pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Help on rejected photo...  (Read 3802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 04, 2007, 06:16 »
0
Hi,

I had a rejection from istock that I don't really understand.
I don't mind rejections, as long as i can learn something from it.
I would really appreciate it if one of you can have a look at the photo and can tell me what i'm doing wrong. Describe where i have to look or (even better) Cut out a part, put some arrows ;-) and email it or post it here, whatever you prefer...
I know there has been some posts on artifacting, and i read them but still...

Point is also, i shot it in Raw (canon 350d), used C1 to convert it to jpg12 so where are the artifacts created?

Below the iStock feedback, i asked for more details/reason and got the reply in the second line.

This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is commonly created by the quality settings in-camera or in post-processing.

As you've requested I've taken another look at image number xxx which was rejected due to artifacting. The compression is contained in the ejects of the objects in the image and the cloud areas of the file.


Thanks a million!
Regards,
Bjorn

see: mg_9352.jpg


« Last Edit: August 04, 2007, 06:22 by bjorn »


« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2007, 07:31 »
0
look in these areas (see notes)







Hope that helps


* captures done with Skitch on the mac - really cool tool - i have 2 invites to beta if anyone wants one.

Mitch

« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2007, 07:43 »
0
Hi, sometimes i got same problem with istock, i use 350d also  but my rejected photos work in SS !!

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2007, 10:08 »
0
Don't see much more than maunger pointed out.  There's another spot to the left of the tower than should be cloned out.  The rough edges of the cable don't bother me as that's the twist in the steel that makes up the cable.  Hopefully a reviewer would know that.  The white edging below the cable is a no-no however.  I really don't think the edging at the top of the cloud should be a problem.  Still, it can be removed if needed.  I suspect if this was submitted to SS, it would be rejected for lighting.  They seem to want everything lit to some degree lately ... the tower, background mountains, etc.  Silhouette or not, that's what they seem to be after.  Agree you should clean up the towers, buildings, etc. at the bottom of the image.

« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2007, 10:23 »
0
IMO the whole of the mountain/sky edge looks to have the effects of edge sharpening with a defined white outline at 100%.

It doesn't bother me that much and at smaller sizes it would add to the sense of crispness, but that transition is not natural looking. 

« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2007, 11:32 »
0
Thanks guys (and ladies?), that was really helpful!
I looked up the Raw file and found out it has to do with the sharpening options in C1. (as you suggested)
The sharpening creates the white edges around the cable, mountain, and (in some minor extent) the problem with the cloud.
I used to use 90% sharpening, but went back to 50% hope that is ok  :) (prefer some sharpening).
Any better (sharpening) software around? Or do all have this problem?

For those interested, I made some screen shots:
the 2 extremes:

0%    sharp0.jpg
400% sharp400.jpg

and 50% sharp50.jpg

once again, thank!
Regards,
Bjorn
« Last Edit: August 04, 2007, 11:39 by bjorn »

« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2007, 12:09 »
0
To my eye, unsharpened version looks the best... :)

« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2007, 12:23 »
0
If examined really critically I think there will be very few images submitted where you won't be able to find one or more (often minor) problems. In my personal opinion the problems pointed out in your image (all valid) is not enough to warrant a rejection.  Some reviewers is just hyper critical, especially the iStock reviewers. Sometimes it borders on paranoia.  My suggestion with this particular image: be careful with sharpening - rather use too little than too much, clean up the few dark spots, downsize to 6 MP and re-submit.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
rejected photo

Started by chl « 1 2  All » Photo Critique

27 Replies
6994 Views
Last post August 15, 2009, 16:33
by Dreamframer
5 Replies
2532 Views
Last post November 16, 2011, 22:49
by frozensage
18 Replies
6495 Views
Last post January 08, 2013, 17:20
by shotupdave
27 Replies
7315 Views
Last post January 21, 2016, 09:54
by Lana
86 Replies
10792 Views
Last post August 22, 2017, 08:14
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results