Author Topic: Help with IS rejection (Read 8205 times)

madelaide · « **on:** February 20, 2008, 17:11 »

Please give me your thoughts in this image, as in MP you can see a full zoom of it:
http://www.mostphotos.com/122336

IS rejected it for

Quote

The overuse of a noise reduction process /application/ RAWsettings has too severely degraded quality and removed detail.

I barely touched it, just a slight curves and contrast edition, no denoising at all. It looks pretty decent to me.

Regards,
Adelaide

Peter · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2008, 17:15 »

It looks like out of focus? Not sharp enough.

sharply_done · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2008, 17:18 »

I guess the inspector wants to see more floral detail, even if it isn't there to begin with. Given that it's an IS Large image, you should downsize it to the minimum possible Large size (1820 x 2730 px) and resubmit.

... good luck!

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2008, 17:28 »

Indeed not everything is in focus - some of the goldenrod in fact is closer that the rest and out of the depth of field range.

I thought of simply changing the size, as Sharply suggested, though the reason might be something else I was not seeing.

Chode, I really don't think it looks so unsharp, except for the above-mentioned portions of goldenrods which are obviously not in focus (therefore are not a matter of denoise softening).

Regards,
Adelaide

sensovision · « **Reply #4 on:** February 20, 2008, 17:32 »

I'm not experienced enough to evaluated your photos, Adelaide. But I've seen this photo already when you showed it to me previously and believe that's it's great. I really not sure why they rejected it.
Good luck with re-submission, and let us know how it goes.

Phil · « **Reply #5 on:** February 20, 2008, 18:14 »

I'm on my dodgy work monitor. It is a beautiful image but at 100% the edges but detail seems smeared? dont know if that is the right word definetly looks to me like it has been noise ninja'd or had heavy noise reduction applied.

Did you shoot in raw? what software do you use? I find lightrooms noise reduction good (I just leave on default) but I used to use silkypix, that is the sort of look I got from that, its noise reduction was too heavy handed.

If you cant go back to raw, I think the downsizing may be the go.

madelaide · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2008, 18:25 »

rusty,

It was shot in JPEG in Canon Powershot A620. I did not use any type of denoise tool with it, as it wasn't necessarily at all (I basically only denoise skies, in fact).

Regards,
Adelaide

Susan S. · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2008, 20:37 »

istock will only accept flower images if they are absolutely perfect, technically speaking - they really seem to look for any excuse they can find to reject them as there are so many on the site. This one is a little soft, and also has what looks like blown highlights on the chrysanthemum petals (I bet the red channel is blown), which also removes details in those areas. It's a lovely image, but it doesn't suprise me that istock rejected it.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2008, 21:07 »

Beautiful image but on my montor it looks very soft along with having a plastic quality to it which could be confused with the effects of noise reduction software. And yes, IS has said they are extra critical about accepting flowers. Probably because they already have almost 160,000 of them.

Did they tag it as as Can Resubmit or No Resubmit?

madelaide · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2008, 22:48 »

I could resubmit, and I have. Funny you should mention IS "flower policy", as I don't have that many problems with flowers in IS (contrary to DT) and they are not that extraordinary.

Regards,
Adelaide

Velvia · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2008, 23:06 »

Cool shot!

On my monitor, it looks a tab too soft. Could it be that your focus was not dead on?
Could also be a slight camera movement.
Dunno...what f-stop where you using? I also see a bit of red fringing as well...its hard to tell.

Pixart · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:02 »

Adelaide, how did you light the flowers? I'm trying to tell your light source, but there's no defining shadows (Yipee, I actually got something to load from Most Photos for once!). Is there more light coming from the top right that is overexposing the green a wee bit?

I do like your flowers though! It almost looks like a light painting. I tried light painting for the first time this week - but, I was fumbling around in the dark and couldn't really make the best corrections by viewing the LCD. I just point out the similarity with mine: see on this one the the overexposed parts look plastic-ish and out of focus. But in fact, the most flawed parts (but not all) are the same distance from the lens as the well focused petals - I think those petals, especially in the upper right quarter, just had too much light.

(Yes, I'm aware there is a flashlight on the bottom, and no, I'm not submitting anywhere

.

Phil · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2008, 01:05 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 20, 2008, 22:48

I could resubmit, and I have. Funny you should mention IS "flower policy", as I don't have that many problems with flowers in IS (contrary to DT) and they are not that extraordinary.

Regards,
Adelaide

look pretty good to me

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2008, 16:57 »

Pixart,

I can't tell you how lighting was done, I generally use natural light for flowers (we have very large windows here), with some bounced light to fill in.

Your look quite unreal - why not submit it after finishing edition?

Velvia,

I must check the original to see the settings. It is probably f/8, but it's a compact camera.

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2008, 17:36 »

The picture is great. The thing is. In the what we want section (name?) of Istock it's say that they have enough of the files call flower. Make a small search and you will find about 200 000 if I remember correctly. Dogs and cats also.

That make pictures like this lot more difficult to get accepted. Personally I try to don't get myself close to that subjects

madelaide · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2008, 18:10 »

Vonkara,

Even if not selling at micro, there are other places to sell that. This is the kind of image someone might want to put in a print or calendar.

And searching for "flowers" is too general, like search for "people" or "background".

If you search for pink chrysanthemums in IS you get this one with 57 dlds in less than 6 months.
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/object/4316658_pink_mum_chrysanthemums.php?id=4316658

Regards,
Adelaide

vonkara · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2008, 18:27 »

It's true that it would sell at other places including the other micro agencies, that for sure. It's a IS problem to don't accept this kind of file easely. I agree...

Waldo4 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2008, 11:34 »

What micro agencies might accept a flower pic? I'm not a huge flower shooter, but do have some stunning shots, especially good is a rare form of a Calla Lilly (red rimmed yellow flower), and Callas seem to be insanely popular compared to other flowers. I do have some really good, fairly rare Orchids too.

Lukasphoto · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2008, 11:50 »

I've only submitted 2 flower pics but they were accepted by all (SS, IS, StockXpert, 123rf, DT, BS and others) but Fotolia (took one only).

Both times I thought they would be rejected so you just never know.

Since I uploaded them in January I have only had downloads at SS.

fotografer · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2008, 12:08 »

I think that all of them will accept stunning shots if the quality is good enough.

Quote from: Waldo4 on February 22, 2008, 11:34

What micro agencies might accept a flower pic? I'm not a huge flower shooter, but do have some stunning shots, especially good is a rare form of a Calla Lilly (red rimmed yellow flower), and Callas seem to be insanely popular compared to other flowers. I do have some really good, fairly rare Orchids too.

Seren · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2008, 13:36 »

I've had flower shots at all the agencies I'm with... none are stunning! But two got extended licenses at iStock.

madelaide · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2008, 17:13 »

This is what I have with flowers in IS. In fact I have more, I must check them to see why some are not showing.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=flowers&membername=madelaide&order=Downloads&showDownloads=true

Regards,
Adelaide

cascoly · « **Reply #22 on:** April 13, 2008, 01:18 »

i've had numerous flower pix accepted at the big 6, but sales are really low -- there's just too much out there. so continue to try, butyou'll need to find another subject to get sales up.

s

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Help with IS rejection (Read 8205 times)

madelaide

Peter

sharply_done

madelaide

sensovision

Phil

madelaide

Susan S.

PaulieWalnuts

madelaide

Velvia

Pixart

Phil

madelaide

vonkara

madelaide

vonkara

Waldo4

Lukasphoto

fotografer

Seren

madelaide

cascoly

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors