image.

"overfiltering"  is a much funnier comment, which really means, " havent a clue of whats wrong with this file, but its gotta be wrong"

I disagree. It means that the image has been too obviously over cooked.

Hi!

No,  it means, they dont really know.

best.

alias

« Reply #59 on: April 01, 2010, 05:10 »
0
I understand where you are coming from regarding under-exposure.  That sentiment explains the preponderance brightly lit, shadowless images within microstock.

Stock in general. Not just microstock. You want some detail in the shadows. Pure black can be difficult and nasty to print. It can end up as an inky or blotchy mess. I think Corbis used to specify that '5' on the histogram should be as black as black gets. But that should not mean arbitrarily clipping off the shadows.

I prefer to play the game openly till the end. I just resubmitted the "feathering" rejects downsized from 21MP till 2MP. I want the original reviewer to lose his face. I also refeathered the originals up to 3px. ... They are game.
Update: 7 rejected for feathering again at 2MP, 1 accepted. Since it's a series, 1 only is pretty useless so I deactivated it. End of game. No resubmits any more.

You should post your rejected images for peer review in the IS Critique forum. This will help you understand where you are going wrong and maybe solve the issue, whatever it is.

« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2010, 10:12 »
0
istock have totally different teams inspecting vectors and photos.
Interesting... thanks.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
172 Replies
56298 Views
Last post May 05, 2009, 21:50
by DanP68
16 Replies
7625 Views
Last post February 01, 2010, 10:17
by FD
6 Replies
3110 Views
Last post October 18, 2013, 13:46
by scenicoregon
11 Replies
4271 Views
Last post July 22, 2014, 02:10
by dirkr
0 Replies
3643 Views
Last post January 14, 2017, 22:33
by palagarde

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors