MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: beisea on August 01, 2006, 16:01
-
Ever since I jumped into the microstock business since 3 weeks ago, I got 70 approved at FT, 11 sales, 66 approved at DT, 11 sales but double the money, 18 approved at BSK, 2 sales, only 15 approved at Istock with no sales. ( with 3 5 star reviews )
The last batch of interior of a luxury house selling so well at FT and DT, but Istock cannot tolorete any artifacts and noise, I have to use some curves to bring up the dark area a little, then use neat image to clean it up, I guess I saved a few times along the way, casuing jpeg artifacts to show at 100% ( you have to check carefully ).
I guess I have to reprocess all the originals, trying to eliminate any possible artifacts, but it's hard for shots done in doors under dim light:(
Anybody else feel the pain as I do, no sales, but rejections?
-
yep istock is a picky one :(
makes for some depressing review results some times if the images are subpar.
-
IS is picky, but Crestock is worse. Having images rejected in one site selling at another is so common that I don't bother anymore. I did complain however (and they withdrew the rejection) when an image was rejected for "low stock value".
Anyway, you should save your editions in a non-loss format such as TIFF.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
ha ha..
for some reason i read the last sentace of your last post as
Anyway, you should have your EMOTIONS in a non-loss format such as... :)
fits quite well. Don't take rejections personally...
-
Yes, from now on, I will totally change my workflow,
this is what I used to do:
Raw converts to jpeg,
PS to fix minor issues, and save to jpeg and
go to Neat image to clean up noises if needed,
so I saved three times over Jpeg, thus degrading the quality a little over the course.
Now I plan to do:
Raw concerts to Tiff, and
go to PS to fix minor issues as needed, save to Tiff and then
go to Neat Image for noise clean up, and then save to Jpeg.
Anybody else has any good efficient workflow?
-
When I think a lot of denoising is necessary, I save the filtered image in a separate file, so if I later see I lost too much detail due to noise reduction, I can repeat only this critical part.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
thanks, that could be a better flow, sometimes, noise reduction tend to over done it, I had one photo rejected by Istock for overdone it, I have to go back to the original to restart the process. :)
-
When I think a lot of denoising is necessary, I save the filtered image in a separate file, so if I later see I lost too much detail due to noise reduction, I can repeat only this critical part.
Regards,
Adelaide
yeah same here.
I save the tiff as i want it in the final stage.. then before i convert it to jpg i send it through neat image and sharpen. or possibly you could have a noise reduction layer in the tiff file.
-
No. Rejections YES, but with sales.
Actually, and this is the case for all sites. It's all reviewer dependent. I know this is probably against the rules in all the sites, but I DO resubmit the rejected photos at least once with minor if any changes. Case in point:
Shutterstock submission earlier this year: 28 of 48 accepted. I was shocked. Most given reason: LENS FLARE and this was all on outdoor shots! Obviously the reviewer didn't know much about photography. Resubmitted all 20 couple weeks later with NO changes. 17 of 20 accepted. ;D The 3 rejections: DIGITAL NOISE. Shrunk them by 50% (originals were 12MP) so now they're 6MP, resumbitted: all 3 accepted.
This is the case with all the sites. Shutterstock seems to be absolutely the craziest. Istock seems pretty reasonable with the rejections.
Anybody else feel the pain as I do, no sales, but rejections?
-
yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all. Reviewers are pretty varried.. which makes it fairly frustrating.