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"

miz , you're a genius 

strangely enough that happened to me a lot
the ones i thought were improved and snappy, were the ones they rejected for over filtering.

i checked my accepted shots and most of them were unfiltered, other than perharps a little bit of adjustment to brighten or darken , but only a tiny bit.

a good point to remember. thx

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.

That would be 'bitter', CEO,  as shot and manipulated by 'jjrd' Head of Content purely as a placeholder.

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.

I never would have used that photo as a starting point because does the sky not have lost highlights?  That's what my rejection would have said (the cabbage heads is a whole other story).   I can't tell you how many times I see the photo of the week and think that I wouldn't have dared even submitting it. 

No way that picture would have been accepted if it was from an independent contributor.

You don't see the blown highlights?     You'd make an interesting reviewer, particularly since you think editorial = celebrity.

It may be clever, but it is questonable stock.  And despite all of the front page publicity this image has gotten, as well as its top placement in Best Match, it only has 500 or so downloads in nearly 2 years.  If it were great stock, and so clever, it would have thousands and thousands of DLs by now.  But it doesn't, so buyers obviously aren't as impressed as iStock.  Actually the iStock Top 10 most downloaded files of the LAST MONTH generally eclipse this image.

And "Overfiltering" when it comes to IS reviewers clearly refers to any and all work in Photoshop.  I've had overfiltering rejections from image combinations.  They call Levels and Curves work "overfiltering," although neither "filters" an image.  And I've never had a heavily filtered image rejected if it was an on-camera filter.

In our business though, the only opinion which matters is that of the customers'. Having your peers give you accolades is nice.  But I'd prefer sales.  500 downloads in 18-24 months at iStock is nothing special, particularly for an exclusive.

Quote from: maunger on April 14, 2008, 06:56

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

that was my first thought too when I saw this image

Not every notice contains a clue of how to correct an image. I've received the "over-filtered" notice on files that were strait out of the camera, for example an image on a brightly colored background -- which I got accepted by filtering it to be less saturated.

My advice on getting rejections reversed is pretty simple: don't rely on the rejection comment to tell you everything to do; look at the image and ask yourself how you could improve it -- make it something people want to buy.

And also remember that there are other sites that are not only easier to gain acceptance on, but that will likely earn you more money.

Hope my 2 cents helps.

 important: reviewers (in my opinion) are mot than 50% right. - i cryed few times to scout - that s some 5:1 for me so far now (or 5:2). - but that's a pain in the ass... i rather give up (and take my money on some of competitor sites).
 time/nerves saving advices:
-don't look on "exclusive uploads" (a lot of crap accepted)(that's understandable - we all love all kids, but our own kids are precious to us )
-dont' even think to look on "exclusive uploads"
-if you still have dilemma - should i look on "exclusive uploads" (on the main page) - advice is: NO!.
 of course - i'm not talking about "exclusive flags" these people are really good - i'm talking about exclusives with some (or less) 1-2k images, and less than 20k dl's..
 reviewers on is sometimes look on exif, and not (even) on photo => reviewer with lack of photographic experience (and yes - there are ones too) - can reject image with some fool reason based on exif, and not on a real photo.

 *illustration: one of is photographer-colleagues  told me via e-mail that he had his files rejected due "overfiltering/artifacts" with (crop) camera he havs. -images, of course are excellent, with excellent both, models, make up, and postproduction. ...and he is international known . when he deleted exif data - he had less rejections. and when images were done over a 5d image - as a new layer in photoshop- all are accepted (where all this noise/overfiltering/artifacts has gone? )
 interesting?

This is really funny... and frustrated at the same time cuz roughly 80% of my last 2 batches were refused for artifacting. All I did was adjust curves as I usually do. I now shoot with a D300 at ISO100. Technically, my images have never looked better at 100%. What pisses me off is that I now spend good money on shoots as this is my main income now. And Istock giving me roughyl 35% of that income.

I wrote to scout to see what's up. To be continued....