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.

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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 !     better still, buy two, and you will see the FRINGES as large as purple spaghetti

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 !     better still, buy two, and you will see the FRINGES as large as purple spaghetti

Haha

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.

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  - He doesn't care, not for a banner of 800px max.

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.

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.

Quote from: goldenangel on April 26, 2009, 03:03

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

It�s 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.

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