Author Topic: EXIF Information- is this a factor in photo accpetance (Read 24962 times)

tab62 · « **on:** July 23, 2013, 12:05 »

Does anyone of you feel that the EXIF (Camera type plus other image stats) information plays a role in an image being accepted?

T

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:07 »

Haven't a clue about factoring into acceptance, but on iS it can be a factor in rejection if you've upsized beyond the dimensions native to your camera.

Ron · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:11 »

No

Panasonic Point and shoot

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:13 »

Alamy, I know a contributor that had issues with that, I am talking about the camera model

disorderly · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:13 »

I doubt it. It's possible a reviewer might look at the EXIF data after seeing something odd in the image; it might confirm their feeling that a too-high ISO or too large aperture (or too small, as in diffraction) was used. But rejecting an image that otherwise looks fine because it was shot with the wrong camera? Maybe a rogue reviewer could save time and reject a bunch of images without looking at them based on EXIF information, but I suspect the agency would be less than happy if they found out.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:34 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 23, 2013, 12:13

Alamy, I know a contributor that had issues with that, I am talking about the camera model

True. I was uploading some older photos and didn't notice a pic from my Coolpix 5700 was in there, and it was dropped on upload as being from an unsuitable camera (didn't count as a QC fail, as it was automatically dropped).

tab62 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:43 »

Interesting. Now I am going to do a test- the MS company that rejected my images- I will upload almost the same images (same model and location doing similar poses with the same lighting) via my high end camera and see if they take them.

Ron · « **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:47 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 23, 2013, 12:34

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 23, 2013, 12:13
Alamy, I know a contributor that had issues with that, I am talking about the camera model
True. I was uploading some older photos and didn't notice a pic from my Coolpix 5700 was in there, and it was dropped on upload as being from an unsuitable camera (didn't count as a QC fail, as it was automatically dropped).

But Alamy has an approved camera list, many agencies dont. I think this is about a reviewer rejecting an image, which was good, for the camera it was taken with.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:49 »

iS must use the "Date Taken:" just had one rejected because the release date and image date don't match.

tab62 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:50 »

my test, which I will start tonight, will tell me if this is true. I carefully did the same shot with only the camera being different. This is going to be kind of cool...

tab62 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:50 »

"iS must use the "Date Taken:" just had one rejected because the release date and image date don't match."

Yep, I found that out with my date off by one lousy day!

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2013, 12:56 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on July 23, 2013, 12:49

iS must use the "Date Taken:" just had one rejected because the release date and image date don't match.

That's true for editorial.

cascoly · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2013, 13:22 »

Quote from: Ron on July 23, 2013, 12:47

Quote from: ShadySue on July 23, 2013, 12:34
Quote from: luissantos84 on July 23, 2013, 12:13
Alamy, I know a contributor that had issues with that, I am talking about the camera model
True. I was uploading some older photos and didn't notice a pic from my Coolpix 5700 was in there, and it was dropped on upload as being from an unsuitable camera (didn't count as a QC fail, as it was automatically dropped).
But Alamy has an approved camera list, many agencies dont. I think this is about a reviewer rejecting an image, which was good, for the camera it was taken with.

right, it was a stupid rule, since the quality of some of the banned cameras was just as good as their accepted ones (and they had accepted many from those cameras before the ban was put in place). quality, not camera price should be the only concern - esp'ly from an agency that makes such a big point of "we don't review your images"

rimglow · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2013, 13:38 »

I strip it out of every image I upload. It is needless.

tab62 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2013, 13:41 »

I didn't think about stripping it out! I assume Photoshop can do this...

rimglow · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2013, 13:46 »

It's quite easy. Open a new file, the same dimensions, Shift/Drag your photo to the new file, and voila, no data. I have an Action that does it in seconds.

tab62 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2013, 13:52 »

cool. There are programs (free) out there as well. Some folks are afraid of having GPS info in their pics as well...

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2013, 21:58 »

A quote from a one time reviewer.

Quote

That to has an Influence on reviewers.We saw everything, exif,camera,Stats,everything.

tab62 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2013, 22:09 »

Not surprised that reviewers might use this info...

CD123 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2013, 23:27 »

Started the digital are with a Powershot. Got some very nice pictures under ideal conditions. 90% rejected by most sites, till I stripped the EXIF data out and got 50-60% approval rate (on these "good" pics). This info might be part of the default display screen on some site's reviewer screen. All depends if they keep an eye on it or not. Obviously was only a contributor on some mid and lower end sites with my vectors at that stage.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #20 on:** July 24, 2013, 09:19 »

I'd love to have the software they use, so I can see what they see and how it works. I assume if further review is needed... they grab the Levels Slider, take a peek at the inverse for spots and "hygene". But I wonder what camera data is always displayed without having to go into some menu.

I'd guess it's fairly straight forward.

The Bots (which Don't Do Reviews!) eliminate for size (including over and under), could read camera data, could read other data.
Humans can glance and see "this is a reject" - "this is good" without complicated software, some are easy.
A good reviewer (according to someone on Alamy) can spot a flawed image from the thumbnails, then investigates to see if it's a problem full size or not.
If there are any questions or needs for further review, use the software.

So what do they use to review? That's interesting?

Quote from: rimglow on July 23, 2013, 13:38

I strip it out of every image I upload. It is needless.

Yeah and the funny part is, the agencies will strip it out and make us anonymous, after review. Good point, take it out in advance, might help. I don't upload shots from my pocket camera, so it's not an issue, but for others, it can't hurt?

Here's a free one, that I haven't used. Maybe someone can try it and report back?

http://download.cnet.com/Easy-Exif-Delete/3000-2248_4-75157345.html

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on July 23, 2013, 21:58

A quote from a one time reviewer.

Quote
That to has an Influence on reviewers.We saw everything, exif,camera,Stats,everything.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #21 on:** July 24, 2013, 10:02 »

Easy to see you can use the windows properties or you can DL the program for Firefox and just click and show.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on July 24, 2013, 09:19

I'd love to have the software they use, so I can see what they see and how it works. I assume if further review is needed... they grab the Levels Slider, take a peek at the inverse for spots and "hygene". But I wonder what camera data is always displayed without having to go into some menu.

I'd guess it's fairly straight forward.

The Bots (which Don't Do Reviews!) eliminate for size (including over and under), could read camera data, could read other data.
Humans can glance and see "this is a reject" - "this is good" without complicated software, some are easy.
A good reviewer (according to someone on Alamy) can spot a flawed image from the thumbnails, then investigates to see if it's a problem full size or not.
If there are any questions or needs for further review, use the software.

So what do they use to review? That's interesting?

Quote from: rimglow on July 23, 2013, 13:38
I strip it out of every image I upload. It is needless.

Yeah and the funny part is, the agencies will strip it out and make us anonymous, after review. Good point, take it out in advance, might help. I don't upload shots from my pocket camera, so it's not an issue, but for others, it can't hurt?

Here's a free one, that I haven't used. Maybe someone can try it and report back?

http://download.cnet.com/Easy-Exif-Delete/3000-2248_4-75157345.html

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on July 23, 2013, 21:58
A quote from a one time reviewer.

Quote
That to has an Influence on reviewers.We saw everything, exif,camera,Stats,everything.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** July 24, 2013, 18:39 »

Yes but I mean, I'd like to see what they see, not open this and that and click E or have to hit commands. I'd be surprised if the reviewers had to open and close things and click. It would make more sense if it was a display or overlay, all the time, or one click to show data.

Just had another interesting (in my strange kind of way) idea for testing the camera data being read on places other than Alamy. We already know that Alamy checks it with software or humans... Don't seem to have a consensus on the top Microstock agencies.

Take an image with a 5D, for example, copy and past into an image from a P&S of some sort. See if it gets rejected in a batch with the same series from the 5D.

The data from the original image will stick on the P&S original and the actual image will be from the 5D. That would be a nice easy test? "Do reviewers on Micro, reject for EXIF camera model data?"

tab62 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 24, 2013, 18:53 »

Well, the test results are in! I did a retake using my 1D on all the shots that were rejected with the Pen 4/3 camera and guess what? They all were accepted by company X. I used the model, natural light at the same exact time, same area, same F stop not the 1D did use 100 iso compared to 200 iso but that should be the main factor. And this company X pays very low rates thus I am forced to use a high end camera for them or nothing gets in...

CD123 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 24, 2013, 23:28 »

Just goes to show again, nothing beets quality (a Rolls Royce without a badge still stays a Rolls).....

Ron · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2013, 01:13 »

Quote from: tab62 on July 24, 2013, 18:53

Well, the test results are in! I did a retake using my 1D on all the shots that were rejected with the Pen 4/3 camera and guess what? They all were accepted by company X. I used the model, natural light at the same exact time, same area, same F stop not the 1D did use 100 iso compared to 200 iso but that should be the main factor. And this company X pays very low rates thus I am forced to use a high end camera for them or nothing gets in...

Well, the test should also include stripping the meta data of the rejected files and submit them and see what happens?

Because the quality of the 1D is obviously better than a point and shoot, otherwise whats the use of buying a 6000 dollar camera when a point and shoot is equally good.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #26 on:** July 26, 2013, 21:04 »

So far you only proved to me, that the better camera actually takes better photos. Perhaps the reviewers don't look at the metadata and the 1D shots are better?

Do what Ron says, strip the data from the 4/3 or better yet, paste the 4/3 image over an identical 1D data image. Hows that for a test! Now you'll have a 4/3 image with the 1D EXIF.

Quote from: tab62 on July 24, 2013, 18:53

Well, the test results are in! I did a retake using my 1D on all the shots that were rejected with the Pen 4/3 camera and guess what? They all were accepted by company X. I used the model, natural light at the same exact time, same area, same F stop not the 1D did use 100 iso compared to 200 iso but that should be the main factor. And this company X pays very low rates thus I am forced to use a high end camera for them or nothing gets in...

tab62 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 26, 2013, 22:51 »

that would be funny! I might try this one...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: EXIF Information- is this a factor in photo accpetance (Read 24962 times)

tab62

ShadySue

Ron

luissantos84

disorderly

ShadySue

tab62

Ron

WarrenPrice

tab62

tab62

ShadySue

cascoly

rimglow

tab62

rimglow

tab62

ruxpriencdiam

tab62

CD123

Uncle Pete

ruxpriencdiam

Uncle Pete

tab62

CD123

Ron

Uncle Pete

tab62

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors