Author Topic: The curse of overfiltering (Read 22239 times)

leaf · « **on:** September 05, 2007, 10:44 »

Anyone got any tips for me, because i need 'em.

how do you get past the istock reviewers in regards to 'overfiltering'

'We found this file over filtered from its original appearance/quality.'

'This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is commonly created by the quality settings in-camera or in post-processing.'

I must be doing something wrong. Do they prefer NO use of noise software (the opposite of shutterstock) i can't seem to find a happy medium with them. Perhaps I should reduce all the images to 50%??? (they were shot with a 5D, so they would still be 6 megapixels) I don't feel i applied noise reduction very strongly, and when i did it was done on a seperate layer and only used where needed...

Frustrating after spending ALL that time uploading and clicking on all those silly keyword boxes

digiology · « **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2007, 11:07 »

I get the over-filter often and I do not regularly use noise reduction software. I just reduce them to the large size and then they usually get accepted.

grp_photo · « **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2007, 11:21 »

I mostly downsample my images for Microstock normally to 2000x3000px (mainly from 5D) its simply the best noise reduction of the world it also "heals" minor defocussing (back- and frontfocus are not rare at Canons) artefacts, lens defaults etc.
My second reason for doing so: it's a way to protect my investments i did in higherpriced stockagencies.

sharply_done · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2007, 11:34 »

I am the master of getting rejected for those reasons, but I am making big improvements after making my mind up to do something about it. Hatman12 rarely gets rejections at IS; he'll hopefully chime in with some suggestions for you.

"Over filtering", to me, means too much photoshop. I think they're aiming for something that looks good, looks natural, but still has room left for designers to tweak as they see fit. If you take the image too far in processing (with curves, levels, and saturation), you are dramatically increasing your chances of having it being rejected for "over filtering".

"Artifacts" are a bit of a mystery to me. I've had images that use the same background both accepted and rejected for "artifacts". This rejection reason seems to be almost arbitrary. I've downsized "artifact" rejections, resubmitted them and have had some accepted, but I've never had an "over filtering" rejection accepted after resubmitting it.

As far as downsizing goes, this is a quick and easy way to get something that may be noisy or blurry accepted. Make sure that you pay attention to their price sizing: XL=2800x4200 & 3430x3430, L = 1820x2730 & 2220x2220. You may not be doing yourself any favors by arbitrarily downsizing (like say to 2000x3000), and may even still get rejected for not downsizing the image enough. I've learned this the hard way, and have a few images on IS that sell as M, despite being only a handful of pixels away from L. I hate it when that happens. The bottom line in downsizing, to me, is that if I do it I tailor the image size to suit the pricing structure of the site.

I throw out my usual keywording for my IS images and use words directly from their CV dictionary. Due to the peculiarities of the CV, a lot of my IS keywords aren't used on other sites. I found that keywording became a lot quicker/easier on IS once I made this shift.

leaf · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2007, 11:42 »

what is their CV dictionary?

The images in question is my climbing series. Images like the one linked got a
'We found this file over filtered from its original appearance/quality.'

I have link the edited pic (on dreamstime) and the original

I didn't really do much of anything to the file... a little curves i suppose but not much. Perhaps that was still too much???

sharply_done · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2007, 11:54 »

It's an easy guess that they didn't like the subtle vignetting. I like the way you warmed things up - it makes the image 10x better. Even out the brightness and you'll have yourself a winner with this one!

The CV dictionary is the thingy that changes your keywords into IS keywords. One of it's strengths is its ability to "suggest" keywords that you wouldn't normally use or think of. This image would benefit greatly from such keywords as "Recreational Pursuit ", "After Work","Extreme Sports ", and "Weekend Warrior", and there are plenty more. I suggest you investigate the top selling climbing images to see what other keywords might help market this image to its full potential.

One more thing about "over filtering": be careful with sharpening. IS doesn't like much sharpening. Before shooting stock I sharpened every image I made - I now rarely, if ever, sharpen my images. This plays into that "giving the designer more leeway" approach I mentioned earlier.

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2007, 11:58 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 05, 2007, 11:54

It's an easy guess that they didn't like the subtle vignetting. I like the way you warmed things up - it makes the image ten time better. Even out the brightness and you'll have yourself a winner with this one!

The CV dictionary is the thingy that changes your keywords into IS keywords. One of it's strengths is its ability to "suggest" keywords that you wouldn't normally use or think of. This image would benefit greatly from such keywords as "Recreational Pursuit ", "After Work","Extreme Sports ", and "Weekend Warrior", and there are plenty more. I suggest you investigate the top selling climbing images to see what other keywords might help market this image to its full potential.

i guess i will try a little with even less editing and see how it goes.

With kewords - you mean all those words you have to click and unclick that come up when you upload like regular, or is this something different.

sharply_done · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2007, 12:03 »

That's exactly what I mean. The first thing you should do is click on the "Remove All" button so that you can start from scratch using IS keywords, not your own. You will remain frustrated with their keywording system if you do not adapt and change your methodology to suit its strengths.

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** September 05, 2007, 12:10 »

yeah, ok.. that is what i do with the keywords. Except I don't click the 'remove all' button. I just remove the ones I don't want as i go through.

sharply_done · « **Reply #9 on:** September 05, 2007, 12:17 »

The hidden power of the IS CV system is its ability to find keywords that don't naturally occur to you.

Take this climbing image of yours: the CV can help you market this in any number of ways. Different aspects of adventure, challenge, and leadership can all be explored using the power of the CV to seek out related keywords.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #10 on:** September 05, 2007, 12:48 »

I have found that IS does not like overly edited images. They basically want something right out of the camera, with very little editing.

For example, this image has been accepted at every agency but IS:

Your image does not look overly edited to me, but it is hard to tell at the image size that you have posted. My guess would be the out-of-focus background. It looks like it might contain artifacts. But once again, it is very hard to tell without the original size.

If you want to send me the two originals (via sitemail), I would be happy to give you my opinion. (And I promise that I will not use them for other purposes and delete them when I am done with my analysis.)

Lizard · « **Reply #11 on:** September 05, 2007, 12:51 »

Thats something its bothering me for long time , I get "We found this file over filtered from its original appearance/quality" all the time.

I had images rejected with almost no post processing rejected , all BW photos rejected , etc ... for that same reason

I can understand they want unprocessed photos and I'm OK with that , but than when I take a random look at most popular photos and I see lots of processed photos , artificial skies , unreal sunsets , cross processed photos, artificial motion blurs , burned edges , colors pushed over the edge, etc.

Am I missing something ?

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #12 on:** September 05, 2007, 13:01 »

I had that issue too. Lately after I have done the "filtering" for example get rid of heavy noise in the sky, I ADDED a LITTLE noise with photoshop. Just a tiny bit.
I have not had a rejection for overfiltering for quite a while although I am doing a lot in Photoshop.

Note: That theory is not fully proven yet.

stokfoto · « **Reply #13 on:** September 05, 2007, 13:09 »

I got his kind of rejections quite many recently althouhg I'd applied no noise reducing filter at all.and and artifact is a deman that results in so many rejection on IS but oddly enough same files get accepted everywhere else. ok I am happy they keep the standards high but sometimes I really don't understand the rejections anyway I just move on.

Pixart · « **Reply #14 on:** September 05, 2007, 13:26 »

Quote from: Lizard on September 05, 2007, 12:51

I can understand they want unprocessed photos and I'm OK with that , but than when I take a random look at most popular photos and I see lots of processed photos , artificial skies , unreal sunsets , cross processed photos, artificial motion blurs , burned edges , colors pushed over the edge, etc.

Am I missing something ?

Maybe that you're not exclusive?

leaf · « **Reply #15 on:** September 05, 2007, 13:59 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on September 05, 2007, 13:01

I had that issue too. Lately after I have done the "filtering" for example get rid of heavy noise in the sky, I ADDED a LITTLE noise with photoshop. Just a tiny bit.
I have not had a rejection for overfiltering for quite a while although I am doing a lot in Photoshop.

Note: That theory is not fully proven yet.

ohh.. interesting idea.

sharply_done · « **Reply #16 on:** September 05, 2007, 15:04 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on September 05, 2007, 13:01

I had that issue too. Lately after I have done the "filtering" for example get rid of heavy noise in the sky, I ADDED a LITTLE noise with photoshop. Just a tiny bit.
I have not had a rejection for overfiltering for quite a while although I am doing a lot in Photoshop.

Note: That theory is not fully proven yet.

I've done that too - it can help reduce banding in skies.

The technique is to create a new layer, change the blending mode to "Overlay", fill it with neutral gray, then add a bit of monochromatic noise (~ 2%). Fine tune things by erasing areas that don't need the noise, then adjust the opacity of the layer to suit.

A bit related: The July/August issue of Photoshop User Magazine has a nice technique for reducing posterization in skies.

yingyang0 · « **Reply #17 on:** September 05, 2007, 15:10 »

I have a good acceptance rate at IS, 82% (even before exclusive). I do very little editing in PS, maybe a slight exposure change but that's about it. I try to always get it right in the camera. IS has said that doing stuff like what was done to the pepper above should be left to the buyers and that doing so limits the usefulness of the image.

@leaf, I personally like the colors of your climbing image but they don't look natural (at least on my screen at work).

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #18 on:** September 05, 2007, 16:40 »

Quote from: leaf on September 05, 2007, 10:44

We found this file over filtered from its original appearance/quality.'

'This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is commonly created by the quality settings in-camera or in post-processing.'

The only reasons I get rejection at IS! ... personally, Leaf, your 'edited' pic of the climber is the one that catches my eye. The other, while a good capture, I'd pass right over in a search. The rich colors and balance makes me stop to look.
I don't use any noise reduction software! Yet I get bagged for it. I do balance color and contrast. On some landscape shots, I will do a very minimal color saturation, but not much. Just a tweak if... it needs it.

I agree with Lizards comment. I shoot a lot of landscape/travel/nature pix. When I first entered this biz, it sure looked to me like the 'over-enhanced/over processed' pix were the ones that sold the most. Especially the unatural skies that have been gradiated from dark blue to almost black at the top. Waterfalls/streams/rapids where the water was blurred to enhance the sense of motion...when all the rocks have the same size/shape/texture, motion in rapid over them that was clearly cloned or copy/pasted. etc... Even completly fake water reflections to the point of it being obviously 'shopped'.. (I'm not talking about true shots, there are some out there that came out of the camera, I'm talking about those that are obviously PS'd)

Personally, I don't understand the point of 'designer options'. In Leaf's shot for perfect example. I'd buy the processed shot. I would probably not buy the unprocessed shot. In a scan of thumbnails in a lightbox of climbers on a rockface... I wouldn't stop on the unprocessed shot, I'd focus in on those that stood out.

I always felt the color rich photos were the best. Hey... the sun doesn't always cooperate... .nature isn't always that color intense, sharp, or contrasted. Sometimes it needs a little help. And all this tweaking has been going on since the day film was invented. It's just easier to do it in the computer than it used to be in the darkroom or lab.

However..... I'm going back to my original files and trying some of the good advice given above. IS seems to be the site where I'll be making the biggest bang for the buck money-wise. I need to grow my porfolio there ... hence, please them more.

-tom

hatman12 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 05, 2007, 17:56 »

Nice picture leaf. Like everyone else I like the edited version. Send it to scout.

I'm afraid I can't help with any advice. Yes, I get good acceptances but I'm not sure why. I don't keep records, but I reckon my last 300 pics have got 100% acceptance at SS, StockXpert, FT and BigStock and 100% at IS if I include resubmits and scout tickets. I don't know why - I just snap away.

I don't even shoot RAW - I just just snap away, happily accumulating jpegs in my camera. I never use noise reduction software; in fact, I don't own any.

However, I am also a complete fanatic when it comes to quality. I examine every picture at 200% with a fine tooth comb and I can sometimes spend up to two hours making something 'perfect'. It means I cannot produce pictures in quantity, and that will limit my earnings progression.

If I get a rejection at IS it is either for 'overfiltered' or 'isolation too feathered etc'. Overfiltered can be anything from too much processing, to too much noise reduction software, too much sharpening etc etc. My stuff is never overfiltered (in their terms) and I send every one to scout who subsequently accepts them. I usually send a note saying something like "this rejection seems slightly excessive" as a polite way of suggesting the inspector has gone over the top.

'Isolation too feathered' is because they've got a couple of inspectors who delight in examining white backgrounds to the Nth degree. I have had a couple where the entire background has been pure white but the inspectors have found the odd one or two or three pixels at RGB254 or 253. It's like a competition to see 'who can find the hidden pixel'.

But on the other hand they can sell pictures and I happy to make sure my work meets their standards if possible. I might go exclusive there next summer.

Perrush · « **Reply #20 on:** September 05, 2007, 18:10 »

Quote from: Lizard on September 05, 2007, 12:51

I can understand they want unprocessed photos and I'm OK with that , but than when I take a random look at most popular photos and I see lots of processed photos , artificial skies , unreal sunsets , cross processed photos, artificial motion blurs , burned edges , colors pushed over the edge, etc.

I go crazy on those over filtered rejections. I'm pretty good with PS and they turn down perfectly composed images.

.... We don't need this kind of .... ...

and what did they choose as picture of the year

?? Right

w7lwi · « **Reply #21 on:** September 05, 2007, 18:57 »

I can appreciate your frustration. I'd guess 90% of my IS rejects are for "overfiltering." The latest was an isolation which, originally, was rejected for being a tad too soft. I downsized it in PS to the minimum size and it was rejected for oversharpening. I fumed for a few days, then submitted a third version that was exactly half way between the first and second with a note to the reviewer that the only thing done to either downsized version was to shrink them down in PS using only the Bicubic option ... not even Bicubic sharpened. That one was accepted. And the original image before isolating the subject ... that was accepted full size first pass, softness and all.

So much boils down to individual subjectivity. I was taught that if your image doesn't get noticed, it won't be bought. Do what it takes to get noticed. Two things ... good keywording and good colors (unless it's B&W). I did an experiment on SS once. Took a seascape and made three copies. First true to the scene. Second change hue to golden which came pretty close to sunset color. Third way over the top with extreme golds and purples in the sky. Which do you suppose sells the best? Yep, number 3, followed distantly by number 2. No sales on 1. And IS, they accepted number 1 and rejected numbers 2 and 3 for ... overfiltering. And you know what, they're right. They are overfiltered. But if sales are any guide, that's what the customers wanted. No sweat, accepted and selling on all other sites I use. That's why I probably won't go exclusive at IS. If they reject an image, I can't use it elsewhere. Here's an image they rejected that's providing a nice cash stream elsewhere that would be languishing in I were exclusive. And it's not an isolated example.

Pixart · « **Reply #22 on:** September 05, 2007, 19:36 »

Quote from: hatman12 on September 05, 2007, 17:56

'Isolation too feathered' is because they've got a couple of inspectors who delight in examining white backgrounds to the Nth degree. I have had a couple where the entire background has been pure white but the inspectors have found the odd one or two or three pixels at RGB254 or 253. It's like a competition to see 'who can find the hidden pixel'.

Is a photo on a white backdrop with a shadow treated like an isolation? I've had "unnatural shadows" before. (huh??? they were there, I swear!) Did I read somewhere that if you put the word isolation in your keywords there cannot be a shadow and it must be pure white? Just wondering if they accept not so perfect white backgrounds at all if you don't use the "I" word.

sharply_done · « **Reply #23 on:** September 05, 2007, 19:59 »

Quote from: Perrush on September 05, 2007, 18:10

.... We don't need this kind of .... ...

and what did they choose as picture of the year ?? Right

Hah! That's exactly what I thought, too.

sharply_done · « **Reply #24 on:** September 05, 2007, 20:02 »

Quote from: w7lwi on September 05, 2007, 18:57

...That's why I probably won't go exclusive at IS. If they reject an image, I can't use it elsewhere. Here's an image they rejected that's providing a nice cash stream elsewhere that would be languishing in I were exclusive. And it's not an isolated example.

You make a very valid point.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: The curse of overfiltering (Read 22239 times)

leaf

digiology

grp_photo

sharply_done

leaf

sharply_done

leaf

sharply_done

leaf

sharply_done

GeoPappas

Lizard

Freezingpictures

stokfoto

Pixart

leaf

sharply_done

yingyang0

a.k.a.-tom

hatman12

Perrush

w7lwi

Pixart

sharply_done

sharply_done

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors