MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Isolations for iStock  (Read 4389 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 20, 2008, 22:07 »
I have a hit & miss relationship with isolations at iStock.  Most of the time, the same files will be accepted at Shutterstock, Fotolia or <<insert other agency here>>.   I haven't been bothering with resubmitting because the inspectors have not been including clips to indicate where the issue is. 

I would greatly appreciate it if someone who has a lot of accepted isolations for iStock could maybe help me figure out specifically what my issue is.  Sometimes they accept one that I'm sure is going to be rejected, so the rejections are not clear cut to me.

My port is half the size at istock compared to elsewhere and I have a stunning 41.86% acceptance rate. 



« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2008, 22:37 »
What exactly are they saying the problem is?  Can you give us an example?


« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2008, 22:57 »
I don't have a lot of isolations on istock (they are too much hassle to do, so I don't bother). but I've never had any rejected. I do them as much as possible with lighting, then use a combination of a channel mask and the pen tool to create a mask to isolate the object and use levels to whiten the background. I generally only isolate objects with a very deep depth of field, otherwise geting an edge of the degree of fuzziness consistent with the segree of focus is too hard - unless the isolation can entirely be done with lighting. And I usually leave shadows, so it's not really a real isolation anyway!

« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2008, 11:41 »
Rejections are almost always

The execution of isolation contains stray areas that are either too feathered or rough.

Which doesn't help much. 

Perhaps DOF is my issue, though most are also marked can resubmit.  I do most of the isolation in camera with lighting and such and most of the time have very minor spots in the background that need a touch up. 

I uploaded a watermarked version of one of my recent rejections.

Shot and uploaded and post processed at the same time but accepted.
.  I was actually certain this one was going to be kicked back because I left a shadow in or for uneven lighting.   ???  The ones I'm sure will be accepted are rejected and vice versa.  Enough to make a person nuts!  :D



« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2008, 11:55 »
Almost all of my submissions are isolated. I downloaded your Hardhat photo and found that you have stray pixels along the edge.

Here's how you find them. Create an Adjustment Layer and choose Threshold. Set Threshold all the way to black. You will see stray pixels floating away from the edge. Paint them white on the image Layer.

« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2008, 12:32 »
You definitively have rough edges in your isolation.

You should learn to use the pen tool in Photoshop: this is the simplest way to produce good isolation!

And you will not get rejection for isolations if you keep the shadow: I have many isolations and always keep the shadow without any rejection for this reason. I even create 3D isolation with a shadow on purpose :)

« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 12:36 by araminta »

« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2008, 12:58 »
Thank you.  I will post a person isolation when I get home...after trying the threshold trick on them. :-)

I've done the levels and moving the midpoint to find any stray areas in the background, but apparently it doesn't catch everything. :)

« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2008, 16:01 »

You say you get most in the camera and it is just the stray area's

I had the same problem and tried everything, this is the method I use and I now have a fair success rate on Isolations, my main stoppers now is "copyright patterns", and "focus not where we think it should be"

Well here is my isolation tutorial of workflow

Hope it helps


« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2008, 16:26 »
Here's how you find them. Create an Adjustment Layer and choose Threshold. Set Threshold all the way to black. You will see stray pixels floating away from the edge. Paint them white on the image Layer.

I am curious about this method for checking for stray areas, as I have this rejection reason from time to time, especially before I purchased CS3.  I used the threshold method to check on one of my isolations where I used the pen tool and refined the edge, the used it as a mask to make the isolation.  Using a threshold layer to check, I see some black "flecks" that are right on the edge.  Are these "flecks" from the edge refeinement?  Istock accepted the image that I checked using your method.  Do you suggest looking for large areas like in the hardhat example?


« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2008, 16:57 »
The flecks on the edge are normal, especially a feathered edge. Turn the Threshold opacity down to 40 or 50 percent to give a better representation of a feathered edge.

« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2008, 14:12 »
I think the stray area's can be seen better in this image using the method from the link I posted earlier.

Two with Stray Areas the third Cleaned all zoomed actual Pixels!  :D

« Last Edit: April 22, 2008, 14:23 by Adeptris »


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
Last post September 16, 2007, 10:33
by tdoes
1 Replies
Last post March 26, 2007, 15:37
by yingyang0
49 Replies
Last post December 11, 2010, 08:47
by kingjon
18 Replies
Last post April 19, 2012, 07:34
by click_click
10 Replies
Last post July 09, 2012, 12:01
by rimglow


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle