Author Topic: What the $%^&### is an artifact? (Read 18424 times)

WarrenPrice · « **on:** August 16, 2010, 13:19 »

iStock is killing me. My best sellers at SS are being rejected for artifacts. And, the very samples that got me approved are being rejected for artifacts. I don't know where to look anymore. Do I need a different monitor?

Just a rant. I'll get over it ... maybe.

$:-\$

vonkara · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2010, 14:47 »

You might need a better monitor, a better camera, but most likely less photoshop. Just make your image crisp with Istock for the first times you submit. And post a 100% crop of the shadow of a image like this one.

This way you will have opinions of many different types of monitors and the brains behind them. I suspect this image to had color balance. It's a little yellow/cyan to me, and I am only on a laptop screen

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2010, 14:59 »

Artifacts at IS is a catchall phrase including jpeg "jaggies", artifacts from too much processing (saturation/sharpening), and also noise.

If you aren't seeing any noise or artifacts in your images at 100% then you might need a better monitor.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:02 »

Posting an image for critique will certainly help in your quest.

Application images almost never get approved. You did read the acceptance email, yes?

MikLav · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:07 »

I tried to explain it with an example: http://miklav.blogspot.com/2010/06/photo-editing-how-to-reduce-artifacts.html
(I did write about it here in MSG too but can't easily find my post)

I do not see artifacts at 100% but I do easily see them at 400%.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #5 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:09 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 16, 2010, 15:02

Posting an image for critique will certainly help in your quest.

Application images almost never get approved. You did read the acceptance email, yes?

In istock or here, SJ? and, I am not sure how to post at 100%. I can never make it work here.

I copied this from shutterstock. It is one of the images I used for approval. I did read the acceptance email and the detailed rejection emails. I guess I am just not as smart as I look.

Oh... the image I am trying to post is the one that really surprised me. Where are the artifacts?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:13 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 16, 2010, 14:59

Artifacts at IS is a catchall phrase including jpeg "jaggies", artifacts from too much processing (saturation/sharpening), and also noise.

If you aren't seeing any noise or artifacts in your images at 100% then you might need a better monitor.

Or maybe just better eyes.

I have been able (usually) to see halos, banding, purple fringing, etc. Just not sure what to look for as "artifacts." I did notice the noise in the dark areas in the pine trees (canoe) but felt safe since the image sells so well at SS. Guess using SS portfolio wasn't a great idea?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:15 »

On the iStock forum. There is a post at the top that says READ ME FIRST. I'd suggest reading it first.

email says something like: "Please note: you must reupload samples through the normal upload process to have them included into your portfolio. Please keep in mind these files will be reviewed by our inspection team and are not guaranteed to be accepted since they go through a different inspection process."

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #8 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:27 »

Quote from: MikLav on August 16, 2010, 15:07

I tried to explain it with an example: http://miklav.blogspot.com/2010/06/photo-editing-how-to-reduce-artifacts.html
(I did write about it here in MSG too but can't easily find my post)

I do not see artifacts at 100% but I do easily see them at 400%.

Thanks, MikLav. I am probably doing some of the things you advised against. I shoot RAW/JPEG (sometimes) but usually just use the JPEG image when processing. I sometimes use 200/300% when editing but seldom use anything more than 100% for evaluation. I read somewhere that anything over 100% was as bad as evaluating at smaller magnifications. I'm pretty sure it stated that over 100% distorted images, reducing sharpness and "unrealistically" increasing noise. I did, however, read in the iStock emails that they evaluated at higher than 100%. When in Rome do as Roman do, huh?

Also, my processing software is Photoshop Elements. I don't feel strongly enough about selling stock to invest so much in post-processing. iStock may force me to reconsider?

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:36 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 16, 2010, 15:13

Or maybe just better eyes.
I have been able (usually) to see halos, banding, purple fringing, etc. Just not sure what to look for as "artifacts." I did notice the noise in the dark areas in the pine trees (canoe) but felt safe since the image sells so well at SS. Guess using SS portfolio wasn't a great idea?

I think it is fine to use your SS portfolio. In my case I find that the same images will sell well on both sites.

I don't think you need better software - elements should be plenty for editing stock photos. If you do see some shadow noise, that is probably what they are calling "artifacts". If it is minor, sometimes just brushing over it with a soft brush set to "blur" at about 25% opacity can take care of it.

When I started at stock Istock was my first site and they were finding noise all over the place that I couldn't see. When I upgraded to a better monitor all of a sudden that noise was glaringly obvious.

But even without the expense of a new monitor, sticking to ISO 100 or 200 and properly exposing should get rid of most of the problem. Consider even overexposing slightly, then toning down the brightness in post processing with levels or curves. Best way to avoid noise. And avoid any sharpening at all. I can't remember ever managing to get anything I used unsharp mask on past the IS inspectors.

Hope that helps some

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** August 16, 2010, 15:40 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 16, 2010, 15:27

I am probably doing some of the things you advised against. I shoot RAW/JPEG (sometimes) but usually just use the JPEG image when processing. I sometimes use 200/300% when editing but seldom use anything more than 100% for evaluation. I read somewhere that anything over 100% was as bad as evaluating at smaller magnifications. I'm pretty sure it stated that over 100% distorted images, reducing sharpness and "unrealistically" increasing noise. I did, however, read in the iStock emails that they evaluated at higher than 100%. When in Rome do as Roman do, huh?

Also, my processing software is Photoshop Elements. I don't feel strongly enough about selling stock to invest so much in post-processing. iStock may force me to reconsider?

No, you're probably doing far too much rather than too little. I always shoot JPEG and do little other than crop, check for dust spots, tweak saturation and maybe contrast (and I do mean TWEAK as in very small adjustment). Judging by some of your stuff on SS it looks like you quite do a bit more than that. If you get the odd rejection for artifacting then just shrinking the image down to 5MP, which still qualifies for Large sales, and re-submitting usually sorts it.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2010, 16:18 »

1. artifact

An "artifact" is a little thingie that makes big problems to people who submit images to Istockphoto.

Stu49 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2010, 04:48 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 16, 2010, 15:40

If you get the odd rejection for artifacting then just shrinking the image down to 5MP, which still qualifies for Large sales, and re-submitting usually sorts it.

Is it worth doing this with ALL images then ?? Maybe at ALL agencies too ??

Why not ?

Gannet77 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2010, 05:00 »

Quote from: Stu49 on August 17, 2010, 04:48

Quote from: gostwyck on August 16, 2010, 15:40

If you get the odd rejection for artifacting then just shrinking the image down to 5MP, which still qualifies for Large sales, and re-submitting usually sorts it.

Is it worth doing this with ALL images then ?? Maybe at ALL agencies too ??

Why not ?

Well, speaking for iStock only, and assuming your camera is capable, you'd obviously prefer to have your images available at XL size too, since that's worth more.

But if the image isn't up to it, reducing it to Large (or even Medium) means you still have it out there. And the number of sales at the larger sizes is generally lower in any case.

If your image is larger than 5MP but less than the XL size, it's up to you really; the fact that it is larger than the minimum to be categorised as "Large" might encourage a buyer, as it would allow them extra flexibility, but there's no way to tell.

I generally downsample when I think it will help, but not otherwise.

Stu49 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 17, 2010, 05:22 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on August 17, 2010, 05:00

Well, speaking for iStock only, and assuming your camera is capable, you'd obviously prefer to have your images available at XL size too, since that's worth more.

Using 10MP at the mo., but IS list these as LARGE (3600,2800) !!

No XLs here ! What size is that ?

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** August 17, 2010, 05:37 »

Quote from: Stu49 on August 17, 2010, 05:22

Using 10MP at the mo., but IS list these as LARGE (3600,2800) !!

No XLs here ! What size is that ?

To qualify as XL an image needs to be a minimum of 11.76MP (e.g. 4088 x 2877). Basically you need to be using a 12MP camera with very little leeway for cropping.

neotakezo · « **Reply #16 on:** August 17, 2010, 05:52 »

An artifact (along with an "overfiltering") is a button pushed by an expert iStock reviewer when he doesn't like your name or just had a fight with his girlfriend and can't think of a legitimate reason to reject a perfectly good photo.

leaf · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2010, 06:44 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 16, 2010, 15:09

Quote from: sjlocke on August 16, 2010, 15:02
Posting an image for critique will certainly help in your quest.

Application images almost never get approved. You did read the acceptance email, yes?

In istock or here, SJ? and, I am not sure how to post at 100%. I can never make it work here.

Which editing program are you using? do you have photoshop? I can make a little video tutorial perhaps to show you how.

tdoes · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2010, 07:04 »

Don't process a jpeg image cause each generation of the file will degrade more. If you shoot in jpeg then convert the file to tif and process that. When finished then save a copy as a jpeg.

sgcallaway1994 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2010, 10:13 »

You know what, I've been selling photos at IS for a couple of years. I think my portfolio still remains less than 60 images. The pictures I get accepted there usually sell. However building my portfolio has been plauged with the "artifact" denial.

I was told, Nikon camera's tend to produce more artifacting. I shoot in RAW and use LR2 and CS2 for my post processing. I find pictures with shadows or without bright light get more rejections for artifacting than any others.

All that being said I STRUGGLE to see what they call "artifacting". I have a brand new monitor and 5 different comptuers, but I still don't "see" what they do. It has been a source of my Istock frustration for YEARS!!!

michealo · « **Reply #20 on:** August 17, 2010, 10:17 »

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on August 17, 2010, 10:13

You know what, I've been selling photos at IS for a couple of years. I think my portfolio still remains less than 60 images. The pictures I get accepted there usually sell. However building my portfolio has been plauged with the "artifact" denial.

I was told, Nikon camera's tend to produce more artifacting. I shoot in RAW and use LR2 and CS2 for my post processing. I find pictures with shadows or without bright light get more rejections for artifacting than any others.

All that being said I STRUGGLE to see what they call "artifacting". I have a brand new monitor and 5 different comptuers, but I still don't "see" what they do. It has been a source of my Istock frustration for YEARS!!!

Post some full size examples

cmcderm1 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 17, 2010, 10:51 »

I always think that it is IS's way of saying "we don't want the image". If you have to view it at anything over 100% I think that too is wrong. But alas, they make the rules, and the rejections. So it's an effing Artifact!!!

grp_photo · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2010, 10:57 »

Quote from: cmcderm1 on August 17, 2010, 10:51

I always think that it is IS's way of saying "we don't want the image".

Yes certainly in most cases it is, so I wouldn't search too serious for artifacts.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #23 on:** August 17, 2010, 11:00 »

Quote from: sgcallaway1994 on August 17, 2010, 10:13

You know what, I've been selling photos at IS for a couple of years. I think my portfolio still remains less than 60 images. The pictures I get accepted there usually sell. However building my portfolio has been plauged with the "artifact" denial.

I was told, Nikon camera's tend to produce more artifacting. I shoot in RAW and use LR2 and CS2 for my post processing. I find pictures with shadows or without bright light get more rejections for artifacting than any others.

All that being said I STRUGGLE to see what they call "artifacting". I have a brand new monitor and 5 different comptuers, but I still don't "see" what they do. It has been a source of my Istock frustration for YEARS!!!

Hello fellow dirt biker. Haven't seen nor heard much from you lately?
I'm just beginning. Some of my first 18 images are still being reviewed. So far, it is 6 accepted 7 rejected. In both cases, approved and disapproved, there are surprises.
I had my first sale yesterday. I guess that's okay with just six images online?

Good to see that you are still active. Hope you are making a lot of sales.

PS: I recently bought an 18mp T2i (550D). Since then, I have been doing what was suggested by others ... downsizing after processing. Usually to 3600x2400mp.

The Nikon I shoot only at ISO 100...except for the action stuff. I now use a tripod for my nature/scenic, etc.

donding · « **Reply #24 on:** August 17, 2010, 11:07 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on August 17, 2010, 11:00

Hello fellow dirt biker. Haven't seen nor heard much from you lately?
I'm just beginning. Some of my first 18 images are still being reviewed. So far, it is 6 accepted 7 rejected. In both cases, approved and disapproved, there are surprises.
I had my first sale yesterday. I guess that's okay with just six images online?

Good to see that you are still active. Hope you are making a lot of sales.

Congrats Warren.....I love the one with the fawn and doe. Got a question for you.....do you post your dirt bike photos on any of the sites and if you do, do they require you to have a model release? I've got some and I have never tried posting them because I figured I would need model releases even though they have helmets on.

Oh and Texas is a wonderful place.....

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What the $%^&### is an artifact? (Read 18424 times)

WarrenPrice

vonkara

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

MikLav

WarrenPrice

WarrenPrice

Sean Locke Photography

WarrenPrice

lisafx

gostwyck

Dreamframer

Stu49

Gannet77

Stu49

gostwyck

neotakezo

leaf

tdoes

sgcallaway1994

michealo

cmcderm1

grp_photo

WarrenPrice

donding

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors