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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

....  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.

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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. 

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 that�s 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 don�t seem to see what this does really.  But it get�s 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 you�ve 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 it�s 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!  That�s 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.  I�m sure some will differ from this and that�s fine because the bottom line is finding what works for you and not me.   If this helps you then I�m glad I could help.  If is doesn�t, then you should find YOUR mix that works best.  This should provide a good start anyway.

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.

Cool, thanks.  I guess I should have thought of that!

   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

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 )

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.

I just sent you the Action, I use, to remove EXIF data via email. Try it out.

I do isolation whit the pen tool, make the path a selection, invert the selection if it's needed and feather the selection to 1 or 2 depending of the focus area. Then I use the paint bocket that I set to 255 of sensibility whit a all 255 white color. I click on the selected area and there it goes.

I always check anyway for non white 244 or whatever by selecting the white background whit a 0 select tool and there's never of this pixels, because the paint bocket was set to 255 and painted over all the non white pixels.

That way I can isolate any objects that I photograph whitout beeing in the studio if that can help anyone. Making the whole pen tool selection takes about 10 minutes. Whit good music the operation is not that bad after all

And yet, they show this example as the "image of the week"



Granted, they claim it is a temporary image place holder for the 3 millionth image online, but still - an interesting example of something that they'd never allow us to upload.

maybe it belongs to a reviewer LOL

And yet, they show this example as the "image of the week"

LOL.  Remember their Photo of the year?  The farmer chasing the naked something or other, with a bunch of heads growing in the garden?  Yeah, I'm sure that was straight out of the camera!   

I don't think that "overfiltering" is the same as "clver photoshop work".

In the example with the heads, there is no "overfiltering".  The sky is natural, the figures are natural, the heads are natural, all they have done is pasted the heads into the veggie patch.

It's not over saturated, it doesn't have an over use of noise reduction software, it doesn't have obvious post processing problems.  That is what overfiltering is.

That's as maybe but that is the reason given for rejection for 'overuse' of Photoshop!

That's as maybe but that is the reason given for rejection for 'overuse' of Photoshop!

"Overuse" of photoshop well, is very different to "overuse" done badly.

Clearly that example that comes up time and time again is a clever use of photoshop, and is well executed.

As for highlights lost in the sky - I don't see those.  I live in the UK and out skies are always blown!

Of course I see the highlights in the sky in the image from a technical point of view, I meant I don't "see" them anymore because I'm so used to looking at white skies.  Today is the first blue sky I've seen in months.

And I don't think editorial = celebrity, I think editorial = news.

And I'd make a crap reviewer, because I wouldn't have the patience to sit and do it for 0.08$ an image.

None the less, that is an excellent picture in my opinion, and clearly in the eyes of others too.

This "overfiltered" rejection seems to have some people stumped.  I had a cross processed file in my portfolio at iStock for a while till I removed it, and pretty much all my images are "filtered" in some way (according to iStocks definitions).  The key to it is to start with a perfectly exposed image at ISO100 then you have an awful lot of leway with what you can do to it before you hit noise and posterisation.

The only overfiltered rejections I've had on iStock were the first shots I took with my 5D and new lens - the combo produced particually saturated images and now I know to turn the saturation down slightly when shooting certain types of light.  Or perhaps the reviewer didn't believe that the UK could have such glorious blue skies in Winter...

And "Overfiltering" when it comes to IS reviewers clearly refers to any and all work in Photoshop. 

I have this impression too.  I uploaded an edited version of the same image I have previously uploaded, with two hard light layers.  They said it was overfiltered.  Indeed, that's the intended unnatural effect (explained in the description, BTW).  The natural roughness of the dry soil is emphasized in the process.



Regards,
Adelaide

I have this impression too.  I uploaded an edited version of the same image I have previously uploaded, with two hard light layers.  They said it was overfiltered.  Indeed, that's the intended unnatural effect (explained in the description, BTW).  The natural roughness of the dry soil is emphasized in the process.



Regards,
Adelaide

It is what it is Madelaide.  I like the earnings iStock provides me, generally coming in around 25-29% of total every month.  But I find their image library to be very dull looking compared to Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia.  Obviously it is what iStock wants, and they are very successful for doing things their way.  But as I have asked before, how much of it has to do with them truly giving buyers what they want, and how much of it has to do with them having the huge first-mover advantage?

I prefer the image on the right for all the obvious reasons.  And I contend that most designers would not be able to filter it properly and achieve the look you provided. 

What I find most frustrating is the inconsistency.  Sometimes they will accept an image I worked on quite a bit with a big contrast/saturation boost, and then turn around and reject an image where I barely touched the levels for overfiltering. 

But I take a very Zen like view of reviews these days.  The way I see it, every upload I make is not only a test of my skills, but that of the agency itself.  If an agency turns down an image, and that image subsequently flops with little sales elsewhere, then the agency made a very good decision.  If they turn down an image which subsequently sells well elsewhere, then they made a mistake and must pay the price of lost revenue.  Every time the image sells somewhere else, they lose a tiny bit of earnings power to their competition.

I overfiltered these and they were rejected with a resubmit. What now?

I find iStock discovers artifacting in a lot of my images whether I do some post work on them or not.  Shutterstock and Dreamstime does not find this artifacting, so either iStock reviewers are far superior to their counterparts, or they are mistaken.

It really doesn't matter much to me.  Provided Shutterstock, DT, and FT want my work and sell my work, my earnings keep growing.  iStock is a distant 2nd in earnings for me now, something I never thought would happen.  The forthcoming SS raise will lengthen the lead.  One more raise from DT or FT is likely to push iS down to third.

I really do like iStock.  Once you get past the woo-yay stuff, the community is educated and committed.  The earnings are strong, and the management is responsive to change. But I do think there is a difference in that Shutterstock and Dreamstime look at images to see if they have sales potential, whereas iStock looks at images and tries to find a reason not to accept them.  Hopefully a year from now my technique will be strong enough that I won't have all of the problems IS sees in my work.  I know I can never find the artifacting they say is there.  But the farther back they fall in my earnings race, the less I am concerned with whether my newest images are there or elsewhere.