Author Topic: New IS rejection reason and suggestion for improvement... (Read 4768 times)

red_moon_rise · « **on:** February 06, 2007, 10:03 »

Working hard on getting pictures on IS - tough task. Anyway I just got the following reason for why my picture can not be acceptd as it is:

" + This file may be acceptable if you downsize it

We could not find a clear center focal point for this file."

So I am using my widangle macro setup to get not only the diamond in focus but as much of the ring as well and this is what I get. And then the comment about downsizing??? I do not get it.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2007, 10:48 »

Downsizing/downsampling the image gives the appearance of greater sharpness. They are suggesting your try for sharpness.

You might try reshooting the image with a lot more light. Macro is hard on DOF, and takes a lot of light. If possible, use a tripod, mirror lockup, a very narrow aperture, and a very long exposure, followed by noise reduction software (if you have it). Also, you might try spotlighting the stone in the ring; it looks on my monitor to be a bit flat. Some sparkle from the stone would spice it up a bit, I think. You could consider using a black background rather than white--much more dramatic contrast.

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2007, 11:05 »

Thanks for the suggestions Professorgb,

I do not think light was the problem, because the original background is actually a lightbox and the ring is backlid. I used a 28/2.8 AIS at its smalest aperture to get really close (MLU and tripod are a given). There is not alot of room and space to selectively light the stone. Flat lighting is actually intentional to reduce the sparkely (blown) highlights, but apparently microstock wants ready to use images that POP (with blown highlights). I might have to bring in a snakelight or something.

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2007, 12:11 »

This might be a good idea. You might also try some more direct lighting on the ring itself, rather than the diffuse lighting from a lightbox or light tent. Specular highlights aren't always a bad thing; they might look like blown highlights on the monitor/histogram, but jewelry should sparkle. Of course, that's just one opinion and there is a lot of room for others.

Quote

I might have to bring in a snakelight or something.

epixx · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2007, 12:43 »

It is possible that your lens isn't sharp enough at the smallest aperture. Most lenses suffer from diffraction from around f/16. I've found that a dedicated macro-lens is a big advantage when photographing for stock. They are incredibly sharp, and can usually be stopped down to f/22 without problems. I bought my Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 used for less than $350, but both Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have excellent macro-lenses. A longer lens also gives you a lot more room to manipulate the light.

red_moon_rise · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2007, 15:09 »

I do have a Leica 60/2.8 macro and a Sigma 150/2.8 macro and both are spectacular. BUT the DOF at >1:1 where this ring was shot is rediculously limited with dedicated macro lenses. That's why I have this wide angle macro setup and at least the whole stone and part of the ring are "inside the DOF". That's what I am most pi**ed about that the reviewers do not care one bit how challenging/optically impossible the things are that they are asking for.
I have to get the nikon 15mm lens and try that one with extension tubes because only nikon has the K1-5 rings that can be custom tailored to work even on wide angle lenses.

epixx · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2007, 19:06 »

Quote from: red_moon_rise on February 06, 2007, 15:09

That's what I am most pi**ed about that the reviewers do not care one bit how challenging/optically impossible the things are that they are asking for.

I have a strong feeling that some of the reviewers don't know much about photography, and even less about optics. With the flood of new images, finding good reviewers must be close to impossible. Add to that the agencies' futile efforts to launch quality requirements that are stricter than the competition, or at least different from the others' requirements, and the results are bound to become somewhat original $:-\$

MiguelAngelo · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2007, 19:21 »

Quote from: epixx on February 06, 2007, 19:06

Quote from: red_moon_rise on February 06, 2007, 15:09
That's what I am most pi**ed about that the reviewers do not care one bit how challenging/optically impossible the things are that they are asking for.

I have a strong feeling that some of the reviewers don't know much about photography, and even less about optics. With the flood of new images, finding good reviewers must be close to impossible. Add to that the agencies' futile efforts to launch quality requirements that are stricter than the competition, or at least different from the others' requirements, and the results are bound to become somewhat original $:-\$

You just said it all, I agree 100%.
Most of the reviewers (I'm just guessing but probably not far from reality) have never shoot a roll of film, at least with the intension to produce one Photography. This fact for me just tells me that they in majority must be very inexperienced and probably most of them very young. To master this kind of job, people should be experienced in both, photography and life in a more extended way.
Apart from this I believe they don't become rich doing it and after looking at a few hundred images they all start to look the same (noisy for some of them)