MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Dreamframer on April 20, 2009, 05:38
-
Hi everybody,
I couldn't help myself, I had to write it here. It's about IS rejection for overfiltering. First I have to say I don't have this rejection often because until now I have learned that I shouldn't alter my photos too much for IS because "buyers like raw photos" to edit them as they want to.
One of my best sellers on IS is this sunset. It is hardly toucher with few soft light layers because I was afraid it will be rejected due to overfiltering.
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7385821/2/istockphoto_7385821-sunset.jpg)
But yesterday I typed "sunset sea" in IS search box and I found these beautiful images with thousands of downloads. I want to say that I love these images, and I am not addressing these photographers. I think these images are beautiful. Obviously buyers agree with me. I would like if IS could accept similar images that I have because obviously buyers love them no matter they are overfiltered.
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3125085/2/istockphoto_3125085-hawaiian-punch.jpg)
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1240662/2/istockphoto_1240662-beach-sunset.jpg)
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/5033340/2/istockphoto_5033340-dramatic-sunrise.jpg)
I repeat again, I think these photographers did great job. I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated.
-
Critique requires a full size image to look at.
-
I think when we talk abut colors there is no need for full size images (heavily purple sea and sky, light blue sea against yellow and green sky, and dark orange and pinkish sky and sea)
I guess you will agree with me these are all very unnatural colors. I didn't say it's ugly. It's very attractive tho, but unnatural. So, why everyone is saying that IS like only images that look natural?
-
I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated.
There is no general "iStock never accepts..." with regards to technical issues. There are some pretty strictly enforced rules regarding trademarks and copyright protection but if it comes to technical evaluation of a work, we will always have to deal with gray areas, no black and whites.
I would say a general rule always is if the inspector comes to the conclusion that A) the processing degraded the image quality for a full-size print and/or B) the effect was not done in a proper way so that a designer could do it himself within reasonable time and potentially better effect from the original unaltered image.
So you have two choices: If you want to keep rejections and effort low, your way of keeping the post processing low is a good choice. Or you could start discussing with experienced iStockers (I don't say better photographers as what you will need to learn is just the very IS specific way of looking at pictures), best by posting one of your rejected images in full size (watermarked) in IS Critique Request forum. Starting from that you could even contact one or few of the other photographers by sitemail and ask for advice.
Best regards,
Michael
-
I think when we talk abut colors there is no need for full size images (heavily purple sea and sky, light blue sea against yellow and green sky, and dark orange and pinkish sky and sea)
You posted while I was typing, so just another response to clarify my first post: To judge if your way of post processing degraded the image too far for large-size print, yes a full size image is needed to be looked at.
-
I think when we talk abut colors there is no need for full size images (heavily purple sea and sky, light blue sea against yellow and green sky, and dark orange and pinkish sky and sea)
There is, because we're not talking about the fact that the contributor edited the images to have those colours. It's about how well they did it. If your editing is up to standard, and the editing enhances an image, then you'll get edited images accepted. If you don't do it well enough, then you'll get a rejection.
-
I think when we talk abut colors there is no need for full size images (heavily purple sea and sky, light blue sea against yellow and green sky, and dark orange and pinkish sky and sea)
As mentioned, we weren't talking about colors, we were talking about "overfiltered", right?
-
I think posting images at full size won't change nothing in the future. I'll keep sending unaltered images to IS and keep selling altered ones on other places. This one isn't really altered at all. The water is really this green. I added only light at shadowed parts:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-27219970.html
http://www.fotolia.com/id/12947713
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/photo/view/4769308
http://www.dreamstime.com/mostar-image8669480
http://www.123rf.com/photo_4543810.html
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/36938321
etc...
Thank you guys for posting. I just wanted to share it with you.
-
Ok, then I guess we're done then. Good luck!
-
... I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated.
You might need to go exclusive if you want stuff like that accepted ;-)
-
... I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated.
You might need to go exclusive if you want stuff like that accepted ;-)
I guess you're right ;) Let's see what will audio exclusivity bring to me as I became an exclusive for audio there.
-
Adding light to shadows brings out noise. And if u use noiseware it degrades the image. But I guess u know this.
-
... I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated.
You might need to go exclusive if you want stuff like that accepted ;-)
I guess you're right ;) Let's see what will audio exclusivity bring to me as I became an exclusive for audio there.
Istock allows exclusivity for types of files? I thought the exclusivity agreement covered everything.
-
Istock allows exclusivity for types of files? I thought the exclusivity agreement covered everything.
One exclusivity for all types of images (photos, renders, illustrations) but separate exclusivity for Video and Audio.
-
Oh yes - even using CPL means your pics are likely to be rejected for overfiltered - thats about the colors! Just deep blue sky shot with CPL without ANY editing is often rejected. That has nothing to do with "overfiltered" in meaning of editing skills, using SW or "large prints".
On the other hand I see really ugly underexposed pics or pics made with tobacco Coking gradual filter accepted? what??? Im completely with you Whitechild. Btw. This is why I do not upload to IS anymore - dozens of pics rejected with mantra "artifacts-overfiltered" - when the editor is obviously checking picture at 200% and hunting "noise & artifacts" in small shades under the rocks, behind the chimney etc. - that has nothing to do with quality, thats idiotic. You will never see that on A4/300dpi print and very likely also A3/300dpi print will be absolutely fine. Same with overfiltered - saturated colors = rejected. But greyish unedited picture = no sales. I see some discrepancy here...
-
If you type "child fall" you will usually see images of children surrounded by yellow and red leaves, and many (and I mean MANY) images with totally blown highlights on leaves. But these images are mostly from exclusive users.
@ Magnum
Yes Magnum, I know that lightening up shadows brings up noise. I usually use noiseware for SS, but I know that IS doesn't like images with overuse of noise reduction, so I am very careful when I'm applying noiseware. I always do it with with a mask, and never more than 20-25%. If I can't achieve desired result with these settings, I usually give up on the image because I already know it will be rejected for overfiltering.
There is no doubt about double standards at IS regarding exclusive and non exclusive contributors. Don't force me to post here accepted images with blown out highlights, fake + unnatural looking Suns with funny sunbeams, oversaturated images, images with vignettes, images where orange filter isn't applied only on sky, but on the half of grass field aswell etc because I don't want to offend anyone.
I just don't understand what IS wants? Does it want raw images of nonexclusive contributors and fully edited, (and almost useless for any other altering) images of exclusive artists or what? Does IS want's exclusive images no matter they are full of blown out highlights or it want's good images?
Just go and look yourself and tell me I am not right. I don't have to post images here.
I trained my self to watch carefully what I submit to IS. Thankfully, my approval ratio is going up last several months (I guess after this post it will fall down again LOL). But yesterday, I did little browsing through IS database. And for result I have this frustration. Actually, most popular images are heavily retouched.
-
Actually, most popular images are heavily retouched.
Indeed!
I never understood this overfiltered rejection!
My guess is that it the reviewer decides whether or not he/she thinks that the original image is for some reason more useful.
My bestseller(i'm not exclusive) is postworked quite a bit. It was an image of white chalk on a green blackboard:
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/7297281/2/istockphoto_7297281-quantum-mechanics.jpg)
That means, postprocessing is allowed!
And in my fire image I used curves in Photoshop to just cut off dark parts and so noise was reduced and the image was isolated. I really thought it would get rejected at istock because of overfiltering but it got approved:
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9111296/2/istockphoto_9111296-campfire.jpg)
-
I also had photos with circular polarizer enhanced blue sky rejected as overfiltered. I suppose IS inspectors don't believe in non-exclusive blue sky and sunset.
;)
-
if your blue sky is free of noise, try scout!
-
Keep in mind that Scout only accepts three tickets in a month, although I agree they are fair most of the time.
-
yes I only do this with the images I like the most. I strongly consider it with this image which got rejected for overfiltering and lightning. Well I suppose the overfiltering is the Earth and the lightning is the white balance, which I intentionally kept warm... I printed the pic and I think it would lose with a different white balance and the Earth is supposed to be there... no resubmit btw!!
I'll probably write exactly that to scout. But still not sure :D
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9027875/2/istockphoto_9027875-easter-globe.jpg)
-
In camera settings and post processing are making the images noisy. I would like to be able to post process like crazy also. But there's a place called Flickr for that. When you do stock photography you have rules and one of them is to make your images available to be printed at full size. That mean low noise and artifacts.
Also having a good LCD screen help a lot to see those images problems. Some good brands: Samsung, Apple, HP, Acer, maybe LG. 2500:1 of contrast is a minimum, because now the newest are even 20 000:1
Edit: Corrected no to low
-
When you do stock photography you have rules and one of them is to make your images available to be printed at full size. That mean no noise and artifacts.
I think it would be more correct to say , LOW noise and artifacts, since noise and artifacts exist in all digital images.
-
If you type "child fall" you will usually see images of children surrounded by yellow and red leaves, and many (and I mean MANY) images with totally blown highlights on leaves. But these images are mostly from exclusive users.
@ Magnum
Yes Magnum, I know that lightening up shadows brings up noise. I usually use noiseware for SS, but I know that IS doesn't like images with overuse of noise reduction, so I am very careful when I'm applying noiseware. I always do it with with a mask, and never more than 20-25%. If I can't achieve desired result with these settings, I usually give up on the image because I already know it will be rejected for overfiltering.
There is no doubt about double standards at IS regarding exclusive and non exclusive contributors. Don't force me to post here accepted images with blown out highlights, fake + unnatural looking Suns with funny sunbeams, oversaturated images, images with vignettes, images where orange filter isn't applied only on sky, but on the half of grass field aswell etc because I don't want to offend anyone.
I just don't understand what IS wants? Does it want raw images of nonexclusive contributors and fully edited, (and almost useless for any other altering) images of exclusive artists or what? Does IS want's exclusive images no matter they are full of blown out highlights or it want's good images?
Just go and look yourself and tell me I am not right. I don't have to post images here.
I trained my self to watch carefully what I submit to IS. Thankfully, my approval ratio is going up last several months (I guess after this post it will fall down again LOL). But yesterday, I did little browsing through IS database. And for result I have this frustration. Actually, most popular images are heavily retouched.
chill whitechild. u just need to learn how to make ..."blown out highlights, fake + unnatural looking Suns with funny sunbeams, oversaturated images, images with vignettes, images where orange filter isn't applied only on sky, but on the half of grass field aswell etc"... THE ISTOCK WAY.
there is a big difference ;)
-
Batman, yes, still learning it :)
-
Vonkara:
Yep, you have rules. But always keep in mind that agencies are not setting rules just as they like, because we can shoot without them, but they cant sell anything without us. This is about cooperation photographer-agency but microstock is more into dictature every day, unfortunately. IS crossed the acceptable line for me and Im not going to upload anything unless their change their minds about this.
That about noise/artifacts is only partly true - every jpeg image just by the definition must have them, it just depends how much you try to find them. For me its very simple - A4/300dpi (so about 8-10Mpix cameras) is not 100 or 200% on your overcontrasted LCD - its just 25%! Your screen has 72dpi, not 300! So what editor does when he/she checks picture at 100-200% on the screen? Its just like printing 8Mpix image on A3 or even A2 and checking it from 10cm distance.
That about "no postprocess" is just BS. Every serious photographer knows you must edit pictures, images just straight from the camera could be good but nearly all can be better with some editing. I dont mean serious tweaking, boosting colors etc. - just little contrast, curves, levels...you know. I prefer to give out finished images looking the way I like it - not greyish unedited pics. Clients are sometimes so stupid to print that without any editing and with my name under it - big no-no. Not to mention client will choose edited and good looking image, not unedited ugly looking or just average looking picture. Client will buy outstanding picture, it simpy must attract his/her attention and greyish unedited picture will definitely not...
-
Agree with above!!!
Heavy, and I mean heavy postprocessing is a must. You just need to do it right!
I had a look at my earlier photos where the camera was set to zero. Oh my god, what a difference...
"Vivid" settings or nothing at all. If it gets too much, you have the raw.
A question: Donīt they print big posters in 150 DPI or something? Or pixels like cherries on billboard?
The artifacts and noise will dissapear behind those giant pixels ;)
-
EDITED
Vonkara:Yep, you have rules. But always keep in mind that agencies are not setting rules just as they like, because we can shoot without them, but they cant sell anything without us. This is about cooperation photographer-agency but microstock is more into dictature every day, unfortunately. IS crossed the acceptable line for me and Im not going to upload anything unless their change their minds about this.
basti, you are right, about one thing: we can shoot without them, but they cant sell anything without us.
but you see all the banting and raving here and on the forum of IS, etc. lots of angry voices but no one quits the joint. it's human nature, 90% of them will scream hell when there is a bus strike or nurses strike, and then when they see the strikers, they smile and say, "hello, good morning to you".
all lots of hot air. that is why IS can be dictatorial. they have enough fawns and pawns they don't need people like you ,or me even ;)
-
Whitechild,
Overfiltering may be a rejection for noise and banding caused by excessive edition. Sometimes it is just a very small area in the shadow, but you know they are picky...
-
... I just wanna ask why IS doesn't accept images like these any more...at least doesn't accept my images that are even slightly more saturated.
You might need to go exclusive if you want stuff like that accepted ;-)
Exclusivity doesn't mean that they inspect your stuff more loosely. AFAIK they inspect all images the same across the board, you just have more uploads and faster inspection times as an exclusive member.
Also, I do lots of post-processing to my images, but I know how far I can take it so I don't get too many rejections.
-
Exclusivity doesn't mean that they inspect your stuff more loosely. AFAIK they inspect all images the same across the board, you just have more uploads and faster inspection times as an exclusive member.
No, sorry __ that might be the theory but it sure isn't how it actually works. Courtesy of the zoom feature it is painfully obvious that exclusives can get away with noise, artifacts and lack-of-focus that I wouldn't even dream of uploading (anywhere at all). Some of them are so piss-poor I wouldn't even have them in my portfolio if they paid me to do so.
One of the obvious differences is that exclusive images cannot be rejected for keywords but those from independent contributors can. Judging by some of my own recent rejects for keywords I'm pretty sure that some inspectors don't actually understand English at all __ either that or they're just being vindictive or protective of their own portfolio.
-
Nicolesy, I think your acceptance ratio is something like 90%, isn't it? so the OP would be wise to listen to your advice.
to the OP, I think after the last thread you posted regarding Chromatic Abberation, and now this one, some technical photography study might be in order. the energy you are wasting arguing about your rejections would be better spent researching I think.
gostwyck, your arguments are so venemous, why do you bother coming here? there isn't an ounce of truth in your comment.
exclusives don't get special consideration for inspection. other than the time taken to inspect, which is less when you are exclusive. exclusives probably do get other considerations, but I think we should. I'm sorry, but I have invested my entire portfolio in iStock. I expect a few perks. inspection isn't one of them, my acceptance ratio has slowly improved, it certainly did not improve the moment I became exclusive. stop making excuses and just improve your photography...
-
Nicolesy, I think your acceptance ratio is something like 90%, isn't it? so the OP would be wise to listen to your advice.
to the OP, I think after the last thread you posted regarding Chromatic Abberation, and now this one, some technical photography study might be in order. the energy you are wasting arguing about your rejections would be better spent researching I think.
gostwyck, your arguments are so venemous, why do you bother coming here? there isn't an ounce of truth in your comment.
exclusives don't get special consideration for inspection. other than the time taken to inspect, which is less when you are exclusive. exclusives probably do get other considerations, but I think we should. I'm sorry, but I have invested my entire portfolio in iStock. I expect a few perks. inspection isn't one of them, my acceptance ratio has slowly improved, it certainly did not improve the moment I became exclusive. stop making excuses and just improve your photography...
seems like anyone who disagrees with you stacey newman is told better not to bother coming here.
what say we ask leaf to rename this forum to STACEY NEWMAN ONLY ARGUMENT ...hmm?
all hail the ever omnipotent and infallible stacey newman ::)
-
please don't personally attack me batman. I have offered the OP a great deal of advice in another thread and in this one. and I have not told anyone not to come here, nor have I suggested that what I know is best, in fact my last post was a suggestion that the OP listen to Nicolesy, who is a successful veteran at iStock.
I asked why almost every post from one of the other people on this site is venemous in nature. we all get our feathers ruffled sometimes, but most of us around here are trying to either gain information or provide it. or perhaps swapping stories in order to ride out sales drops or rejections. the person I responded to was neither helpful nor seeking help. they were in here for one reason, to stir the pot and cause trouble.
don't be a jerk.
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEP7uti0PDw[/youtube]
please don't personally attack me batman. I have offered the OP a great deal of advice in another thread and in this one. and I have not told anyone not to come here, nor have I suggested that what I know is best, in fact my last post was a suggestion that the OP listen to Nicolesy, who is a successful veteran at iStock.
I asked why almost every post from one of the other people on this site is venemous in nature. we all get our feathers ruffled sometimes, but most of us around here are trying to either gain information or provide it. or perhaps swapping stories in order to ride out sales drops or rejections. the person I responded to was neither helpful nor seeking help. they were in here for one reason, to stir the pot and cause trouble.
don't be a jerk.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IE8DPLzc_c[/youtube]
-
Stacey, I started this thread before that one about CR. I just started it and it evolved into very popular thread. This forum is here for people to say their opinions. Don't get me wrong, but you are newbie here, and we don't say very often to each other things like "jerk". This is an independent forum and you will find here many (and I mean MANY) people complaining about IS rejection, and no one will ever change that.
Bigger, and more important people than you and me couldn't change it, so I guess we can't either. You're gonna keep telling your story, others will keep telling their story, and no one will listen to other side and accept some facts.
Lets spend our energy on more constructive things in our lives.
-
Stacey, I started this thread before that one about CR. I just started it and it evolved into very popular thread. This forum is here for people to say their opinions. Don't get me wrong, but you are newbie here, and we don't say very often to each other things like "jerk". This is an independent forum and you will find here many (and I mean MANY) people complaining about IS rejection, and no one will ever change that.
Bigger, and more important people than you and me couldn't change it, so I guess we can't either. You're gonna keep telling your story, others will keep telling their story, and no one will listen to other side and accept some facts.
Lets spend our energy on more constructive things in our lives.
whitechild....my post was NOT referring to you. if you were to read it more carefully, you would see it was a reaction to the inappropriate post made by batman. and he was a total jerk. secondly I'm not new on this forum. I have participated on this forum for three years. I simply changed my username a month ago when I changed my username on iStock. batman's post is unacceptable. it is one thing to be angry, it is entirely another thing to post videos in order to harrass someone you disagree with. we're supposed to be professionals here. I've dealt with batman's post via the moderators instead of reacting any further, but obviously you misread my entire message and believed it was aimed at you.
you are making it sound like the moment you asked for a critique, you were shut down. which is entirely inaccurate. you have had two threads going for pages and pages about your rejections, in which the majority of us posting have highlighted your errors in a helpful manner. only to be met with further argument. no one is shutting down your requests for advice. but at some point the questions become redundant.
-
soooo ms know it all newman, it's a bit difficult to accept someone's argument but we are all expected to accept your smarties like you are some guru and expert, huh?
and if you don't agree , call someone a jerk, then report to the moderator.
this is cool with me. as you can see, i am already shaking in my boots.
ironic though, as smartie pants as you are, you seem to have forgotten that you are not in IS anymore, and here we don't simply excommunicate someone we do not agree with.
we MIGHT SUGGEST you open your own STACEY NEWMAN FORUM, but we would never be soooooo UNPROFESSIONAL as you put it elsewhere , to call you a JERK,
or smart S(tacey).
Smartie pants maybe, but I would have refrain from calling you a jerk,
as that is a bit too patronizing . Stop being so condescending, *!
If you were to speak to Tyler, you could have at least requested for a Stacey Newman section here too. I am sure Tyler would oblige ;)
... that is, if you ask nicely. If you really know how to do that????
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Furthermore,
there are many ppl here that have disagreed with me, and vice versa, but we don't all keep running to the moderator crying our pants off to get them excommunicated. live with the reality that there are always two sides to a coin, or have you been using your own currency with your face on that ;Dtoo?
-
I am an exclusive contributor on iStock, going on three years. in fact I should be hitting gold today. so I'm not sure what you are talking about. your posts are really offensive, not much else needs to be said.
-
I am an exclusive contributor on iStock, going on three years. in fact I should be hitting gold today. so I'm not sure what you are talking about. your posts are really offensive, not much else needs to be said.
i'm not surprised. so you wrote the book on ego-rhythm, huh? ;D
-
I am an exclusive contributor on iStock, going on three years. in fact I should be hitting gold today. so I'm not sure what you are talking about. your posts are really offensive, not much else needs to be said.
i'm not surprised. so you wrote the book on ego-rhythm, huh? ;D
Oh oh, looks like we have a fatal attraction going here :D...
batman meets catwoman ? ???
-
Ha ha !!! hereīs batman.
(http://www.goozex.com/community/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/7/1184.funny_2D00_pictures_2D00_batman_2D00_dog_2D00_12Y.jpg)
someone else finds Catwoman?
-
lol Matt ;D
C'mon chill out everybody. This is going nowhere
-
I must say it's commendable that Whitechild has never lost his good humor and manner.
Stacy, have to disagree with you. You had your moment to vent your frustration because you failed to reach Gold on your schedule, which might be caused by a number of reasons, and was not because IS had taken any discriminatary actions against you, you have always been a favored exclusive. What's wrong if other people vent theirs? You are not non exclusive so you may not fully understand what we have to go through
I do not see this as an attack on IS. Personally IS has always been my favorite site, even though at times I disagree with some of its policies. It's unnessarily to accuse others of stiring up the pot, being venemous or a jerks. Guess who had cause the biggest stir to IS not a long time ago?
Let's all express our opinions in a reasonable, calm and professional manner.
-
I have already sitemailed with whitechild, as well as rating his images and offering additional advice. you can disagree and vent all you want, but there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. in no context are some of the posts in this thread acceptable.
-
Who draws the line?
-
[youtube][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEP7uti0PDw[/url][/youtube]
OMG ::) This is the worst "old macho" television show ever. Not even funny a bit. In which country does this show played ?