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.   

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. 

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%.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

No XLs here !  What size is that ?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.....

Quote from: donding on August 17, 2010, 11:07

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Is anyone going to post an example, or is everyone just going to agree with everyone else that all rejections for artifacts are nonsense?

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.

^  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. 

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. 

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.

@Cathy,
you're right Cathy, of course.
My argument is flawed. I only used it because I was trying to offer exclusives a way out.
These things shouldn't be happening, but they certainly do.
And I think I understand why.

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.

***POST OF THE WEEK AWARD WINNER***

Well, there are definitely plenty of artifacts there.  I would have been very surprised if they had accepted it. 

I just got a new P&S.  Looks great for 4x6 and 5x7 prints, but doubt the micros would accept anything from it.  That's okay, I bought it to just take family photos and maybe have fun with .

Quote from: neotakezo 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.

***POST OF THE WEEK AWARD WINNER***

Agreed with the addition that SS reviewers also have the same catch all button that includes "Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size." 

Yes, looks exactly like the artefacting I get if there's not enough light.

ArtyFarty is more than allowed in more than 90% of this Stokas new pimping gallery called oversaturated in they front page.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=8645978

But if you submit something like this they will want to make lobotomy in you brain.
Just use "Reflect damage" from Diablo games or use lubricant ass and became exclusive