pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What the $%^&### is an artifact?  (Read 18288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2010, 11:18 »
0

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..... ;)

Thanks, Donna. 
That's the one that sold.
As for the bike images, Yes.  They are all "editorial only" however.  Shutterstock, Dreamstime and 123rf all have sold a few of them.
Also, the logos (bikes, clothing, etc) and trademarks are much more of a problem than the individuals.  You would need multiple property releases.
I have a collection of OLD images that I scanned and sell exclusively on Cutcaster.  They have made more money for me than all the others combined. 


donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2010, 11:31 »
0

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..... ;)

Thanks, Donna. 
That's the one that sold.
As for the bike images, Yes.  They are all "editorial only" however.  Shutterstock, Dreamstime and 123rf all have sold a few of them.
Also, the logos (bikes, clothing, etc) and trademarks are much more of a problem than the individuals.  You would need multiple property releases.
I have a collection of OLD images that I scanned and sell exclusively on Cutcaster.  They have made more money for me than all the others combined. 

It never dawned on me to do them as editorial. I don't have a lot of them, but I got a few from a small dirt bike track outside of McKinney that I went to and took my camera. I'll have to go dig them off my hard drive. ;)

« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2010, 12:03 »
0
In the case of iS an artifact is a singular pixel with a density or color range that does not naturally match adjacent pixels.

« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2010, 12:41 »
0
For non-exclusives, an artifact is an imaginary image issue that arises when the reviewer doesn't like your photo but it is still technically okay for the most part.

Haven't gotten an artifacting rejection in a long time.  I'm exclusive, that is.  Got lots when I wasn't

« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2010, 12:45 »
0
What cmcderm1 said.

My advice is, don't waste money on "better" monitors and don't work above 100%, because you'll end up futilely jumping through hoops.

Strictly speaking, the term "artifact" should mean something visible introduced in post-processing.  In that sense, noise isn't an 'artifact' unless you want to call it an artifact of the camera electronics  - but a lot of things are in that category - like the pixels themselves. If you're saving to jpg at the highest quality, there are no visible compression artifacts - none.   If you mashed the histogram around, you could have banding.  But couldn't IS just refer to banding as "banding"?  

With no real definition of "artifact", and no clip supplied by the reviewer - if the problem isn't obvious, just give up and move on.  
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 13:42 by stockastic »

KB

« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2010, 15:41 »
0
For non-exclusives, an artifact is an imaginary image issue that arises when the reviewer doesn't like your photo but it is still technically okay for the most part.

Haven't gotten an artifacting rejection in a long time.  I'm exclusive, that is.  Got lots when I wasn't
Why perpetuate the myth that exclusive images are inspected differently from independent images? I didn't believe it when I was independent, and I haven't seen the slightest evidence of it since I've become exclusive.

It's simply not true.

lisafx

« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2010, 16:09 »
0
Strictly speaking, the term "artifact" should mean something visible introduced in post-processing.  In that sense, noise isn't an 'artifact' unless you want to call it an artifact of the camera electronics  - but a lot of things are in that category - like the pixels themselves.

I completely agree.  Artifacts are not the same thing as noise, but I have many times gotten rejections for "artifacts" when it was actually just plain old noise.   :-\

« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2010, 16:17 »
0
What cmcderm1 said.

My advice is, don't waste money on "better" monitors and don't work above 100%, because you'll end up futilely jumping through hoops.

Strictly speaking, the term "artifact" should mean something visible introduced in post-processing.  In that sense, noise isn't an 'artifact' unless you want to call it an artifact of the camera electronics  - but a lot of things are in that category - like the pixels themselves. If you're saving to jpg at the highest quality, there are no visible compression artifacts - none.   If you mashed the histogram around, you could have banding.  But couldn't IS just refer to banding as "banding"?  

With no real definition of "artifact", and no clip supplied by the reviewer - if the problem isn't obvious, just give up and move on.  

Very good advice. Easier to understand "artifact" or other vague rejection reason is better mean it to be
we don't want the picture, no thank you.

« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2010, 17:14 »
0
Why perpetuate the myth that exclusive images are inspected differently from independent images? I didn't believe it when I was independent, and I haven't seen the slightest evidence of it since I've become exclusive.

It's simply not true.

Oh, I'm sure it's true or at least it was a couple of years ago. I can send you examples of exclusive images which, when you view them at 100%, you know would never have been passed for an independent. Of course all the inspectors are exclusive and many of them know other exclusives personally and meet frequently at 'Lypses. The best way to become an inspector is to go to 'Lypses and make friends with the in in-crowd and organisers, many of whom will be inspectors. If they like you enough and you in keep contact (and lots of woo-yays on the forums) you'll eventually get the invite. I attended a 'Lypse back in the days when independents could and at least 5 of the crowd I met became inspectors within a few months. It's surely not that surprising if occasionally they turn a blind eye when supposedly inspecting an image of someone they know well.

« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2010, 17:34 »
0
KB,
oh, but of course it is.
True, I mean.
There's no need to panic though.
It is only fair to treat exclusive images in a more lenient way.
Nobody's complaining about it. It's perfectly fine.
I'm sure DT's inspectors follow the same rules regarding exclusive images. And Fotolia's.
It's how it should be.

Warren,
congrats on your first IStock sale! That's great :)
I love your port and I'm sure there'll be many, many more to come :)
Good job and good luck :)

« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2010, 17:41 »
0
Hi Warren :) Don't think too much on the rejections, you will do fine I am sure of that!

« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2010, 17:42 »
0
Very good advice. Easier to understand "artifact" or other vague rejection reason is better mean it to be
we don't want the picture, no thank you.


Hmm, if they didn't want my picture, then why do they allow for me to correct the artifacting and resubmit?  Not ALL pictures have the resubmit button available.  My assumption has always been, if they don't want the picture, then they don't allow you to correct mistakes and resubmitt?  Am I wrong?

Warren:

Been riding a lot lately, but still totally around microstock.  I just don't submit big batches of pictures.  I build my portfolios slowly over time.  My DT portfolio is my largest and I'm seeing a decent amount of sales there, I'm noticing you are doing well there also.  

Istock is a great agency, I do really wish I could get more of my pictures accepted there.  I get so disappointed with them, I've not sent many photos their way.  I guess I should keep trying, but fighting against something that is "nearly imaginary" or at least invisible to the untrained eye is a tough battle to win.  My biggest complaint is my photos get accepted to other agencies and they never seem to deny anything based on artifacting, my common refusal is usually for poor lighting.  I am proud to say though my acceptance rations are going UP everywhere but IS.

KB

« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2010, 18:33 »
0
KB,
oh, but of course it is.
True, I mean.
There's no need to panic though.
It is only fair to treat exclusive images in a more lenient way.
Nobody's complaining about it. It's perfectly fine.
I'm sure DT's inspectors follow the same rules regarding exclusive images. And Fotolia's.
It's how it should be.
I wouldn't be surprised if DT & FT do that. And I don't entirely disagree it should be that way (but only to a small degree -- it makes no sense to populate an exclusive collection with lower quality images).

But I can say, after nearly 3 years as an independent at IS, I have seen my share of rejections from exclusive CN members that made absolutely no sense to me. And, in my short time as an IS exclusive, I've definitely already had several rejections I don't agree with.

So, IOW, it may be true, but all the evidence I've seen points to the contrary.

KB

« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2010, 18:36 »
0
It's surely not that surprising if occasionally they turn a blind eye when supposedly inspecting an image of someone they know well.
Ok, you won't get an argument from me on that one.  ;D

But, in general, I do not believe that IS inspectors are more lenient on exclusives than they are on independents. I guess we'll never be able to know for sure, though.

« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2010, 19:31 »
0
KB,
right. So it's only the others! Dreamstime and Fotolia?
But certainly not IStock? 
Okidoki then.
I'm all clear now.

« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2010, 19:38 »
0
I find the rejections for artifacts somewhat, but not totally random.  Sometimes the rejection is for what I would agree is excessive noise in a photo.  Other times I get a rejection for artifacts where the problem is (evidently) a tiny amount of noise or sharpening artifacts, which were accepted for all of the other photos in the same series with identical lighting, exposure, etc.

That leads me to another question - when you re-submit a rejected photo, who reviews it?  The original reviewer?  And if they made no notes on exactly what they rejected it for then do they even know what they're expecting to be corrected?  Ditto if the re-review is done by another person, how do they know whether it was rejected due to noise, chromatic aberration, sharpening artifacts or what?  I don't think I've had a file rejected twice for artifacts, but I have no idea if this is because they really know what they're looking for, or if person 'B' just has a quick look and passes anything which isn't too blatantly messed up.  IS should provide their reviewers with an electronic chalkboard on which they can circle the offending bit of picture and scribble NOISE, JPG (jpeg artifact), TOO RUFF, TOO FEATH(ered) or C(hromatic)A(berration) next to it.   This would save everyone a H(elluva)L(otta) time.

Finally, I've said it before on these forums, and I'll say it again - reviewers should be recruited from the CUSTOMERS, not from the UPLOADERS.  While the content providers have the technical chops to do this job, they don't have the customer perspective and they might have a conflict of interest if they are reviewing their friends' files.  The assignment of files to review should also be random and anonymous.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2010, 19:42 »
0
For non-exclusives, an artifact is an imaginary image issue that arises when the reviewer doesn't like your photo but it is still technically okay for the most part.Haven't gotten an artifacting rejection in a long time.  I'm exclusive, that is.  Got lots when I wasn't
Why perpetuate the myth that exclusive images are inspected differently from independent images? I didn't believe it when I was independent, and I haven't seen the slightest evidence of it since I've become exclusive.It's simply not true.

I don't see any difference in inspection or acceptance standards before or after I went exclusive either.

« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2010, 19:49 »
0
Is anyone going to post an example, or is everyone just going to agree with everyone else that all rejections for artifacts are nonsense?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2010, 20:06 »
0
It's more intriguing to avoid proof and speculate of what artifacts might be.

« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2010, 20:16 »
0
For what it's worth to void artifact rejections on IS:

- Make sure your shot is properly lighted or slightly overexposed: check your luminance histogram at the right frequently during the shoot.

- If the histogram isn't filled up at both sides, don't dare to extend contrast or lighten up the shot: you're cooking pixels that aren't there. Most of my "distortion" rejects came from that.

- Don't post-process a lot, except cloning pimples and logos. Don't use saturation but only color match not over 110%. Include the color profile in your JPG.

- Upload full size, don't resize. Istock reviewers are more lenient on native size images than on resized ones. If it's not tack sharp originally, throw the shot away. Use a monopod always.

- isolations: don't artificially use a tiny feather on areas not in focus. Leave those blurred.

- buy a proper cam for stock; a 5DII will do; you might get lucky with lesser cams but only in optimal conditions.

- istock reviewers are practically always right.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2010, 20:19 by FD-regular »

« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2010, 04:43 »
0
^  I must get lucky a lot, I fail on just about every one of those rules!
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 04:47 by Gannet77 »

« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2010, 05:39 »
0
^  I must get lucky a lot, I fail on just about every one of those rules!
No, you follow the rule that controls them all. You are exclusive;)

« Reply #47 on: August 18, 2010, 06:23 »
0
And yet my acceptance rate is less now than it was before I became exclusive... ;)

« Reply #48 on: August 18, 2010, 06:46 »
0
And yet my acceptance rate is less now than it was before I became exclusive... ;)

You obviously need to do some more woo-yaying over in the forums.  ;)

Quote
Posted by: Eireann
KB,
oh, but of course it is.
True, I mean.
There's no need to panic though.
It is only fair to treat exclusive images in a more lenient way.
Nobody's complaining about it. It's perfectly fine.

I'm sure DT's inspectors follow the same rules regarding exclusive images. And Fotolia's.
It's how it should be.

I disagree with this when it comes to image quality and I am officially complaining. Images are submitted to sell to customers. They should ALL be of high quality, whether you are exclusive or non-exclusive. Pieces of crap are pieces of crap...allowing below-quality images into the collection should be wrong for everybody. Find other ways to give your exclusives benefits. Don't sacrifice image quality just to play favorites.

« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2010, 07:28 »
0
^  Quite so - except for the bit about me woo-yaying that is!  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4336 Views
Last post July 11, 2007, 22:55
by ichiro17
3 Replies
2763 Views
Last post November 14, 2007, 15:25
by madelaide
13 Replies
4195 Views
Last post May 19, 2008, 20:05
by PeterChigmaroff

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors