MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: michealo on January 28, 2009, 05:44
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=8261255
-
Nice. What camera did you use?
-
My camera doesn't even have iso 6400.
-
Canon 5D2, downsized to 4200 x 2800
-
ahh, the beauty of a high res sensor :)
-
They also reject for artifacts with iso100 with 5dmk II :(
Full size straight from camera no resaves.
-
They also reject for artifacts with iso100 with 5dmk II :(
Full size straight from camera no resaves.
I've had plenty with images straight from a 1Ds MkIII. I get the impression that they use 'artifacts' as a general rejection reason if the reviewer simply doesn't like the image and can't find any other technical reason. You can always find something within every image to interpret as 'artifacts'.
-
It is perfectly possible to create artifacts with any camera - improper exposure (creating noisy posterized shadow areas), low quality JPEG setting or chromactic aberration or purple fringing from the lens/lighting combination to give you three examples.
If you are curious to learn about the flaws - or get other people's opinion that the image is in fact fine and you should send it to Scout - then stop by the Critique forum. You might then learn something that'll help you avoid the problems in future shots.
-
It is perfectly possible to create artifacts with any camera - improper exposure (creating noisy posterized shadow areas), low quality JPEG setting or chromactic aberration or purple fringing from the lens/lighting combination to give you three examples.
If you are curious to learn about the flaws - or get other people's opinion that the image is in fact fine and you should send it to Scout - then stop by the Critique forum. You might then learn something that'll help you avoid the problems in future shots.
Of course it is possible Jo Ann. The point is that they reject images for 'artifacts' when they simply don't exist. I've had water droplets interpretted as artifacts (because they can look like little white spots), tiny glints from granite rocks, minute relections on glossed lips, confetti in a bride's hair, etc, etc. In my view it is mainly used as a 'catch all' reason to reject.
-
I guess my point is that sometimes people are very quick to blame random reviewers for rejection when they should be looking for the flaws in their images instead. Without something to look at, it's impossible to say more, but why not let others have a look at the image? I know Yuri had sharp Hasselblad images rejected by IS, but that doesn't mean that all rejections are without a basis in image flaws.
Having spent a fair bit of time in IS's critique forum, I've seen a lot of cases where the photographer couldn't see glaring flaws in their own images. They'll swear there's no problem, and if they keep that attitude, they'll never learn.
-
I've proved my theory to my own satisfaction by simply cloning out the supposed 'artifacts' and resubmitting it __ always passes next time around. I'm convinced that if they see tiny white specks, no matter how obvious it is what they actually are, they will more likely reject it for artifacts. It is something unique to IS too, the same images never get rejected anywhere else for that issue.
-
You are exclusive
Which means that anyone who is not exclusive shouldn't even bother to respond because rules are different for non-exclusives. I can't get ISO 800 files accepted using a 5D MK II
-
You are exclusive
right on cue.
-
You are exclusive
right on cue.
my first inclination is to disagree with whatalife and ichiro17. but after having recent rejections of OVERPROCESSED ... (straight uploads from 14MP camera , shot and submitted without any postprocessing ) ...i will have to hesitantly echo whatalife ..."right on cue" 8)
-
Yep, its possible to create artifacts or noise with any camera. Better say all jpegs must have artifacts by th definition, just depends how much overcontrasted and oversaturated is your LCD and how much you magnify. If you cant find them at 100%, you go to 200%, 300% ...
I can judge my own pics pretty well, not doing only microstock and selling pics couple years already. Its strange how all those "artifact/noise" images got 90% accepted if you resubmit them. What a coincidence, isnt it? If you resubmit them via "resubmit" feature, its likely to be rejected again, but if you just upload them again as new, suddenly they are ok. Something stinky in this...
-
(edited on main point). Its strange how all those "artifact/noise" images got 90% accepted if you resubmit them. What a coincidence, isnt it? If you resubmit them via "resubmit" feature, its likely to be rejected again, but if you just upload them again as new, suddenly they are ok. Something stinky in this...
hey basti, i never thought of that ! reupload. maybe i should.
it makes sense though. you get a different reviewer who is not a creep, and it gets accepted because the other was myopic or just plain trigger happy. thx for the hint. (you delete the rejected one first , right?).
-
the image has clearly visible noise, and I have hard time to find where is the focus? there is no sharp focus point. but, you are exclusive, so it was accepted of course...
-
Focus is on the chin, whether you agree that it works or not is an artistic question rather than a technical one.
As for clearly visible noise I don't disagree - I even made a note to that effect!
I am not going to have the old exclusivity debate here all over again :-)
And if you want to go ahead and download it to have a closer look - be my guest :-)
-
the image has clearly visible noise, and I have hard time to find where is the focus? there is no sharp focus point. but, you are exclusive, so it was accepted of course...
Strewth __ I see what you mean! I'm staggered that that was accepted, I wouldn't even dream of uploading stuff like that. Seems to me you can upload pretty much anything you like as an exclusive. I've seen much worse examples than that too.
-
I shoot in low light situations all the time and was thrilled when I got my Mark III because ISO 1600 had about the same noise as ISO 400 on my 20D's and is very usable for stock. I use ISO 3200 at times but only in extreme cases. I'm amazed at the quality of this image at ISO 6400. It must have been a seriously dark room to need to bump it up that high. I am seriously tempted to get the 5D Mark II after the bugs are worked out (a lesson I learned when buying the Mark III immediately after its release) I can only imagine what cameras will be like in 10 years!
-
I shoot in low light situations all the time and was thrilled when I got my Mark III because ISO 1600 had about the same noise as ISO 400 on my 20D's and is very usable for stock. I use ISO 3200 at times but only in extreme cases. I'm amazed at the quality of this image at ISO 6400. It must have been a seriously dark room to need to bump it up that high. I am seriously tempted to get the 5D Mark II after the bugs are worked out (a lesson I learned when buying the Mark III immediately after its release) I can only imagine what cameras will be like in 10 years!
Hey Mat, welcome to this board! Nice to see you around :)
FWIW I have tested two copies of the 5D II (through an ordering/delivery screw up - I'll spare you the details) and both were perfect.
Surprised the daylights out of me, as I normally expect problems with canon cameras during first 6 months of production run. But I could find no flaws with them at all.
-
It has been said a million times that an image can be accepted on grounds other than technical perfection if its other merits are worthy. This isn't an isolated shot of a tomato.
I think this is a beautifully lit, artistic image, with many possible conceptual uses. It is a worthy addition to the collection. It is not a copycat version of some subject which already exists in the thousands. I don't know the photographer and I don't care whether they are exclusive.
Thank you for sharing it.
-
I can only imagine what cameras will be like in 10 years!
In 10 years it will be "photographic" high resolution 3D images. I hope to get a 25/3 (cube) mpx images of a isolated apple before everyone this time :)
-
FWIW I have tested two copies of the 5D II (through an ordering/delivery screw up - I'll spare you the details) and both were perfect.
Surprised the daylights out of me, as I normally expect problems with canon cameras during first 6 months of production run. But I could find no flaws with them at all.
OTOH, my 5D Mk II went back to Canon yesterday - persistent Err 20
I've never had to send a camera back to them before, but apparently there are a number of others with problems with Err 20 and Err 30, so they have some quality control issues. Other than that, what a gorgeous camera :)
-
I have been hearing the same thing from other photographers. They are either perfect or they are constantly giving these error messages. I'm sure they will fix it shortly and most are probably perfect. Just the same, I promised I wouldn't repeat history and buy a camera within 6 months of its release. The other thing really tempting to me is the video aspect of the camera. I've never been a video guy but incorporating it into shoots does open a lot of creative doors.
Thanks for the welcome Lisa!
Mat
FWIW I have tested two copies of the 5D II (through an ordering/delivery screw up - I'll spare you the details) and both were perfect.
Surprised the daylights out of me, as I normally expect problems with canon cameras during first 6 months of production run. But I could find no flaws with them at all.
OTOH, my 5D Mk II went back to Canon yesterday - persistent Err 20
I've never had to send a camera back to them before, but apparently there are a number of others with problems with Err 20 and Err 30, so they have some quality control issues. Other than that, what a gorgeous camera :)
-
Back to the debate about noise,
I got a shot taken wtih a 30D at ISO 200 accepted today (no big deal). However, an identically processed file with the same subject matter and the same exposure (literally the same shot, difference angle) got rejected for artifacts. Weird? Very. And I think the rejected one had better composition than the accepted one. So I'm not sure what the deal-io is.
Oh well, I learned 3 years ago to let it slide :)
J
-
i think the deal is that Canon over process the noise when you select a higher than normal ISO. if i am not mistaken, there were several articles that mentioned this.
in a camera to camera comparision, they found that Canon images looked cleaner .
much like using the noise reduction in RAW with post-processing in PS.
not an expert, but as i said, i read it in one of those comparision charts between Nik and Can.
-
nice image. why did you made this one to be black and white?
here is my image with largest iso -2200 that is accepted:
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7805204/2/istockphoto_7805204-portrait.jpg)
nikon d3.
*i did not upload an image with larger iso, because i never shoot one.
-
They also reject for artifacts with iso100 with 5dmk II :(
Full size straight from camera no resaves.
Same with the 5d mkI - there will always be noise in a shot, especially in darker areas even at ISO 100. That's what post processing is for - as anal as it seems, I just go to town on anything I think even minutely looks like noise. Blur tool, neatimage, whatever it takes. Sometimes you can get away with it, but I personally think its better to take the time to remove anything that might cause a reviewer to hit the reject button.
-
nice image. why did you made this one to be black and white?
B and W -- because it suited the concept and I like B and W