MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Overfiltering...I think don't understand it  (Read 14391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 20, 2009, 05:38 »
0
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.



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.





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.



« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2009, 05:53 »
0
Critique requires a full size image to look at.

« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2009, 05:58 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 06:04 by Whitechild »

« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2009, 06:03 »
0
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
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 06:08 by MichaelJay »

« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2009, 06:05 »
0
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.

Caz

« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2009, 06:08 »
0
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.

« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2009, 06:27 »
0
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?

« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2009, 06:31 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 06:43 by Whitechild »

« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2009, 07:11 »
0
Ok, then I guess we're done then.  Good luck!

« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2009, 07:14 »
0
... 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 ;-)

« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2009, 07:22 »
0
... 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.

« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2009, 07:23 »
0
Adding light to shadows brings out noise.  And if u use noiseware it degrades the image.   But I guess u know this.

« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2009, 07:41 »
0
... 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.

« Reply #13 on: April 20, 2009, 07:51 »
0
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.

« Reply #14 on: April 20, 2009, 08:16 »
0
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...

« Reply #15 on: April 20, 2009, 09:34 »
0
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.


 

« Reply #16 on: April 20, 2009, 11:03 »
0
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:


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:




« Reply #17 on: April 20, 2009, 12:07 »
0
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.

 ;)

« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2009, 12:15 »
0
if your blue sky is free of noise, try scout!

« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2009, 13:06 »
0
Keep in mind that Scout only accepts three tickets in a month, although I agree they are fair most of the time.

« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2009, 13:49 »
0
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


vonkara

« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2009, 14:03 »
0
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
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 16:13 by Vonkara »

« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2009, 14:09 »
0
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.

batman

« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2009, 19:17 »
0
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   ;)
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 19:20 by batman »

« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2009, 01:55 »
0
Batman, yes, still learning it :)

« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 02:29 by Whitechild »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
70 Replies
22171 Views
Last post April 20, 2008, 15:27
by kosmikkreeper
17 Replies
10306 Views
Last post August 31, 2009, 19:12
by a.k.a.-tom
25 Replies
10951 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 18:54
by Anita Potter
6 Replies
3370 Views
Last post June 25, 2014, 20:27
by ShadySue
3 Replies
4411 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 19:49
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors