Author Topic: Help needed with reviewer´s remarks (Read 4946 times)

roman · « **on:** January 18, 2007, 19:04 »

Hello all,

I need a bit of help understanding the following rejection reason, ``cannot find clear focal point,`` followed by ``perhaps reducing the image size will help.`` What do the reviewers at istock actually mean by focal point and how will reducing the image size will help. I am not arguing with the remark, istock, etc... I actually learned a lot from their reviewers and my acceptance rate has been gradually climbing up. But this is number one reason for the rejection I get now. Reading the help link provided by the reviewer did not help much. Thanks in advance for all your help.

MiguelAngelo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2007, 19:11 »

Hey,

As I understand it, your image can be a bit blury and if you downsample it, maybe the bluryness will be less evident.
It's not the best practice, but see it as a small trick. ;-)

epixx · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2007, 19:28 »

There are quite a number of photographers who, for microstock, reduce the images to near the minimum of what is accepted by each agency to get rid of blurriness, noise etc. It often works, although it may decrease the sales potential of the photo, since there won't really be a hi res version available.

MiguelAngelo · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2007, 19:40 »

Just to say if it helps.

My best seller at IS is a scanned 35mm film from Provia 100. It was accepted at full res (scanned at 4000dpi) and it sells almost every day a XXL version.
To get the same file aprooved at SS it took me 3 or 4 attemps and had do downlample from 5400 plus pixels on the larger side to 3000.
All of my underwater pictures are scanned film (maybe if I can sell my F5 and housing I'll buy the housing for D200 in a short term) and I always try to submit the full res for sites like IS where size counts. Regarding SS I always downsample those files and I get a lot of rejections for grain /noise.

roman · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2007, 19:53 »

Quote from: MiguelAngelo on January 18, 2007, 19:40

Just to say if it helps.

My best seller at IS is a scanned 35mm film from Provia 100. It was accepted at full res (scanned at 4000dpi) and it sells almost every day a XXL version.
To get the same file aprooved at SS it took me 3 or 4 attemps and had do downlample from 5400 plus pixels on the larger side to 3000.
All of my underwater pictures are scanned film (maybe if I can sell my F5 and housing I'll buy the housing for D200 in a short term) and I always try to submit the full res for sites like IS where size counts. Regarding SS I always downsample those files and I get a lot of rejections for grain /noise.

Thanks for the help. I ll give it a try. You not the first one to mention the noise-grain issue from scans. Some of the photographers find it next to impossible to get 35mm scans accepted on SS because of the issues.

MiguelAngelo · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2007, 20:50 »

I just do what they want me to do.
Plastify my dear pictures and send them to evaluation.

If you have noisse and grain issues, just go after Noise Ninja or something like it.

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** January 19, 2007, 02:15 »

Quote from: MiguelAngelo on January 18, 2007, 20:50

I just do what they want me to do.
Plastify my dear pictures and send them to evaluation.

If you have noisse and grain issues, just go after Noise Ninja or something like it.

yeah... for shutterstock.

for istock however, if you try that you will get rejected for overprocessing (the correct call in my opinion) Reducing size for istock is the better option.

MiguelAngelo · « **Reply #7 on:** January 19, 2007, 07:44 »

Leaf,

I was refering to SS.
At IS I always upload the full size image with none or very small corrections on noise/grain, as I like the Extra income from the XXL size. I've learned the hard way that I must be carefull with noise correction at IS because of the overprocessing thing.

madelaide · « **Reply #8 on:** January 19, 2007, 16:34 »

It's curious for me that by "no clear focal point" I would understand an image in which the subject is not clear. "Lack of focus" or "lack of sharpness" or "not enough DOF" would seem more appropriate to me if focus is a problem.

Regards,
Adelaide

leaf · « **Reply #9 on:** January 19, 2007, 16:53 »

yeah i would have to agree with you madelaide. Perhaps the reviewer doesn't understand what it means, or got it mixed up.

however if shrinking the image is supposed to help, you would think (hope) that the reviewer meant that the focus was off.

roman · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2007, 14:57 »

Yeah, that´s what confused me. Because normally if focus is the problem (although I would not have suspected that with an image shot at f 8 using a tripod) the reviewer normally states ``out of focus`` and so on... the meaning of focal point, on the other hand, seems to depend on the context which is not always obvious. Do you think I can use Miguel´s shrinking tips for the initial 10 SS submission.

roman · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2007, 14:58 »

By the way, Miguel thanks a lot for some interesting and very useful info. I will certainly keep it in mind the future.

leaf · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2007, 18:46 »

yeah that might be a good idea to shrink the images for the initial shutterstock submission.

Make sure they are still a decent amount of MP however... ie. don't shrink the images too much.

they might count one mark against you if all your images are the bare minimum size. I am sure images coming in at 6mp or larger are a lot more attractive to them than 3mp.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Help needed with reviewer´s remarks (Read 4946 times)

roman

MiguelAngelo

epixx

MiguelAngelo

roman

MiguelAngelo

leaf

MiguelAngelo

madelaide

leaf

roman

roman

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors