MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The curse of overfiltering  (Read 22172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2007, 20:17 »
0
Yes, Pixart, I believe you are right - if an image is called 'isolated' the background must be pure with no shadows.  The alternative is to describe it as 'white background', which is what I do even if it is isolated.  99% of my white background stuff is accepted, so I shouldn't get this thing out of proportion.  If a background is descirbed as white, then clearly it must be white.  If you don't use 'isolated' or 'white background' then the inspectors won't check for background purity.


« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2007, 20:19 »
0
All my new isolations have "isolation" in the keywords. I didn't have a single isolation rejected this weekend and they all have shadows and none of them required adjustments in PS. I think the big mistake people do is to use the magic wand in PS to isolate instead of doing it by exposing properly. IS excepts "isolations" that aren't pure white as long as they have natural edges.

I use this technique:
http://www.alzodigital.com/photo_guide/tent_application_guide_white_background.htm

except if I have to adjust the whiteness in the photo I'll used a different method in PS. I'll create a new curves layer, then set the white level using the white dropper selector (I don't know the proper names for these).
« Last Edit: September 05, 2007, 20:26 by yingyang0 »

modellocate

  • Photographer
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2007, 22:16 »
0
I also think it depends on who is reviewing the image. No matter how good the training is, it is subjective and a border-line image may be accepted by one and rejected by another.

Just an educated guess; I've run sites with moderators/reviewers and consistency is always an issue.

« Reply #28 on: September 06, 2007, 06:55 »
0

Two of my images had the over filtered rejection.
Like Leaf's, they are not 100% sharp. The subject is sharp but foreground is not sharp.
See http://www.dreamstime.com/squash-break-through-image2890487
 http://www.dreamstime.com/wind-energy-image1954088

I don't think the PS:level or curves have much to do with it.
I even once got a rejection with the comment to use Levels!
+a slight levels adjust would greatly help this file.

There are times i think the pre judge the images with software, and human's after that.

Leaf, i don't know the image size but what if you cut out the bottom right? So the darker (unsharp) background on the left is cut out. I wouldn't be surprised if its accepted then (unless there are artifacts).

After the help on artifacts here i turned off sharpening all together and no more rejections on artifacts.
(see thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2205.msg18635#msg18635)

Hope it helps...

« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2007, 19:28 »
0
The accept isolations with shadows.  Here is an example:



I had images rejected at StockXpert because of flaws in the white background, sometimes it was totally even but not pure white (such as 253-254-253).  Although annoying, it's a rejection I swallow without a wink.  After that, I have started testing my white backgroud in more detail.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2008, 12:02 »
0
Most of my rejections on IS are for artifacts. What can you do to take a photo with out artifacts? Is it the quality of the camera or the lense or the way you're taking the photo?  I have a canon 20d and canon L series lense and take all my photos in raw. What am I doing wrong?

« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2008, 12:13 »
0
Over filtered is the generic term used by reviewers to mean:

"I think you modified this image (I don't know how, and I may be wrong) and I don't like the way it looks"


« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2008, 12:19 »
0
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.


and i contend that there are a ton of buyers who don't have design skills and don't have the time to do what was done to the pepper (for example) and therefore, they'd make more sales if they'd let some of these go thru... take a look at the top 50 this week on Shutterstock and you'll see tons of "finished" images... stuff IS would never allow.

« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2008, 12:31 »
0
Most of my rejections on IS are for artifacts. What can you do to take a photo with out artifacts? Is it the quality of the camera or the lense or the way you're taking the photo?  I have a canon 20d and canon L series lense and take all my photos in raw. What am I doing wrong?

Artifacts have me completely mystified.  Sometimes I can find what they are talking about ( generally 1 pixel wide super light fringing only visible at 2-300%), other times though I am thoroughly mystified, even though I can resubmit, I have absolutely no idea of what to do.

One shot of mine of a skylight had a couple of dirt spots/bugs on the glass and the window caulking wasn't perfectly straight everywhere.  I cleaned up that and it was accepted, though I don't see how that is "artifacts." 

Birds in the sky have been called "dust spots."

Other than that I'm clueless on artifacts.  I don't sharpen images (anymore).  If the .jpeg artifacts are the problem, the only remedy is to accept .tiff files or .psd files, how can there be less .jpeg artifacts than the very last steps being a 16-8 bit downsample then saving as a quality 12 .jpeg?

Often I think that they are seeing something in the image that they think is an artifact, but is in fact part of the scene, in which case I have no idea how to identify what they are talking about.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2008, 12:45 by Waldo4 »

« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2008, 12:33 »
0
BTW - On the climber, to me it looks like the red on the left leg is a tad saturated compared to the colors (especially the cooler colors) in the rest of the image.  It seems to stand out a bit more than it should for a 100% natural looking image, especially around the knee.

DanP68

« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2008, 14:32 »
0

and i contend that there are a ton of buyers who don't have design skills and don't have the time to do what was done to the pepper (for example) and therefore, they'd make more sales if they'd let some of these go thru... take a look at the top 50 this week on Shutterstock and you'll see tons of "finished" images... stuff IS would never allow.


Absolutely true.  Proponents will argue iStock is successful because it offers unfiltered images, though I think it is arguable iStock is successful because they had first mover advantage and have tended to make enough right moves to stay there.

It's a tough call for a contributor.  Not just Shutterstock, but all other major microstock agencies accept and favor "finished" images over what iStock wants.  So do you create a completely seperate workflow for iStock?  I can't justify it.  Even in its best months, iStock rarely contributes more than 30% of my earnings.  70% come from agencies who want me to finish the image, so that is the direction I head in.  Also, I have noticed that the more pop I give an image, the more it sells.  And that includes images which have made it past the IS review process. 

« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2008, 15:59 »
0
  So do you create a completely seperate workflow for iStock?  I can't justify it.   

I simply upload originals (or very minimally altered) shots to IS. Then put my 'shopped' stuff up on the other sites.  It's not like you have to have two or more different forms of each shot taken.  IS wants untouched, I send the image right off the CF card/archive CD. Then I sex it up and save it for everyone else.  I suppose you could go crazy doing it for everything you shoot.  On the other hand, while that is probably the most common rejection I get from IS,  I still manage to get many 'shopped' shots onboard.   8)=tom

p.s.   I don't have a 5 digit sized portfolio either, so I would agree if you're pushing 15, 20k worth of pix,  then  duplicating that volume couldn't be justified.

« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2008, 09:12 »
0
My first batch of images to IS were all on white backgrounds shot in jpg rather than RAW.  I only did a slight curves adjustment and healing brush to remove dust and hot pixels.  They approved 9 of 15.

After that batch, I started shooting in RAW and getting rejections one after another.  Since then I started shooting the Alamy way.

Now I shoot in RAW, adjust as needed in RAW mode and save it as a upsized TIFF, reload the TIFF and save it as a JPG and size it back to the original size.  This has seemed to raise my acceptance rate a little.

I started doing my editing like this because I was accepted at Alamy and thats pretty much what they want you to do.  Alamy also wants you to do a (6) pixel Gaussian blur followed by doing a Fade Gaussian Blur 100% Color right after you do the blur located under the Edit menu. "Strange but it seems to work"

My eyes dont seem to see what this does really.  But it gets me accepted at Alamy as well as 80% acceptance at the rest of the micro sites.  I still get rejections but they are down to a minimum for sure. 

I kind of see things this way.  Find what works for IS first.  Then do a little more if you want for the others. 

I also have to wonder if IS uses the EXIF data to see what youve done to the image and reject it for what ever reason because of too many editing steps?  This is only a theory of mine but I have a pretty good suspension that they look at the EXIF data to determine editing?  I could be way off base and completely wrong but its just my opinion.

I also think the bottom line with IS is perfect from the camera is what they really want.  Minimal editing for sure!  Thats also why I shoot everything stopped up as well as stopped down just to cover everything.  I use a light meter for everything I shoot in my studio so lighting control and exposure are dead on in most cases.  The other thing I can suggest for isolation shots is this.  Meter the background first.  Then meter the subject.  The background needs to be at least (1) to (2) stops over exposed when compared to the subject.  This keeps the back ground from being so gray.  I use two soft boxes on the subject as well as a hair light and umbrella heads for most of my on white shots.  The umbrellas are aimed at the background and the soft boxes are aimed at the subject.

I hope this helps.  Im sure some will differ from this and thats fine because the bottom line is finding what works for you and not me.   If this helps you then Im glad I could help.  If is doesnt, then you should find YOUR mix that works best.  This should provide a good start anyway.

« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2008, 09:53 »
0
   I found a way to discover any stray pixels in white backgrounds. Add a Threshold layer, and set it to all the way black. Any pixel that's not 100% white will show up, and then you can erase it or paint it white. 95% of all my submissions are isolated, and they sell very well.

   Also, I remove all EXIF data. It caused too many problems on my composite shots. I would shoot four different shots of fruit, then isolate and add three, of the shots, to the first shot. The file size would grow to extra large, as I kept expanding the canvas, but the EXIF data indicated that the size was impossible for that camera. Finally grew tired of explaining that these were composite shots, and just started removing all EXIF data.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/fruits/berries/blackberry/1319687_blackberries.php?id=1319687

« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2008, 10:12 »
0
I tried your Threshold method and I really think it showed me things I never saw before so THANKS!  Second, how do you remove all EXIF data for your images?  I want to do that as well.

« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2008, 10:33 »
0
The easiest method is to just open a new file, the same size as the file you have open. Drag your open file into the new file and viola, no data.

I have it set as an Action, that I found for free, somewhere by googling around.

« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2008, 11:52 »
0
Cool, thanks.  I guess I should have thought of that!

« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2008, 12:18 »
0
EXIF concerns is one reason that I started doing things to hide what I was doing editing.  I think that a lot of reviewers look there first, as it can quickly tell you a number of different things to inspect more closely (heck I imagine that a lot are rejected on exif data alone), including ISO (look for noise), deg K and Tint (WB check), Shutter Speed/Focal length (look for blur), aperture (look at DOF), noise reduction, and sharpening.

Because all RAW file adjustments are recorded in the EXIF, I make sure to make my EXIF look perfect.  If I am manipulating WB to my advantage, I do it in PS and not ACR.  If I am exaggerating the saturation I do it in PS and not ACR.  I never use more than 25% NR in ACR (below that is pretty benign).  If I am radically adjusting contrast I do so with the curves and not contrast so it is recorded as "custom."  I always drop the exposure in .5 stop increments and at least drop every file by .5 stop (usually needed because of the way I shoot, if not, fix with curves (custom again)).  This way every shot of mine, based of exif inspection is shot at 100 ISO (it is anyways), shot to the right, has spot on WB, and if they want to reject for noise filtering, too much contrast or saturation, they've got to find it with their eyes and not in the exif.

« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2008, 15:04 »
0
   I found a way to discover any stray pixels in white backgrounds.
I do a Magic Wand selection with tolerance 0.  I use PSP 7.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2008, 15:25 »
0

« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2008, 18:08 »
0
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.

is there somewhere that lists this dictionary contents? (I just sit and take guesses :()

« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2008, 21:39 »
0
How do you use the Magic Wand to isolate hair, fur, clouds, or anything fuzzy?
No, just to pick non-fully-white pixels in the background.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2008, 09:34 »
0
Fast solutions how to solve isolation 253-254 pixels: grab a white brush, about 100-200 in size with soft edge and simply repaint all background. Same works for black. I got two "feather isolations" yesterday where there was no isolation at all and it was shot on black glass and even there was no "isolation" word in keywords. So be carefull.

About exif - best to strip it. I think only real apperance of the pic is important, not what Ive done to it in PS, what camera took it or what iso was used! If it looks good and meets technical requirements its not important, if its junk the fact it was made with $5.000 camera cant help.


« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2008, 10:14 »
0
Is there a one-button method to strip exif, of do I have to do it manually?

« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2008, 11:45 »
0
I just sent you the Action, I use, to remove EXIF data via email. Try it out.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
46 Replies
14392 Views
Last post April 27, 2009, 14:19
by vonkara

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors