Is that REALLY the best that camera can do?! It looks like it has had life processed out of it.

I often ponder these thoughts:

1. When reviewers do their reviewing, do they do it on a calibrated monitor?

2. Do they examine images at 100%.... or do they go even further to 150, and even 200%? (where artifacts will surely start to form at that resolution)

3. Are reviewers diligent enough to keep  their monitors cleaned on a daily basis where there will be no confusing a mark on the screen with an  artifact?

4. Am I being too paranoid, or is it really true the reviewers hate me?

Best to you,
The MIZ

In addition to what others have said, here's what I see.

On the glass, lower left side near the bottom there appears to be some green bleed over onto the white.  You've got some fairly heavy shadowing that isn't helping the image any.  And on the stem (right side, it looks like there may be some CA on both the top and bottom.

Here's a trick for you.  Go into Photoshop and add a new adjustment layer.  Adjust the layer by moving the left slider (black) all the way over to the right till it's on top of the white point.  What you should see is the glass and flower all black (or pretty much black anyway) and the rest white.  Where it's not white, there's color of some sort.  On your image, there's color all over the place.  Ergo, the background ain't white and you've got a lot of clean-up left to do.   

oh. sorry don't give up with Istock, just be careful with your images. that's all 

Thanks everyone.

W7LWI: yes - I know how to check for some residual color using levels - I left the background as it was, and added a clipping path instead in case someone wanted a 100% white background. Green bleed - it is just the light filtering through the green glass. CA - agreed, the 24-70 is not exactly known for being CA free. Will try with 100 macro lens.

My problem is the canned response: artifacting. If I knew what exactly this is that has been met with the reviewer's disapproval - then I could possibly fix it in in future submissions.

As things stand now, though, images which sell on other sites are being rejected for "overfiltering" or "artifacting". Both are very general statements which do not provide any specific info, making it a guessing game.

ANOUCHKA: I haven't asked the question regarding calibrated monitor at native resolution (I guess everyone is using LCDs these days), because this would suggest that the reviewers do not know what they are doing, which I am sure is not the case- but from one of the other sites I have received a rejection with a reason "moire pattern" - where there was none (but I am still using a calibrated CRT). I can see moire in some of my pics - on a LCD reset to other than native resolution.

ALE1969: there are no RAW settings on the camera which would affect the quality of the image. RAW conversion, on the other hand, could be a factor - so I will have a look at it again. When I said "barely touched' - I meant it, since I was advised to not overdo PS corrections for Istock submissions. I was similarly careful with the other two images (OTOH the definition of "excessive" adjustments somehow eludes my understanding).

I guess it is just frustration on my part. All of the images which I have submitted to Istock so far have been accepted elsewhere - and most of them sell, despite my very small portfolio.

I think I will give it one last go in 3 months - but there is only so much work I am willing to put into it considering the amount of comission paid.

oh. sorry don't give up with Istock, just be careful with your images. that's all 

Hi Anouchka,

Do you review for iStock?  Just curious.   

Ouch. If that's from a 1Dmk11 I'm glad I can't afford one, as it's very very ordinary. The artifacting is worse on the stem, which looks as though it has been blurred by a noise removal filter and then oversharpened to get the detail back. There's no way this would pass inspection at istock, ever. The same problem is visible on the glass. I'd double check the settings on the RAW processor - something is doing horrible things to this image - make sure noise removal and sharpening are both off.

OK - thanks. It appears that the general consensus is that the image is... well - crap. The truth is, recently I "upgraded" to CS3 and try to use its RAW converter. Previously I was using RAWShooter (and PS7) with apparently better results.

I will check the whole workflow process again - maybe there is something I am overlooking.
At any case - thanks for the input, I will try to do better than this.

Just one more request - if someone can point out the artifacts ond the 100% crop - that would be great, and maybe I will be able to avoid this in future.

Allow me to be the one to tell you... I think your image is just fine.
If it's any constipation to you, If I were a reviewer, it would have gone up on the site I was reviewing for.

Now that's my opinion... and I'm sticking to it!
I would also comment on the exposure. It's just right.
Also, I like the idea of the long vertical slender glass, capped with the horizontal flower....(good move)

The MIZ's personal RATING SYSTEM (1-5)

Composition 5
Exposure 5
Focus 5
Framing 3
Color  4

Artistically pleasing to look at 5
Attention to details 5
Mood Value 4

I give this a STAR Rating of 4.5

Be well my friend and good luck,
The MIZ

"denoised look" - pretty funny 

Camera settings (as said before) have nothing to do with the image - I shoot RAW. I just had set 4 halogen lamps with some white cloth over them to diffuse the light and eliminate shadows. The image came out of the camera pretty much as you see it, with very minor corrections afterwards.

In one of my previous attempts I had all three images rejected on the basis of being "overfiltered". Since I was already very much aware of this being one of major reasons for rejections - I sent  100% RAW crops with all settings in neutral - just to show that almost no filtering was present. No answer (well, to be honest I haven't expected any...).

Now - I know that my pics are not perfect. And I am aware that at 100% and above things start showing up. I was never much of a pixel peeper, if the image looks OK at 50% - then it is OK to me. No one in his right mind would expect to print much more than say 14"x10" from a 8Mp camera (OK, I know it is possible with some fancy interpolation, GenuineFractals or some such - so let's not start any flame wars).

On the monitor with 1600x1200 resolution you do not view the pics at more than 40% anyway. But - if the rejected images sell OK somewhere else - then I am getting a bit frustrated.

Of course I accept all the above remarks regarding the issues with this image - after all it takes someone uninvolved to notice things like this. And I will try to correct them and do better next time. But - someone please save this pic and print it - and view it on a monitor (not at 200% or 100% - just the way it would be used if downloaded). And then tell me that it is not acceptable...if it really isn't.

Funny, I wouldn't describe what I see as "artifacting".  I see a very plastic look, lacking texture and an imperfect white background.  Stem edges are what you must consider "artifacting" but to me the flaws look like part of the plastic effect.

I had the same exact reaction.

And, on a more general note: I always thought (and still do) that the No 1 criteria for an image is: is it going to sell ?

Yes an image may sell well, but that doesn't reflect quality because buyers don't typically inspect the image at 100% before buying (they already have high quality expectations from iStock). Focusing on short-term sales rather than long-term quality of the images at iStock is a "tragedy of the commons" type of thinking.

The stem on the flower has an out-of-focus, artificial look to it. My guess it that the reviewer was referring the the area of the stem just above the glass.

Why did you strip all the camera data from the photo?

The reality is that if you want images to get accepted at istock they have to look great at 100 per cent. To some extent it's a bit daft as we all know that if an image looks pretty good at fifty per cent on screen, it's going to make a fine good size print. However if an end user wants to make a crop from it, or enlarge it to a really big print or even do some heavy postprocessing with curves etc, this quality of image won't stand up to it, and so istock will reject it. Other sites are less  fussy. I'm still amazed that your camera produces stuff like that - I'd check the RAW settings for noise reduction and sharpening (the default levels on both in CS2, anyway are not zero, which they need to be for istock)