Author Topic: Artifacts at full size rejections at iStock (Read 24957 times)

alias · « **Reply #50 on:** March 31, 2010, 12:19 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 11:15

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.

Quote from: lagereek on March 31, 2010, 10:48

"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.

stockastic · « **Reply #51 on:** March 31, 2010, 12:35 »

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 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 31, 2010, 12:35

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #53 on:** March 31, 2010, 14:51 »

Quote from: alias on March 31, 2010, 13:48

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'.

danhowl · « **Reply #54 on:** March 31, 2010, 17:37 »

Quote from: alias on March 31, 2010, 12:19

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 11:15
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.

stockastic · « **Reply #55 on:** March 31, 2010, 18:05 »

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.

Susan S. · « **Reply #56 on:** March 31, 2010, 21:19 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 31, 2010, 18:05

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.

FD · « **Reply #57 on:** March 31, 2010, 23:10 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 22, 2010, 08:50

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 »

Quote from: alias on March 31, 2010, 12:19

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 11:15
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.

Quote from: lagereek on March 31, 2010, 10:48
"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 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 31, 2010, 17:37

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.

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 31, 2010, 23:10

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 22, 2010, 08:50
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.