Once again, I have submitted a stitched panorama to iSock.  I put together 3 images so the resulting image is quite a bit larger than a single 5DmII file.  The image got reject though for this reason

Your file appears to have been rezzed-up, up-sampled or interpolated (made larger than the original size) and this has degraded the quality. Double check that your RAW converter, Graphics Image Editor or Camera is not interpolating/upsampling your photographs by default.  To check this make sure the dimensions...

yes, of course it is larger because it is a stitched panorama.  

How do you submit a pic that is larger than the original sensor size without getting it rejected.

Did you tell them it was stitched together?  If they reject it anyway, open the image, CTRL A, to select all, CTRL C to copy, open new blank image, it will be the right size, CTRL V to paste, flatten and save the new image.  All info about the camera used is gone and I never get a rejection for the image being too big for the camera's image size.

I have to mention here that I no longer contribute to istock, under 20% commission no longer interests me, especially if you have to do time consuming things like this.

I have a few on IS and just like other agencies some were approved other rejected.. never had that kind of review..

always wipe the exif when dealing with the dilettants at istock, so they'll have less things to confuse them. You may want to downsize + sharpen, if you use photoshop's automerge coz it does soften up the pictuire quite a bit, sometimes a lot. you might use ptgui, that keeps the whole thing a lot sharper.

Quote from: molka on December 06, 2010, 06:07

always wipe the exif when dealing with the dilettants at istock,

Interesting I would assume this would cause more suspicion among the inspectors if there would be no Exif-data.

maybe, but you eliminate a number of things they can simply pick on. when you got simpletons who to punch in rezzed-up for having a file that's larger than than the MP size possible by exif, you'd better deny them any info that might get the poor fellows confused.

You really don't need to do anything other than put a note at the beginning of the description field to tell the inspector it's a stiched image.

+1

If you did that and the inspector missed it, it was just an oversight.  Send it to Scout with an explanation.

thanks everyone.

A large obvious note sounds like the best way

Inspectors cannot assume you have stitched several images together. Just put a note in the description along the lines of *stitched panorama*  and it will be fine.

Why?? I had the same problem. The reason agencies don't want you to upsize images is because they don't want files with poorer quality. If the quality is fine, this means the image is stitched. Inspectors should assume just that. If I managed somehow to upsize the image without the loss of quality, then who cares? If inspector can't tell poor quality from good quality and have to rely on camera EXIF info for that, then... well, they shouldn't be inspectors.
Istock doesn't have a way to submit a note to inspector other than in image description, which is ridiculous. It means after image is accepted I have to go edit the note out of the description. How difficult it is to add a little field "note to inspector"? Or hire inspectors who actually can evaluate the images.... SIGH

in istock, the larger size image will be available at higher price right? is there a maximum size? XXL?XXXL?

XXXL is the maximum size right now. See the chart here.

They can't tell if a picture has been uprezzed just by looking at it and never have been able to. I remember a thread a long time ago where their comments made that pretty clear. An uprezzed 1DS Mk3 image shot with prime L glass on a tripod is going to be enormous before the quality declines to the level of output they approve from P&S cameras, so there is no logic to it.

The upsizing rule may have made sense seven or eight years ago, to prevent a flood of enlarged 1MP P&S shots. Now it's just a rule and, yes, they rely on the camera data to tell them the maximum size for that model.

If all you did was crop off excessive white space on the left & right edges, how is it that it ended up being 40% larger vertically than your camera's native resolution?  

Was there a typo in your figures somewhere?

Edit: What was the rejection reason for the ISO 400 image?

Once again, I have submitted a stitched panorama to iSock.  I put together 3 images so the resulting image is quite a bit larger than a single 5DmII file.  The image got reject though for this reason

Quote

Your file appears to have been rezzed-up, up-sampled or interpolated (made larger than the original size) and this has degraded the quality. Double check that your RAW converter, Graphics Image Editor or Camera is not interpolating/upsampling your photographs by default.  To check this make sure the dimensions...

yes, of course it is larger because it is a stitched panorama.  

How do you submit a pic that is larger than the original sensor size without getting it rejected.

This should be obvious to the inspector but I've seen some panoramas where the size ratio (3:2, 4:3) looks fairly close to a normal picture.

I recently submitted one of those long narrow panoramas with no problem. In the description I just mentioned it was a panorama and listed the 3:1 ratio.

I just had a series of photos rejected with the following message...

* PENTAX K100D native resolution = 3008 x 2008. Your file is 2704 x 2801. As part of iStock standards, we only accept files at their native resolution. *

This was an isolation photo.  All I did was crop off the excessive white space on the left and right edges.

I had another photo rejected recently because it was shot at ISO 400!! 

I'm beginning to agree that we should strip all the camera data from the files before submitting.

You shoot a portrait oriented shot isolated on white, you crop it larger for that copyspaced thing, into a square or into landscape orienited. There are tens of thousands of shots like that up already, and it gives them the chance to sell XXL. So what's the problem now? It's pretty darn obviuos they are self righteoulsy picking on people, and with the latest situation when there's competition for 'elite' getty and agency placement they have all the motivation they need to actually deny the best pics. God knows how many sales this inspector mob denied from istock. They should be removed ASAP, and forget the incredibly dumb idea of hiring contributors as inspectors and admins forever.

Untill that, for the 100th time: wipe the exif, because they are looking for excuses to deny.