Author Topic: Can inspections become more inane? (Read 35391 times)

PeterChigmaroff · « **on:** October 13, 2008, 14:39 »

I must wonder if my files are put through a stupidity filter prior to reaching the temple of inspectors at iStock. I am getting incomplete address rejections for releases. (not all images of course that use the same release). There is absolutely not a single item missing from the address info. Perhaps it is the colour of ink or the way the model formed his 7's that has disagreed with this purveyors of BS.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2008, 15:33 »

I take it that you aren't exclusive?

dbvirago · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2008, 15:44 »

I get those from IS and DT.

lbarn · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2008, 21:47 »

Lucky you, I usually get over filtered, which sometimes is very amusing, when I go to great lengths to do virtually nothing to the shot except for some minor sharpening of the RAW then reduce the opacity to 15%. I almost think that using a polarizer in the bright Florida sky makes them think its over filtered. ARGH!

louoates · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2008, 21:55 »

I get over-filtered a lot too for no apparent reason other than some inspectors have little tolerance for images shot in the bright desert sun. I can't remember filtering ANY stock shot with either my 1Ds or my Mark III ds.

I get a lot of incorrect white point also when it's dead-on correct. That stems from those inspectors who don't like the color values of sunrise and sunset even when it makes the shot.

So we just move on.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2008, 22:03 »

I've been getting the "We found the overall composition of this file's lighting could be improved." rejection which seems to lead to an automatic No Resubmit.

I'm getting the impression that's the choice used when they don't like the file.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2008, 22:11 »

its becoming ridiculous - I get 'artifacts' and 'overfiltering' all the time. And when one of those files gets through, it gets mad downloads.

So why would they bother? I just got a phone call from Minnesota saying that they loved the over-processed file so much, they would like to see more. And they also wanted the plain JPEG too for other reasons.

Interesting stuff, but the people at iStock just don't get it - horrible policies

pancaketom · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2008, 00:07 »

perhaps using a polarizing FILTER is what gets you the overfiltered. It seems somewhat random to me, as do the rejections for incomplete MR. I have had them rejected for not having my signature, for not having my address, for not having the subject's birthday... (and the same MR taken before and after that). since I have plenty of images to send them my paltry 15 a week, I never bother resubmitting, but just send the next 15. It almost seems that the ones SS rejects for poor light are accepted at IS and vice versa. I have never had any pics with the bright popping colors accepted at IS, but I have heard if you can manage to get one in, they sell like mad. Since I stopped trying to send them my best sellers, but just send them everything once it gets to the top of the queue, I am surprised by how many images that aren't accepted elsewhere or are poor sellers are accepted. oh well. I suppose they know what they want, although it doesn't seem that way.

I have come to the conclusion that artifact = anything that is associated with a digital picture - digital noise, jpeg artifacts, banding, jagged histograms, tired inspectors, sensor dust... I have no idea what distorted pixels are though.

--=Tom

Steve · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2008, 16:42 »

You know, I just had a black & white with my application rejected as overfiltered. Now I was expecting this shot to get rejected as uploading it was an accident with a file of similar name and it has a Chrysler written in bright chrome across the front (not to mention the logo). Still it just seems petty when there is a blatant oops, not going to the quality of the shot, to go in effect hey your stuff sucks. On the other hand I'm now motivated to take some more B&W's and sell elsewhere.

CCK · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2008, 05:57 »

I used to a lot of those over-filtered rejection, with photos not filtered at all. At this stage I have a standard noise reduction setting I put each and every photo though in Photoshop. I haven't had a single rejection for over filtering since I started filtering the photos!

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #10 on:** October 15, 2008, 12:33 »

Quote from: CCK on October 15, 2008, 05:57

I used to a lot of those over-filtered rejection, with photos not filtered at all. At this stage I have a standard noise reduction setting I put each and every photo though in Photoshop. I haven't had a single rejection for over filtering since I started filtering the photos!

CCK,

Can you tell us a bit more about your settings? Would a pass through Noise Ninja help?

graficallyminded · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2008, 17:03 »

resubmit

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2008, 19:25 »

Quote from: graficallyminded on October 15, 2008, 17:03

resubmit

It's good advice and certainly well worth doing, trouble is the pathetically low allowable submission limits, especially when starting off, doesn't make it practical to resubmit. There must be an extra stipend paid for every image rejected.

Whiz · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2008, 21:43 »

I was surprised today when this illustration was rejected at iStockphoto for not being a stock image:

Oh well. Everyone else took it, so it doesn't matter.

modellocate · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2008, 22:36 »

Or submit somewhere else. Some of my best selling images as SS were rejected by IS and vice versa. Each has it's own market -- a rejection is not necessarily a comment on the innate quality of your work, but it's suitability to that particular market.

If the goal is to sell images (vs. please a particular inspector) then I say submit broadly and shrug off the occasional rejection.

And to your original question "Can inspections become more inane?" I'm going to guess "yes?" was I correct?

Clivia · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2008, 10:30 »

I just had this one rejected at IS with the reason:
"We could not find a clear center focal point for this file."
Now, If I can just work out how to focus an illustration, I can resubmit it!

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2008, 10:51 »

Quote from: modellocate on October 15, 2008, 22:36

Or submit somewhere else. Some of my best selling images as SS were rejected by IS and vice versa. Each has it's own market -- a rejection is not necessarily a comment on the innate quality of your work, but it's suitability to that particular market.

If the goal is to sell images (vs. please a particular inspector) then I say submit broadly and shrug off the occasional rejection.

And to your original question "Can inspections become more inane?" I'm going to guess "yes?" was I correct?

It's has become more than the occasional rejection and in most cases has nothing to do with the salability of an image but rather an often undefinable reason, like over filtered when there was no real filtering or finding a artifacts when a sister image had no artifacts. Here is one example, the image with the globe was accepted but the other one was rejected because the line was over filtered. The line? Same line same guy same everything but backgraound.

hali · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2008, 13:29 »

Quote from: modellocate on October 15, 2008, 22:36

Or submit somewhere else. Some of my best selling images as SS were rejected by IS and vice versa. Each has it's own market -- a rejection is not necessarily a comment on the innate quality of your work, but it's suitability to that particular market.

market needs, or maybe just that being #1 and #2, they check out each other
and reject the contributors popular images

just guessing. as it is a fact (based on the many forum input) that SS favourites are almost certain rejects by IS, and v.v.

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2008, 22:19 »

Quote from: Clivia on October 16, 2008, 10:30

I just had this one rejected at IS with the reason:
"We could not find a clear center focal point for this file."
Now, If I can just work out how to focus an illustration, I can resubmit it!

As far as I know, focal point is not focus, but a point of attraction.

Regards,
Adelaide

hali · « **Reply #19 on:** October 17, 2008, 15:21 »

i think also, it all depends on who you know at the site.
i've had some rejection when my color correction is a wee bit off, still white , but a bit warm, or cool, and the reviewer rejected my image.
yet , i see the featured images they have on their home page, a shot that is so obvious shot with home lights, all over yellow.
how do you approve of that? when you disapprove of a studio shot that was cc
for a cooler tone? a cool white, or a warm white is acceptable even in commercial photography. you see it in highly paid studio shots.
on the other hand, a shot taken in fluorescent (at the airport, for instance)
, or with home tungsten lamp (in your kitchen) is considered amateurish.

so, really, once again, it's not how good your image is. it's how well you know the reviewer.

travismanley · « **Reply #20 on:** October 17, 2008, 15:29 »

I only ever have problems with releases at DT and SX.

melastmohican · « **Reply #21 on:** October 17, 2008, 16:52 »

I am at the point where I do not care about rejections. I upload all my stuff to most of my sites and they take whatever suit them.

hrhportia · « **Reply #22 on:** October 17, 2008, 18:08 »

Quote from: lbarn on October 13, 2008, 21:47

Lucky you, I usually get over filtered, which sometimes is very amusing, when I go to great lengths to do virtually nothing to the shot except for some minor sharpening of the RAW then reduce the opacity to 15%. I almost think that using a polarizer in the bright Florida sky makes them think its over filtered. ARGH!

Amen. I live in FL also and use a circular polarizer a lot. If I had a dime for every shot that gets rejected for "over-filtering" I wouldn't have to work at this at all. grrr!!

melastmohican · « **Reply #23 on:** October 17, 2008, 18:22 »

Oh boy, I use CPL all the time :-)

During my last trip I got discussion with a friend who claims that using graduated ND filter is waste of time if you can have the same effect in PS in seconds. I guess how inspectors think, everything is photoshopped :-)

loop · « **Reply #24 on:** October 17, 2008, 20:15 »

Although sometimes I've been tempted, I never have allowed myself to get mad at a rejection and try to charge it to the "inanity" of the inspector or to some dark conspiracy theory. IMHO taking a second look at the file and searching for what is worng or borderline has taugth me more than a year in an photgraphy school. Now and then, in rare ocasions, I haven't been able to find the supposed flaw, but a system where humans inspects 60.000 or so images at week, sporadic human errors are inevitable, and that's what resubmission and Scout are for.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Can inspections become more inane? (Read 35391 times)

PeterChigmaroff

GeoPappas

dbvirago

lbarn

louoates

PaulieWalnuts

ichiro17

pancaketom

Steve

CCK

PeterChigmaroff

graficallyminded

PeterChigmaroff

Whiz

modellocate

Clivia

PeterChigmaroff

hali

madelaide

hali

travismanley

melastmohican

hrhportia

melastmohican

loop

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors