pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: IStock Drives me Nuts!!!  (Read 16325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2007, 07:19 »
0
They probably think they're some sort of logo.

I got a reject once for a bare-chested shot of a person. Looked for the copyrighted thingie all over, but couldn't find it. But then, of course!!! Stupid me! It was the belly button that looks like the Dreamstime logo :-p


« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2007, 07:31 »
0
it is only this reviewer who will reject an airplane image if a little bit of the swirl is showing.

Somebody should educate this reviewer that the swirl is not a trade logo but a safety mark. All turbine engines I saw have it at the exposed side. When the plane is on the ground, it will allow ground personnel to see whether the turbine is actually still turning. You couldn't see that by just vertical marks that get motion-blurred. You can see it well by the moving swirl, even at high RPM's.

« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2007, 10:48 »
0
They probably think they're some sort of logo.

I got a reject once for a bare-chested shot of a person. Looked for the copyrighted thingie all over, but couldn't find it. But then, of course!!! Stupid me! It was the belly button that looks like the Dreamstime logo :-p
You kill me!!! :D

« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2007, 13:05 »
0
Somebody should educate this reviewer that the swirl is not a trade logo but a safety mark. All turbine engines I saw have it ...

It's trademarked by General Electric. Given the necessity of such safety markings, I think it's a silly thing to have trademarked. Have you ever seen this
video of a crew member who got sucked into an engine
? (not at all gory, and he fared better than you might expect)
« Last Edit: August 22, 2007, 13:07 by sharply_done »

« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2007, 13:11 »
0
...it also made the top 50 on SS for about a week.

Most of the photos I get rejected now are also for articacting....usually people on white backgrounds...I have no clue how to fix it.  They look good to me....and to all the other micro sites....but IS sees something...

Tom
Congrats on the success, perkmeup - if things keep going this way, you'll not be an engineer much longer!

« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2007, 21:03 »
0
Sharply_done.... you mean that guy SURVIVED being sucked into that jet fighter engine?  *... that's incredible!  and cruel all at the same time.

« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2007, 21:28 »
0
Sharply_done.... you mean that guy SURVIVED being sucked into that jet fighter engine?
Yep. He has lots of bandages and his arm looks to be in a cast, but he's sitting comfortably in a chair at the end of the video. The way that he gets sucked in looks almost like a bad CGI job - it happens that fast.

GWB

« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2007, 15:19 »
0
I got a new one at iStock recently where I was told that one of images, when zoomed to 100%, produces "pixel discoloration" and hence, would not be suitable for printing.  ???  Since the image would end up being a halftone, how would that ever matter, even if that were true?   And the only way to look at individual pixels is to zoom the image up to 3200%.  Of course this picture was in a batch of 4, the other three all being accepted.   Same camera settings, photoshop workflow, and lighting used on all. 

Although I mostly wait and resubit, I think it's good every so often to send a reject to Scout, if nothing else, to let them know what their file inspectors are doing out there.  I've read about some getting fired.

« Reply #33 on: August 23, 2007, 17:42 »
0
quote]Congrats on the success, perkmeup - if things keep going this way, you'll not be an engineer much longer![/quote]

 :) That might be a while....

« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2007, 20:35 »
0
my problem isn't rejection, that happens so often I am use to it. Instead I'm getting sales on new uploads, the older stuff sells ok (from my point of view).

« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2007, 21:35 »
0
Rejections for me at iStock are reasonably rare thank goodness (83% acceptance rate) and those that ARE rejected usually raise my eyebrows.  I send them all to scout.  Scout has subsequently accepted all of them except one file.

I have had a couple that have made me wonder whether the inspector is either a super human being or is just being bloody minded; the only way of drawing this to iStock's attention is to make scout aware of a rejection 'that seems to be excessive'.

To be fair to iStock, there is usually a good reason for rejection (I had two recently for a background not quite white, and when I went to investigate I had to blow the things up to 200% to find the odd pixel or two that were not quite RGB 255), but I do get the impression that one or two of their inspectors demand a level of perfection that is beyond anyone.

« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2007, 21:41 »
0
Quote
I have had a couple that have made me wonder whether the inspector is either a super human being or is just being bloody minded

I would agree with this statement, I have had several rejected recently for artifacts that no one else can reasonably see.

« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2007, 22:05 »
0
Yes I agree with that - there is at least one inspector there who rejects for artifacts that do not exist.. Very frustrating.  I never have artifacts or noise in my images - EVER - and to receive a rejection notice saying 'artifacts at 100%' is enough to make me want to commit murder.

The file goes straight to scout, which is useful if somewhat lengthy, but frankly those files should never be rejected in the first place.

This is relatively new (last couple of months) so presumably the inspector is new and cutting his/her teeth.

« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2007, 01:48 »
0
... This is relatively new (last couple of months) so presumably the inspector is new and cutting his/her teeth.
I think that often there's no rhyme or reason to rejections.

I typically make a series of images using a common background together with proven and clean components - most are accepted, but a few usually get rejected for noise/artifacts/banding/trademark/whatever. On the flip side of the coin, I've made and submitted stuff I know to be below IS quality levels, and have had them accepted. It's gotten to the point that I don't pay much attention to IS rejections anymore, and accept quirkiness as a necessary consequence of doing business with them.

« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2007, 01:50 »
0
<oops, why can't we delete posts?>

digiology

« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2007, 09:19 »
0
My conspiracy theory:

They want us to size down (to reduce artifacts) so the next time they re-structure their sizing/pricing the large will be bumped down to med-large (or something like that) and will sell for less $$$   ;D

« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2007, 11:56 »
0
Since they make their money on commissions, why would they want our stuff sell for less? I am yet to see a car salesman convincing you to pay less than he is asking  ;D
« Last Edit: August 26, 2007, 14:32 by pr2is »

ianhlnd

  • tough men are pussys
« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2007, 15:12 »
0
I agree wholeheartedly, Sometimes it's to laugh.  I just had this one rejected due to blown highlights, and a comment that I shouldn't use flash.  I guess they don't read the exif info on the file.  The engine is chrome!  any use of flash and I'd blind anyone within a 15 ft radious.  But I did find a "blown highlight"  att crop at 100?, mind you this is a 10.4Mp file.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
8008 Views
Last post August 29, 2008, 09:51
by Bateleur
123RF is NUTS!!

Started by luissantos84 « 1 2  All » 123RF

25 Replies
10793 Views
Last post July 16, 2010, 21:09
by luissantos84
8 Replies
6242 Views
Last post April 14, 2011, 04:07
by ShadySue
27 Replies
9035 Views
Last post September 09, 2011, 07:10
by CD123
15 Replies
10474 Views
Last post May 13, 2014, 09:20
by Nasima

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle