MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Dreamframer on April 23, 2009, 14:52
-
Guys, I just have rejected one image at IS for purple fringing. This is the problematic part sent from IS. Can someone tell me where the reviewer saw purple fringing?
Parachute is purple, and some cables are purple tho ;D
-
the pic is too small, but if I AM SUPPOSED to see fringes to agree with the IS reviewer ;)
i would say it's on his lap and behind his ankle . as i say, only guessing from this size.
-
It looks to me like what they saw was purple cables :)
Reminds me of that famous rejection, your blue bin appears purple :D
Oh, a bigger version of the image can be seen by clicking on it.
-
I checked it in 300%. Those are bit soft edges, probably due to motion blur because the parachutist moved his leg, but there is no trace of fringing. Maybe it's on some other place...
This is 100% Click on the image to see 100%
-
I can see a little fringing around the left foot on the bottom edge also along the edge of the black part of the jacket. Its there but in your defense its pretty minor :)
-
Tiny amount of purple fringing around shoes and coat, tiny...
-
Tiny amount of purple fringing around shoes and coat, tiny...
Yes, I see it. Is it really the reason for rejection, or maybe there is some stronger fringing?
-
Well... aren't the cables supposed to be white? Unless they are actually purple (and the reviewer cannot know that), there is a lot of CA along the two main cables I would say.
-
Two main cables are purple. Cables on parachutes are almost never white on todays parachutes btw. They are divided into groups (A,B,C etc) colored with different colors by groups. I know that because I am a paragliding pilot.
-
You know that, but most don't (myself and the reviewer included)... and it looks like CA :-\
-
You know that, but most don't (myself and the reviewer included)... and it looks like CA :-\
Should I submit this to scout? I never did that before.... Or maybe I should change the color of those two cables... hmm...
-
Zoom to 700% on this clip, and the edges are purple all around the guy and parachute. Must be som kind of edge/contrast sharpening to make it look sharper than it is. Do you have that setting in your camera?
This may be on all cameras though. Havent thought about it before :-[
-
700%?!
-
Zoom to 700% on this clip, and the edges are purple all around the guy and parachute. Must be som kind of edge/contrast sharpening to make it look sharper than it is. Do you have that setting in your camera?
This may be on all cameras though. Havent thought about it before :-[
I tried and yes I see it too. It is just a scary thought that we are starting to zoom in at 700% to see these things. I would still like to think that the reviewer simply saw purple cables as as white cables having purple fringing :)
-
700% on a 100% crop I guess this was ;D)
-
I checked it in 300%. Those are bit soft edges, probably due to motion blur because the parachutist moved his leg, but there is no trace of fringing. Maybe it's on some other place...
This is 100% Click on the image to see 100%
sorry to say but I see plenty of CA around black clothes and along the lower shoe. I clearly see it at 100% which means it's too much.
-
Actually Miklav, if you think about that part of dark clothes behind him, that's purple too. It's part of the parachute. It's where it was before opening :) That's why you can see purple edge around it. Pants are dark blue, almost black. I don't see there any purple fringing, only soft edge :)
But maybe the reviewer also thought it was fringing.
-
BTW, the file name is "Purple parachute" :D
-
To be honest whether you see and/or believe there is purple fringing or not is negatable, if you submit it again or ask scout it'll probably get rejected for the jpeg artifacting of which there is quite a bit, have you used
image degrader noise ninja on it?
-
I tried and yes I see it too. It is just a scary thought that we are starting to zoom in at 700% to see these things.
If this is it, don't you think this is quite insane?
-
To be honest whether you see and/or believe there is purple fringing or not is negatable, if you submit it again or ask scout it'll probably get rejected for the jpeg artifacting of which there is quite a bit, have you used image degrader noise ninja on it?
Nope, no noise reduction at all. Shutter speed was 1/500, and ISO was 100. I have series of images made that day with very high acceptance rate. Actually, this is the only image rejected from this batch... I was just curious. I wrote to scout anyway. I just wanna see what he thinks.
-
I am sorry to say I see a lot of fringing also. It happens alot when objects or people appear against the blue sky. I have had a bunch of rejections for this.
You also have another issue, haloing. This can be seen along the guys right pants leg, where there is almost a dark line outlining his pant leg. You can also see it along the left edge of the red strap just over the guys shoulder (his left shoulder, right shoulder as you look at the picture. The haloing creates a white gap between the sky and the red strap.
Its a great photo, I think it's salvageable, but would need some work. I wouldn't submit to scout. Can you resubmit? If so, I would fix and resubmit.
I only ever view my photos and correct at 200%. Look at ANY photo at 700% and you're going to see problems. It was my understanding that photos get reviewed at 100%. If you fix them at 200% and they get rejected, I say give up and move on.
I don't mean to be harsh, I'm speaking from experience on these rejection issues!
-
Thank you cclaper,
I don't think I will bother with resubmission. I have several pretty similar images accepted already, so... :) I'll throw this one...
-
Yesterday I got a rejection for 'an unacceptable amount of purple fringing' on an image with a field of purple hyacinths! I am laughing about it for 24 hours now! ;D And indeed looking at 300% or so, I can find a little bit purple that seem not to be original to the flowers. Using software removes all the purple from the image and cleaning up half a million tiny hyacinth flowers by hand... no, I don't think so!
Of course there's nothing wrong with your image. Demanding this level of perfection is deadsting to creativity. Perfect beauty is boring. And when you might ever reach that level they sell it for 0,30 ct....:D
These rejection reasons seem extreme to me and you need to have a little bit of sense of humour when uploading to Istock! :) (and not only to Istock...! ;)
-
whitechild,
I have a cool photo that I took inside of the Opryland Hotel, looking up at palm trees and the skylight that covers the whole hotel. It has a TON of fringing. I started to fix it all, but about an hour into it and halfway through the photo, I kind of gave up. It is a lot of work for sometimes a small return.
I took a look at your port on istock and you have some great photos. I added some to my lightboxes, I hope it helps you get some sales!
-
your image has quite a bit of chromatic abberation. along the legs, the shoes and the ropes attached to the parachute. also, I'm afraid the focus is not sharp enough. I would actually expect this file to be rejected at IS.
suggesting that an inspector is unable to tell the difference between chromatic abberation and purple tone in a purple object is somewhat ridiculous.
there are lots of things you can complain about re: istock sometimes....but file inspection is something they are generally amazing at. it is their standards that make their collection so much better than other agencies' collections. I bet this was a tough shot to get, so I can understand why you would like to get it on, but I don't think it is good enough I'm afraid, sorry.
-
cclaper, thank you for adding some of my images you your lightboxes :) That's very kind of you.
Stacey, I gave up on this. I have several similar images already accepted, so, I guess this one is not so important. Thank you for your comment anyway.
-
Stacey, I gave up on this. I have several similar images already accepted, so, I guess this one is not so important. Thank you for your comment anyway.
Maybe I'm blind, but I didn't see any CA on it, and I'm used to CA. You just will have to accept that iStock reviewers and contributors are very gifted people and that iStock has the very best collection around, as Stacey said. So, hail, hail, hail iStock ;-)
-
suggesting that an inspector is unable to tell the difference between chromatic abberation and purple tone in a purple object is somewhat ridiculous.
I guess I disagree on this as well. I have had lots of images rejected by inspectors who think that texture on a piece of paper or an object is noise. When I resubmit explaining that, they get approved. Sometimes I point the textured areas out ahead of time, so they know.
Stuff happens, they break new inspectors in...overall I think they do a great job, considering how many thousands of images get submitted each day.
-
chromatic abberation is easily spotted, especially given the software and monitors the inspectors are using. I see it easily even on my crappy little laptop in this image in question.
FlemishDreams - I normally agree with you on most things, but the image has a lot fo CA, and it is quite visible. so I'm not going to debate something that is obviously there. I'm quite critical of many things on IS, so I'm not sure where your hail IS sarcasm comes from....but in this case, yup....their inspectors rock. sorry, the proof is out there.
noise is more subjective and so is artifacting. it is silly to compare them to CA.
to the OP - I really like your series, in fact I reviewed many of the other images. but you were right to give up on this one I think.
-
Its' funny, some of us don't' see any, some see a small amount of, and some see a lot of purple fringing. At least we can all agree that we disagree :)
-
chromatic abberation is easily spotted, especially given the software and monitors the inspectors are using. I see it easily even on my crappy little laptop in this image in question.
Stacey, maybe you should check it on some better monitor because crappy little laptop monitors are crappy :)
I know quite well what is CR, and the only thing that is present here on this image is not CR. It's not either haloing. It's just soft edge due to motion blur, plus optical illusion that our brain normally see when we look at very dark over very light object when the edge is not very sharp, and sometimes even when it is sharp. If you don't trust me, take a look at this optical illusion and scroll down to see the answer http://www.illusion-optical.com/Optical-Illusions/ChessboardShading.php
Now, see how your brain could be confused. The same thing happens when you have dark object over light surface. You will notice haloing because thin line close to your dark object will look lighter than the rest of background surface. You will notice it even with real 3d objects that surround you. You don't have to look at the photo. Or look at this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Grid_illusion.svg and tell me that those spots really scintillate.
I know what is CR. I know the types of CR and colors that appear in CR. Also, this parachutist was in the center of the original photo, so chances are very small for CR, plus it's lens I use the most, and it's very good and sharp. All my photos from this two batches are with the same settings, and many of them are made under the same circumstances, and not one of them is rejected due to CR. So, there is almost no chance for this particular photo to have CR. Otherwise, give me some logical explanation why should only this photo have CR?
The parachutist has purple parachutes, pair of purple cables, and purple backpack, so you can see thin purple edge around his backpack, but it's not CR.
-
Actually Miklav, if you think about that part of dark clothes behind him, that's purple too. It's part of the parachute. It's where it was before opening :) That's why you can see purple edge around it. Pants are dark blue, almost black. I don't see there any purple fringing, only soft edge :)
But maybe the reviewer also thought it was fringing.
No, I am talking about the fringing around pants, along lower shoe, and on some other contrasty edges.
click to see it at 300%
-
At 300% every image with this subject will have this amount of purple fringing. Anyway, there is no agency that ask of us to submit images that look good at 300%
I guess you will find PP on this image as well, but it's already accepted at IS
-
I can see it at 100%, let alone magnified. accept it and move on. it is totally, utterly visible. this is a stupid debate. it is I either there or it isn't. and in this case, it is absolutely there. good luck with the series in any case.
-
I can see it at 100%, let alone magnified. accept it and move on. it is totally, utterly visible. this is a stupid debate. it is I either there or it isn't. and in this case, it is absolutely there. good luck with the series in any case.
that's it whitechild. your eyes are so ridiculous, you should use the money you earn from downloads to buy a pair of glasses, man ! 8) better still, buy two, and you will see the FRINGES as large as purple spaghetti ;)
-
Of course I will move on. I'm just trying to prove that it's very subjective what would some reviewer decide. I will reveal the secret, why I am so stubborn regarding this rejection. It's because one of reviewers told me to just resubmit the image without any change after few days. He also said that this rejection is totally crazy and that no one can expect this kind of image to be totally without it. He said to me to write a note in description that I fixed it and just to resubmit.
So, I guys will say that you know better than another reviewer...well, if you say so, you have very high self confidence. But you have to accept the fact that your "mass psychology" reactions like "Oh, yes, there is huge fringing" because one of reviewers thinks so is just mass psychology reaction. Yes, there might be some PP, but it's acceptable, it's not so catastrophic.
This reminds me of one image I had rejected before with comments like: "Yes, there are obvious lighting problem on your image" and after EL sale of the same image everyone commented: "Oh man, that's really awesome image" ;D
As I said few times in different posts, I never say something without reason. This time it was other reviewers opinion.
-
that's it whitechild. your eyes are so ridiculous, you should use the money you earn from downloads to buy a pair of glasses, man ! 8) better still, buy two, and you will see the FRINGES as large as purple spaghetti ;)
Haha :D
-
whatever reviewer told you that doesn't know what they are talking about. posting your reviewer friend's ridiculous, and completely wrong statement like that to bolster your position really only makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about also.
chromatic abberation is not subjective, it is measurable and obvious to a trained eye. your image is full of chromatic abberation. the end.
-
I didn't say who is my friend, and I will not reveal that info. But guys, I would like to see some consistency here. You have to agree what is acceptable and what is not. I don't like when I see different opinions of something that should so simple and easy. Otherwise, who do I have to believe?
In one thing I'm sure. I am not of those persons who think reviewers are some god-like creatures that never make mistakes. I guess I am not perfect follower...thank God.
-
I guess you would like to say all those reviewers were blind, or reviewers in other agencies don't have devices to detect PP, or they are not trained?
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-28121449.html
http://www.fotolia.com/id/13255171
http://www.dreamstime.com/purple-parachute-image8876204
http://www.123rf.com/photo_4642071.html
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/photo/view/4854528
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/38082161
http://www.yaymicro.com/portfolio.action?search.offset=19&search.id=908471&search.limit=50&search.numResults=374&search.filterExplicit=false&search.sort=date&preview=
http://www.cutcaster.com/viewmedia/view/100246759/Photo/Purple-parachute
http://www.featurepics.com/online/Purple-Parachute-1142482.aspx
plus Alamy, I just edited the image and it's not online yet
-
There might be some CA at 800% for the visually gifted. I just don't see it at 100%. But that's only because my eyes are bad and so is my calibrated 19" Samsung LCD here. I wouldn't dare to question any IS exclusives nor reviewers. They are right. So there is CA.
As a part-time buyer and if I needed a shot from a parapenter, my lesson would be not to buy from the superior collection of IS, but just from crap sities like DT, and save some money for my customer at the same time :P - He doesn't care, not for a banner of 800px max.
-
There might be some CA at 800% for the visually gifted. I just don't see it at 100%. But that's only because my eyes are bad and so is my calibrated 19" Samsung LCD here. I wouldn't dare to question any IS exclusives nor reviewers. They are right. So there is CA.
As a part-time buyer and if I needed a shot from a parapenter, my lesson would be not to buy from the superior collection of IS, but just from crap sities like DT, and save some money for my customer at the same time :P - He doesn't care, not for a banner of 800px max.
rofl. maybe we should start a microstock site that prides itself with a publicity ad:
OUR IMAGES HAVE NOOOOOO CA EVEN AT 300% mag. For 800% CA free images, please visit our Prime Stock Collection.
8) ;D
ooh, almost forgot another marketing promo here:
buy one PSC image and get one free LENS FLARE SPECIAL image from our MODO NOVO archives :D
-
forget the original issue in this thread.....I couldn't care less at this point. but I can't believe the childish, inaccurate and embarrassing bullying that happens around here when someone defends iStock.
first of all, I have had many reasons to CONSTRUCTIVELY criticize iStock over the last year. I'm am not a lemming or a blind follower of anything. but, despite my own questions about IS policies, iStock gets the praise and the loyalty they have because they really ARE that good in the majority of situations.
I'm all for posting comments whose purpose is to highlight real problems at iStock, or real concerns. I was very angry about the handling of my own sales drop at IS a few months ago. but iStock continued to be professional and helpful and great when I was upset. that spoke volumes to me.
iStock bashing is so ridiculous. it happens all the time on this site. firstly, it only demonstrates the insecurity of those whose images are not being accepted at iStock, secondly....it reflects really poorly on you as professionals. I'm all for being opinionated, but at least be sure your opinions are somewhat intelligent. this is one of the reasons I don't ask for a lot of advice here, because the iStock forum here seems filled with a bunch of people who are here simply to hate iStock. not much information there.
man alive.
-
I'm sorry if I sounded rude or unprofessional. I don't know why this rejection upset me so much. Sorry everyone. Everyone has it's own opinion here.
-
whitechild, it wasn't only you. secondly, it isn't constructive to bash on the forums, though lots of people seem to come here just for that purpose. I don't get it. I'm just suggesting that as a newer contributor, don't follow the lead of those who mouth off but not about anything legitimate.
it doesn't help you in any way.
if you have a real concern, I guarantee you could approach iStock's contributor relations and get an answer that is helpful. even regarding an image with chromatic abberation or something similar. sitemail them if you would like some professional advice.
-
Its' funny, some of us don't' see any, some see a small amount of, and some see a lot of purple fringing. At least we can all agree that we disagree :)
Itīs the same with reviewers. And all of them use different monitors. Unfortunately :-[
-
Its' funny, some of us don't' see any, some see a small amount of, and some see a lot of purple fringing. At least we can all agree that we disagree :)
Itīs the same with reviewers. And all of them use different monitors. Unfortunately :-[
I believe that there should be a minimum requirement for reviewers monitors, as well as for them to be calibrated by one of the hardware calibrators. That would ensure at least a minimum consistency when it comes to hardware. Of course, the rest is all in the eyes of the beholder and differences will always exist.
-
Whitechild, I think it is a great shot. If there are some minor flaws, I don't think it should affect the overall sellability of the image. I suggest you contact Scout. Most of the time Scout is fair.
-
At 300% every image with this subject will have this amount of purple fringing. Anyway, there is no agency that ask of us to submit images that look good at 300%
I guess you will find PP on this image as well, but it's already accepted at IS
I do see it at 100%, I only made it 300% for you to see it too :)
It is not huge amount indeed, probably it's on the border line for inspectors - that's why it was accepted somewhere; and that's why some similar images were accepted too. I don't think it's a subject for a discussion though - the fact is that yes, it does exist there so you can't blame istock inspector being blind ;)
-
I still think the CA is insignificant, and it appears more a blurred edge of purple and red clothes, not real CA. I also still think this an insane level of quality that some reviewers (and apparently some contributors too) require.
-
Amen to above. As Ive posted to another whitechilds thread about "overfiltering", this is simply beyond any real use of image.
To folks zooming to 100% - what do you know about real-world printing? To folks zooming above 100% - insane, thats like printing 800x600 pixels pics on magazine cover - it obviously cannot work so why you do that?!
Cool down, keep your own opinion and dont take editors "standards" as a rule. Its not - its based on just agency standards and editors knowledge and it has nothing to do with the overall quality of the picture. If I disagree with editors rejection I simply do resubmit until the picture is accepted or rejected with acceptable reason.
-
Double amen to you both!
To folks zooming to 100% - what do you know about real-world printing? To folks zooming above 100% - insane, thats like printing 800x600 pixels pics on magazine cover - it obviously cannot work so why you do that?!
Cool down, keep your own opinion and dont take editors "standards" as a rule. Its not - its based on just agency standards and editors knowledge and it has nothing to do with the overall quality of the picture.
In real-world printing this would be a non-issue (possibly only visible with a loop). Nice shot BTW Whitechild!
-
Thank you guys! :)
-
Well guys, I just wanted to tell you Scout accepted my image of purple parachute. I am writing this for all those people who saw purple fringing on this image. I hope you realize now who was objective, and who was influenced by reviewer opinion. Do you still see purple fringing?
p.s. Thanks to all who were looking at this with their own eyes. :)
(http://www2.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/9162016/2/istockphoto_9162016-purple-parachute.jpg)
-
Congratulations Whitechild! :) No other comment needed here.
-
LOL, Whitechild, I thought you'd post that for those who have supported you too. Congrats!
;D
-
Well, the parachute IS purple, isn't it? ;D
Congrats on having it approved. At least one person has good sense in IS. ;)
-
I think that it is pretty obvious that your isolation on white went very bad!
;D
-
I just sold my purple parachute with purple fringing on Istock :D
-
In 700% I see tiny purple reviewers with magnifying glasses :D
-
In 700% I see tiny purple reviewers with magnifying glasses :D
hahaha :D