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.