Author Topic: Application to Istock: Rejections (Read 13571 times)

Beakus84 · « **on:** February 13, 2009, 15:40 »

Hi everyone,
I applied to Istock and uploaded my 3 samples, and about a week later I got an email back from them saying,

"The iStock administrators have asked that you upload new samples based on the feedback provided below. You're welcome to return in 3 days, upload some new samples and we'll re-process your application.

Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:

Park_Summer_080607__DSC6515-Edit-3.jpg: Rejected
We found this file over filtered from its original appearance/quality."

The other two had the same rejection reason, and are similar shots. So, I guess I'm looking for a critique, or more clear reasons why it was rejected. I did retouch them, and I think I can see now why they rejected these images, but I wanted to hear your opinions.

Here is one of them:

http://a0.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e011018084438860f-pi [nofollow]

So, by them saying that I should upload new samples, can I just upload my original three, and just not touch them up as much? Or should I upload different shots?

Thanks.

fljac · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2009, 15:57 »

Hi,

Not that I'm an expert on IS, but I have lokked at your great image... I reallyu do think that it's great.... Amd now it's toime for the ever so famous however....

Please examine the hair on both models... I think there's two problems... Softening... possible neat image or something like that... And sharpening that has ruined the pixels...¨

Have you done some sort of blending / layer mask? - Or did you apply neat image on one layer and then erase parts of it, or something like that?

In general it seems as if you have processed in many ways, and accidently pushed it beond the limits...

That's my first impression... A pitty though... The situation and athmosphere is very nice... Please try to provide a sample of it without anyt processing

Best regards
Flemming

bittersweet · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2009, 16:06 »

Quote from: Beakus84 on February 13, 2009, 15:40

The other two had the same rejection reason, and are similar shots.

The aforementioned technical problems aside, you are also going to have a hard time getting accepted by uploading three similar images for your application. They didn't mention it, because they stop after the first rejection reason, but they will want to see three different types of photos.

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2009, 16:33 »

This image is a composite, right? Maybe you need to be more careful with the transition areas.

As Whatalife said, you should submit 3 different subjects, light conditions, etc. I think I was told that otherwise they may ask you to upload more.

Also upload images at the minimum required size. By downsizing you minimize noise and some artifacting problems.

Regards,
Adelaide

cathyslife · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2009, 18:07 »

I'm seeing a lot of artifacting in the hair. There is a lot of blurring on the hands and feet...perhaps that is a filter? Or maybe not fast enough shutter speed? I'm not sure I can tell what's going on.

If you did any filtering at all, I would say go back to the raw image and upload that for critique before spending even more time on it.

I know that istock, for the most part, does not like filtered images. I know, I have had a few rejects myself. The only people who can get away with it are the big guns (IMHO).

Your composition is good. I personally like the horizon to be straight, especially in this image. The models are great, they're having fun and to me, the background is a little distracting being slanted.

You also have some fringing going on, check out the girls shoulders...the white line between her shirt and the sky.

If this is a composite, as was suggested by a poster above, maybe the blurring was to try to blend the people with the background?

I also agree, upload 3 totally different photo subjects.

Anyway, just my two cents...I'm no expert by any means.

Beakus84 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2009, 19:00 »

Theres no blending or neat image, and no its not a composite, the BG was blurred though for seperation. The image was processed in Lightroom first and then Photoshop, and I think what you guys are talking about is the color gradation when I brought down the sky luminance too much, and then the sharpening amplified it.

Here it is passed through Lightroom from RAW without Photoshop. All I did with this is some quick levels and luminance on the sky just because the image was slightly underexposed. Also, no sharpening.

http://a3.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e011017a94653860e-pi [nofollow]

Also, here are the two other shots that were submitted:
http://a5.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e01101668a0f5860d-pi [nofollow]
http://a2.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e01101668a0f2860d-pi [nofollow]

So, are all three of these too similar to submit together?

Thanks.

Beakus84 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2009, 19:24 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 13, 2009, 18:07

I'm seeing a lot of artifacting in the hair. There is a lot of blurring on the hands and feet...perhaps that is a filter? Or maybe not fast enough shutter speed? I'm not sure I can tell what's going on.

Well, the blur is motion blur. The fastest I could go was 1/250 because of the off camera hotshoe strobe I was using.

Quote from: cclapper on February 13, 2009, 18:07

I know that istock, for the most part, does not like filtered images. I know, I have had a few rejects myself. The only people who can get away with it are the big guns (IMHO).

Yes, I am quickly learning this I think. I have been reading other people's posts about "over filtered" rejections, and I am comming to the consensus that an image should not be touched up at all, only minor things such as dust. This saddens me because I love working in Photoshop, but would love to work in stock as well. It seems Istock is extrememly paranoid about filtered images, so much that they reject images for over filtering even when the image had no filtering, not even sharpening, so I have read. I believe their philosophy on a stock photo is that it is "not finished".

m@m · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2009, 19:25 »

Beakus84, I agree with Madelaide and CClapper advise to your problem, you've got allot of artifacting, noice and friging going on in the picture, I like the composition, lighting and models as well, but when you're dealing with IS, technical perfection is a must all the time but specially in your test shots, don't get discourage and supply them again with 3 new and different style pictures, but check them at 100% before you submit, so that you can notice any inperfection on them before submiting. I hope this helps

null · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2009, 19:43 »

You have talent for stock! Great models and poses. But you really have to work hard on your technical skills. The image is totally oversharpened > artifacts, plus you tried to blur the background and you wandered off in the jeans at least 20px.

What camera is that?

Beakus84 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2009, 20:24 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 13, 2009, 19:43

You have talent for stock! Great models and poses. But you really have to work hard on your technical skills. The image is totally oversharpened > artifacts, plus you tried to blur the background and you wandered off in the jeans at least 20px.

What camera is that?

Thanks Flemish very much. Yeah I'm insecure about my technical skills. I'm working really hard on getting it right in the camera. Did you read further in the thread? I posted a non-photoshop version and the other two images that I submitted with it in the application. What do you think might need to be done to it, or not done to it?

This was shot with a Nikon D200, with a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 @ f/6.3, 1/250 ISO100, but had to push exposure 1 1/3 stops.

Thanks everyone for your comments.

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2009, 21:03 »

Beakus,

Try to submit images that don't require too much edition. The first one, with the effect in the background, may be rejected again. Seeing the large file, I see a big flaw in the sky next to the girl's arm (ser the G in "copyright". I don't think the motion blur will be accepted. Also you have light from below (flash?) what looks unnatural and is making some shadows (see the guy's neck).

The second one is definitely too similar in subject. The third one I believe is different enough.

Check if you are not using a high sharpening in the camera settings. Check also if you are not compressing your JPEGs too much after edition.

Regards,
Adelaide

fljac · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2009, 21:34 »

A little addition...

If you're shooting JPG's, stop doing that... Change to RAW (NEF). That way you'll get a completely unedited file from the camera. Edit everything in 16bit and convert to 8bit just before saving in JPG. NO Compression in the save as jpg box...

Regardless what anyone might tell you, RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files. They simply contains so much more information's, compared to the JPG. The JPG will typically be "processed" quite a bit by the camera... This does not happen when using RAW - In your case - NEF.

/ Flemming

gostwyck · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2009, 22:01 »

Quote from: fljac on February 13, 2009, 21:34

A little addition...

If you're shooting JPG's, stop doing that... Change to RAW (NEF). That way you'll get a completely unedited file from the camera. Edit everything in 16bit and convert to 8bit just before saving in JPG. NO Compression in the save as jpg box...

Regardless what anyone might tell you, RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files. They simply contains so much more information's, compared to the JPG. The JPG will typically be "processed" quite a bit by the camera... This does not happen when using RAW - In your case - NEF.

/ Flemming

Really? Thanks for that. I sell 4-5K licenses per month, all shot JPEG. Maybe I'm just lucky or something. How many more do you reckon I'd sell if I shot RAW, taking into account all that extra processing time, which therefore would mean fewer images in my portfolio? Oh, and I get virtually no rejections (except from the anti-independent freak inspectors at IS)

Get it right in-camera and you don't need to fanny about with all that RAW nonsense. Fact.

fljac · « **Reply #13 on:** February 14, 2009, 14:38 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 13, 2009, 22:01

Quote from: fljac on February 13, 2009, 21:34
A little addition...

If you're shooting JPG's, stop doing that... Change to RAW (NEF). That way you'll get a completely unedited file from the camera. Edit everything in 16bit and convert to 8bit just before saving in JPG. NO Compression in the save as jpg box...

Regardless what anyone might tell you, RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files. They simply contains so much more information's, compared to the JPG. The JPG will typically be "processed" quite a bit by the camera... This does not happen when using RAW - In your case - NEF.

/ Flemming

Really? Thanks for that. I sell 4-5K licenses per month, all shot JPEG. Maybe I'm just lucky or something. How many more do you reckon I'd sell if I shot RAW, taking into account all that extra processing time, which therefore would mean fewer images in my portfolio? Oh, and I get virtually no rejections (except from the anti-independent freak inspectors at IS)

Get it right in-camera and you don't need to fanny about with all that RAW nonsense. Fact.

I'm impressed... Selling 4-5000 licences every month... Just out of curiousity... WHERE do you sell that many images in the "quality" presented here?

... And by the way.. The assumption about that much more processing time for RAW.. that's just not true... It's all about having a smooth and seemless workflow....

So what you're basically saying is that the image format "RAW" has no relevans what so ever...? Interesting! - Do you really believe that yourself?

But since you're so pleased with your current quality level and more or less no rejections... then it simply must be Istockphoto.com who's unable to recognize true quality... - Then why even starting this dialog, given the fact that your images are that perfect?

Please do keep on shooting in jpg and be happy about your images... Me - I'll keep on shooting in RAW, enjoying the advantages of the RAW format

Best regards
Flemming

fljac · « **Reply #14 on:** February 14, 2009, 15:45 »

HI Ghostwyck,

I would just like to expand on the reasons for shooting in RAW, not in JPG. I found this small article on the net, witch explains in clear figurs, Just why the RAW file format really does provide much more quality than the JPG. (needless to say that the file format JPG is a so called "destructive" file format. This is common knowledge)

Please check this one out: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

I hope that this article helps understanding and clarifieng the benefits of the RAW file.

Thanks,
Flemming

fljac · « **Reply #15 on:** February 14, 2009, 16:09 »

... Sorry!

Beakus84 - I accidental mistook gostwyck for being the one having started this thread... I apologize for that...

My well meant advise still stands... and gostwyck underlines the relevance of my previous remark: "Regardless what anyone might tell you, "

Have a nice weekend

Best regards
Flemming

madelaide · « **Reply #16 on:** February 14, 2009, 16:31 »

So far I have only used JPEG, even with my DSLR (pure lazyness). I assume that RAW is better, for what I read, but I would not say "RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files".

Regards,
Adelaide

fljac · « **Reply #17 on:** February 14, 2009, 17:11 »

Quote from: madelaide on February 14, 2009, 16:31

So far I have only used JPEG, even with my DSLR (pure lazyness). I assume that RAW is better, for what I read, but I would not say "RAW format is the only right way of producing real high quality files".

Regards,
Adelaide

Hi Adeleide,

I gues I have to agree to some extend... It's true that it is possible to produce quite high quality images saved directly in JPG. As I see it, this apply's especially in scenario's where the conditions's are perfect from a technical aspect, from a technical aspect..

There is a limitation as to how big a difference between dark areas and highlight, that is possible to record directly, without post processing. When the camera does the post processing, it's based on a peice of software in the camera. This post processing can not be ideal for all situation's... It's just an average and the same settings are used on all images, regardless the situation / content. Naturally, it's more ideal to process individually and do what's right for each image.
The RAW file contains much more information's in the highlight and shadow area's than the JPG does...

The JPG can only store 8 bit colour debt. The RAW contains at least 12bit colour debt. It's true that you will convert to 8bit, othervise it's not possible to save as JPG. The difference lies in the post processing before storing in JPG. The 12-14bit colour debt gives you a little more intence and powerfull colours allowing you to do lust a little more...

When saving in JPG, the white balance is pretty much determined by the electronic - the previous mentioned software in the camera... When using RAW, you can adjust the true white balance a lot better than you can in the RAW. Basically you can shoot in warm light from electrical bulps... and then just adjust it to be perfect..

When shooting in JPG you can not avoid that the camera apply's a long series of adjustments ( as mentioned in the article as well).
This thread started with an image containing some specific flaws.. I first spotted the artifacting in the hair. This CAN be caused by lots of things, but possible this: In camera sharpening - in camera contrast, and possible some other things as well...
To the best of my knowledge, the RAW file containing apprx. 5 times more data, witch is not post processed and saved in a destructive file format, would not have these flaws...

Surely, there are many specific reason's for shooting in JPC ocasionally, but this does not change the fact that even though the JPG CAN be very good.... The RAW file will still give you just that little bit more - especially under the more difficult condition's.

When you have chosen to shoot only in JPG, you can't do anything about it... If you shoot in RAW, I believe that you will be able to use quite a few more shots in stead of having to delete them.... And the ones that you're satisfied with, might even be just a little better if shot in RAW...

And still... Like in all other aspects... you really should do what you feel works for you.. My only reason for reacting maybe a little strongly, was the fact that "someone" actually was trying to argue that the JPG is equal to, if not even better than the RAW. That the RAW always is a complete waiste of time..... It is an undisputable fact that RAW gives you more quality.. Under lots of condition's the JPG can be very good YES! But the RAW is still the right professional choice for most situation's...

With this, i think I rest my case and leave it up to the jury to decide....

Best regards
Flemming

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** February 14, 2009, 18:23 »

fljac,

I understand that RAW gives better results and more power do adjust everything, I only don't agree that it is the only right way to produce quality images.

Regards,
Adelaide

Beakus84 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 14, 2009, 19:54 »

If you ask me, its all personal preference. I always shoot in RAW; the images that I posted here are from RAW files. The artifacting in the hair I believe is from too much luminance reduction in the sky, not JPEG compression.

The reasons I shoot in RAW is so I have some freedom to push/pull the exposure in post production. RAW allows this to happen, to a certain extent. JPEG "Locks" the luminance values in their place, not allowing the detail to follow exposure values. Now, I do believe, if you are very confident, that it is ok to capture in JPEG, if your happy with the exposure! But, don't expect to try and push/pull the exposure later and keep as much detail.

By the way, I'm a newbie at stock and Istock is the first that I'm applying to. Also, just because Istock rejects for over filtering doesn't mean that the quality is poor. Istock just doesn't want any images that are touched up very much, which I like to do. You can see this in my personal work on my site at www.andrewalwardphoto.com [nofollow] , which I know most of it is probably not suitable for stock.

Anyway, back to the origin of this thread, I'm not sure if you guys have commented on this one yet - http://a3.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e011017a94653860e-pi [nofollow]
I think Adelaide did, but I'm not sure. This one is like I said, no effects, no filtering like you asked for. The only thing I did was pull it from RAW, adjust levels because my exposure was way off, and brought the sky luminance down just a tad, and no sharpening, no Photoshop. Let me know if its any better or worse, and sorry Adelaide if this is the image you were talking about, I appreciate this criticism.

Thanks again.

gostwyck · « **Reply #20 on:** February 14, 2009, 20:46 »

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** February 14, 2009, 21:01 »

cdwheatley · « **Reply #22 on:** February 14, 2009, 21:22 »

Quote from: Beakus84 on February 14, 2009, 19:54

By the way, I'm a newbie at stock and Istock is the first that I'm applying to. Also, just because Istock rejects for over filtering doesn't mean that the quality is poor. Istock just doesn't want any images that are touched up very much, which I like to do. You can see this in my personal work on my site at www.andrewalwardphoto.com , which I know most of it is probably not suitable for stock.

Anyway, back to the origin of this thread, I'm not sure if you guys have commented on this one yet - http://a3.vox.com/6a011017a94106860e011017a94653860e-pi
I think Adelaide did, but I'm not sure. This one is like I said, no effects, no filtering like you asked for. The only thing I did was pull it from RAW, adjust levels because my exposure was way off, and brought the sky luminance down just a tad, and no sharpening, no Photoshop. Let me know if its any better or worse, and sorry Adelaide if this is the image you were talking about, I appreciate this criticism.

Thanks again.

Hi Andrew,
Regardless of your skill level as photographer there is a certain "technical" learning curve when submitting to micro. Istock and the other big sites will in fact accept heavily filtered files, with Istock being the pickiest of course. The editing has to be done as transparent and clean as possible and can be quite tedious with heavily filtered files. Edit as you like but when you look at the image at 100% crop make sure you don't see any of the problems outlined in the Istock tutorial. Noise, etc...etc...

The sooner you can quickly identify the problems the easier microstock life will become, pretty soon it will be second nature and you will know how far you can push the filtering.

I wouldn't submit the image you mention above. The concept is a big seller but the file is to soft with some other problems as well. Read that tutorial and look at the example images to learn what to avoid.

I would try to do minimal editing for your first submissions, your concepts are good and that should be enough to get you in. just need to get rid of the technical issues. Three totally different files is a good idea also.

madelaide · « **Reply #23 on:** February 14, 2009, 22:16 »

Beakus,

Indeed I commented the first one:

Quote from: madelaide on February 13, 2009, 21:03

The first one, with the effect in the background, may be rejected again. Seeing the large file, I see a big flaw in the sky next to the girl's arm (see the G in "copyright". I don't think the motion blur will be accepted. Also you have light from below (flash?) what looks unnatural and is making some shadows (see the guy's neck).

Regards,
Adelaide

MichaelJay · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2009, 02:31 »

Quote from: Beakus84 on February 14, 2009, 19:54

The only thing I did was pull it from RAW, adjust levels because my exposure was way off

Well, this is usually the first thing you should avoid. Adjusting levels introduces computer generated values into the image which degrades the original quality. Same goes for sharpening, if you can't get it sharp in camera, don't try to fix it in Photoshop later on. Go back and re-shoot with right exposure, right focus.

You are right, just because stock agencies don't like it, it doesn't have to be a bad or ugly image. But stock is about providing designers the best RAW quality, so they can make their own decision how to make the image work with their design.

And here's what I found at the first look doesn't look pretty: You can see a darker line behind the guy's right leg (as well at as the girl's left hand):
http://a4.vox.com/6a00e398df66470004011015e98bb4860b-pi
(I blew this up to 200% to make it more visible)

These are probably caused by long exposure and the motion blur. But they just look ugly if you zoom in to details. Stock agencies will always look at your image at 100% in all details. With millions of images in their archives and tons added each week they can be very selective, allowing only (from a technical point of view) excellent images to be added to their collections. If you want to sell stock, you have to adapt your style. The concept looks like good stock, the execution doesn't.

And yes, those three are far too similar. iStock only asks you to submit three images but those three should show a variance of photography styles that you are able to shoot. Try to find two that don't involve "people having fun in front of a nature background".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Application to Istock: Rejections (Read 13571 times)

Beakus84

fljac

bittersweet

madelaide

cathyslife

Beakus84

Beakus84

m@m

null

Beakus84

madelaide

fljac

gostwyck

fljac

fljac

fljac

madelaide

fljac

madelaide

Beakus84

gostwyck

gostwyck

cdwheatley

madelaide

MichaelJay

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors