|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - leszek
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
176
« on: February 27, 2008, 01:38 »
Actually - I quite like the CanStockPhoto website...pity that the sales are so low there.
And this: "For comparisons sake, our image standards will similar to some rights-managed agencies. We will be very selective and will only accept the highest quality images. All photos should appear to be shot in a professional environment, with professional equipment."
Not a problem with high quality requirements - but professional equipment and professional environment cost money - so if RM quality is expected, then RM prices would not be out of place either.
177
« on: February 21, 2008, 23:04 »
Knowing that this happens - I also include clipping paths - so this should be a non-issue. But, it appears to be not sufficient in the eyes of some reviewers and images get knocked back for bad isolation. Go figure.
178
« on: February 21, 2008, 16:52 »
"I don't think JPEG compression would add artifacts in pure white regions. "
It does. Little ghosts appear around the isolated object, close to its boundary. Setting threshold to 1 or 2 gets rid of them (when selecting 255,255,255) color. I guess this is what some of the reviewers are picking as "bad isolation" - which is incorrect.
179
« on: February 20, 2008, 20:50 »
One thing that could be implemented easily to help photographers:
Why not post a gallery of images at 100% (or 100% crops) with description and indication of most frequent flaws (noise, artifacts, overfiltering etc.) ? And indicate what is the acceptable limit for each - on examples ? This would remove ambiguity and establish some guidelines.
It is pretty amazing that there are no published quality requirements for images - which are the one and only selling product.
The current feedback is far insufficient and subject to interpretation. When I get a feedback "Overuse of noise filtering software" - it puts me in rather bad mood - particularly when I went to great lengths to shoot an image which is almost noise free, and did not use much in way of noise reduction software...In such case I would want to know what it is that is not acceptable. Lack of noise maybe ?
It is not of great importance to me now, as my account at Crestock is being cancelled - but, for what it is worth...
180
« on: February 19, 2008, 06:43 »
Well...crazy, of course. The world is turning into a madhouse - and the whole thing is driven by lawyers and accountants. Soon there will be no free air to breathe. If taking a picture of a car is not allowed because of copyrights - then maybe it would be reasonable to take car companies to the court for putting their logos in front of my eyes all day round - which is an invasion of privacy. I have no duty to watch their bloody logos, but I am forced to - no way to avoid it...
This is a copyright protection concept reduced ad absurdum: they claim to own the light reflected from their product. What an idiocy... and even larger idiocy that the "law" makes it accepted and acceptable...
If I had enough money - I would do just that.
181
« on: February 18, 2008, 21:06 »
Well - I am neither arguing nor criticising the inspectors at Crestock. While some of my pics may have some issues - I am simply saying that it is not worth for me to spend hours of my time on a picture which has 80% chance of rejection at Crestock - and sells very well elsewhere. Quality has a purpose, and should be commensurate with remuneration. This image, for instance, has been rejected for "Artifacts, compression flaws". http://www.crestock.com/rejected-image.aspx?id=629729I doubt very much there are any of the above in the image - unless we count little "ghosts" around the isolated object which show up when someone tries to select white background color. They are created when the image is converted from TIFF to JPEG - and not a thing can be done. That's what threshold setting of 1 (or clipping path) are for. Of course - if they are considered unacceptable, I have no problem with that. I am not setting the requirements. I am just saying that these requirements are too much for me - individual mileages, as usual, may vary.
182
« on: February 18, 2008, 16:16 »
Thanks. This is mostly what I expected. I am sending Crestock an E-mail to delete all my accepted images and terminate my account. There is only so much I am willing to do for $0.25 a (unfrequent) download.
183
« on: February 18, 2008, 08:12 »
It appears to me that they take their statement about "highest quality requirements" a bit too seriously. What is your experience ?
184
« on: February 14, 2008, 06:45 »
185
« on: February 14, 2008, 06:42 »
186
« on: February 14, 2008, 06:40 »
I had two batches rejected when applying at Shutterstock (both missed by on picture - 6/10). Some of the previously accepted images have been rejected in subsequent attempts - but overall they have been pretty consistent. On third attempt (and knowing what they pay attention to) I got 8/10 and got my foot in  I would suggest that maybe you should try couple of nice isolations (takes care of noise), shoot with good light on atripod (to produce sharp image at small aperture and good depth of field). They are also quite open to conceptual type of images - provided that the pics are clean, sharp etc. (but this is not news).
187
« on: February 09, 2008, 08:27 »
As much as possible ? Well, it probably is OK, but I can assure you - not for initial application 
188
« on: February 09, 2008, 01:14 »
Thanks CCK. This is again a useful bit of info. I guess I will have to change the workflow: first RAW conversion and REALLY minor adjustments, then post-processing for the other sites - hey, no post-processing means taking away half of the fun
189
« on: February 08, 2008, 22:00 »
Thanks - GeoPappas and yingyang0. This is a useful bit of information I usually do not upsize as such - just crop 8x10 at 300 ppi (most frequently using the whole 2336 pixels. So - strictly speaking there is no much upsizing there some 3% in one direction only. But - thanks again, I will keep the image size according to your advice.
190
« on: February 08, 2008, 05:42 »
"So the reviewer was spot on" Well - there is a comparison of RAW with no adjustments and the finished image - just above. You need to tell me if these are artifacts or not. I still would not call it artifacts. The lighting was not the best, the stem out of focus, but jaggies are there and will be there in anybody's picture when photographing similiar subject. I just have spent about 3 hours experimenting with light and different lenses. And different subjects. I am getting perfectly sharp and well exposed images - of different subjects. This glass vase, while beautiful to look at, is extremely difficult to photograph. It needs different lighting - and trying to produce white (or close) background simply does not work. I put separate light on the background trying to blow it - and it worked, except that the reflected light went straight through the clean glass into the camera - swallowing most of detail in the glass. The contrast between white background and the glass is very low - that's why perceived sharpness is low. The light needs to be set up to produce reflections on the edges (except that the corners are rounded, so no cigar). This leaves me with underexposing the picture , playing with curves - and using clipping path to produce 100% white background. I guess if you tried to do that (or if you mastered photographing this kind of subject) - then you know what I am talking about. If not - then just for the kicks - get a similiar piece of glass and let me know how it went. I made several errors - but the largest one was the selection of the subject. The total DOF is under 3" - which is less than the diameter of the vase (and less than the length of the stem). I could go on and on. So - I think I know what went wrong, and I mostly know now what I would do better next time. Why I have been rejected so many times ? I guess the type of photos I take and the amount of processing I put in the images is a big no-no at iStock. I am not arguing with that - but I am not entirely sure that I want to conform. Some may say that (255,255,255) background equals quality. For me - it is just painting pixels for the sake of it (if a clipping path is provided - then the designer can extract the subject in 3 seconds anyway). I guess my perception of "quality" ends somewhere at 50% magnification - which on the screen still produces an image about 20" high (or wide). You see - I am not really arguing with the reviewers. They are 100% right - according to their standards. I just need to decide whether it is worth my time to meet those standards, and essentially converting to entirely different type of photography to meet their requirements. I am not doing it for money - I would have to have many hundreds of downloads a day to match my daily job (aircraft design). I just like taking pictures that I like, not pictures which have debatable jaggies at 100% or at 200%. How long is a piece of string, after all ? I am still very grateful for comments and help I have received here. It opened my eyes to couple of issues and helped me to find out that the bloody comp was misbehaving. It helped me to look with a different perspective at what is important at a microstock site. Perhaps it even helped me to take better pictures - although I will let others to decide. Cheers 
191
« on: February 08, 2008, 02:07 »
OK, here is a comparison of the finished pic and the original unprocessed RAW (taken as screen copy with GViewer). http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6926354Now - the prize I guess goes to ale1969. The pic is way overprocessed (although jaggies are present in the RAW file too). Three things: 1) I tend to overprocess my images (as long as it does not hurt the prints). Thanks for pointing this out, I will try to cut back on that, my fault. 2) No excuses for bad focus and flat lighting - entirely my fault 3) All processing was done (it appears) on UNCALIBRATED monitor. How did this happen ? Here is the story: About a week ago we had a series of severe storms with lots of lightning strikes, which wiped out my neighbours electronic equipment - and my DSL modem+network card. Both have been replaced. Afterwards, on restarting the comp (and happy that it worked at all) I was getting a message "Processor has been changed". Off to BIOS, "Save and Exit" hoping that it would get rid of the message - it did. No more checks was done. Today (prompted by ale1969's words "If the contrast is ARTIFICIALLY high") I decided to check and recalibrate the monitor - and in the process I noticed that the monitor profile is gone from the Color Mangement settings (it always loads automatically on starting the comp, so I never check it). So - it appears that I was pushing the curves and contrast way too high. If you think I am making this up - I will post the receipts for the modem and the network card Having said that - there is still no guarantee that I will pass next time, of course... Thanks to all who dragged me (screaming and kicking) in more or less right direction.
192
« on: February 07, 2008, 22:11 »
Point taken. It is evident that I did something wrong - as witnessed by a great number of excellent shots of glass. Believe it or not - I am more interested in getting to the bottom of it than defending myself. Just give me a couple of hours to get back home and have a look at RAW. I indeed played with curves - but I wouldn't think it was excessive. Maybe I was wrong.
193
« on: February 07, 2008, 20:55 »
As I said before - thanks for posting the 600% crop. I see that I need to clarify a bit what I said in the previous post: I was not questioning the usefulness of this - all I meant was that you will always see jagged edge on a 100% crop if the contrast is high - as in the posted crop. No one can help it because human eye can resolve pixels on the screen (that's why I put the numbers in). Yes - I can see the jagged edge there at 100% - and it is in RAW file too. It shouldn't be there - but this is no JPEG artifact. I will post 100% crop from RAW with all settings in neutral. The pic is quite possibly botched up - but I really want to get to the bottom of the real issue (focusing and possibly RAW conversion aside), not to start chasing non-existent issues. That's why I apprecciate a lot when people include a crop to illustrate, as only then we all can be sure what it is that we are talking about. So - I am not arguing, really
194
« on: February 07, 2008, 18:42 »
araminta and ale1969: this is exactly the kind of feedback I am looking for. Thanks a lot - one picture is worth a thousand words There is no question about the stem - something went wrong there - and I will track it down (I have to say here that I usually do not produce this kind of thingies...) Regarding the 600% crop posted by ale1969 - I will have a look at the RAW file - but I am afraid it looks the way it looks: even at 100% one has to see the jaggies: there is a lot of curvature and color change in that area - and the resolution of human eye is about 300 pixels/inch at a normal viewing distance of about 10" (or 6 to 8 lines per milimeter if you prefer). At 100% on the screen (which has 80 to 90 pixels per inch) you see it at least 3x magnified (depending on the resolution of the monitor) - which means that you have to see individual pixels. And with a sudden change in color - you will see jaggies. So - yes, it is quite possibly that these are the issues flagged by the reviewer, and if this is so - I think I know how to deal with it. Whether or not they should be described as "artifacts" is another story - but it is quite acceptable to me that they should not be there - and I think this can be achieved by different lighting or slight change of angle. The stem - it is a cockup though, no questions asked. The only saving grace is that I printed it 10"x8" and it does not look too bad, really The whole point of this thread was to find out exactly what and where the "artifacts" are, so I can deal with the issue - so thanks again for your help. "Overfiltering" is another favourite of the reviewers - and I have an example where overfiltering was quoted as a reason for rejection - while the image was a straight conversion from RAW (all settings in neutral), plus 250% unsharp mask with 0.4 pixel radius - so sometimes I have difficulties with accepting things at a face value. So - I will check the RAW and will re-shoot the glass to see what can be improved and to what degree the arifacts are really artifacts (not questioning the fact that whatever they are, they should not be there).
195
« on: February 07, 2008, 16:58 »
ale 1969: thesentinel may well be right - and you may be right: so, for God's sake, please just take a crop from the image and show which area exactly contains jaggies. Here is where you can download GViewer to do that in about 10 seconds: www.freedownloadscenter.com/Multimedia_and_Graphics/Graphics_Viewers
196
« on: February 07, 2008, 16:43 »
thesentinel: please cut a 100% sample from the image and put a red arrow on it. Good diagnosis is half of the cure - and I am not going to follow something i know is not there - unless you are able to point it more precisely than this (it is possible that I really can't see it: so be so kind and show it to me).
197
« on: February 07, 2008, 16:20 »
Araminta: Thanks for actually posting something which addresses the main issue. I do not think these are JPEG artifacts – I saved with highest available quality. I agree with the stem – it is out of focus (more about it later). The remaining red arrows – nothing to do with JPEG (or other) artifacts – also more about it later. Now, to summarize: 1) Thanks to all for looking at the image, for the kind words and for the critique. It really helped – and focused my attention on things which I probably was too eager to overlook. 2) I do not think that the image has too many artifacts – if any, but most definitely it has issues, and in the end I think that I have botched this one up rather badly. The final result is not what it could be – and “artifacts” is a convenient scapegoat here. I put this vase on the table, plyed with lighting – and most of people refer to as “artifacts” are actually there – mostly internal reflections and distortions due to rapidly changing thickness. 3) So – what is really wrong with the picture ? -choice of subject: the glass changes thickness from about 1/8” to 1”. This produces a lot of internal reflections and distortions (some of those Araminta referred to). It could work with different lighting, though. -no sharp edges in the glass – so it may look worse than it really looks -lighting: no shadow/contrast, which produces very plain looking image -no MLU: 1/10 to 1/15 of shutter speed, so MLU should be there: I inspected RAW file – and sure, there is a indication of lens shake (the camera was on a tripod with cable release) -focus: the stem out of focus, the centre of the flower not in focus, and the glass – well there is nothing there to really focus on, is there ?. I should have checked it better. I have an explanation (not an excuse, mind it): I have to change my glasses 3-4 times a day to follow the changes in blood sugar level. But, having said that – I obviously haven’t looked close enough, and since only minimal processing was applied…the rest is history. I usually do not screw up focusing to that extent. 4) Was iStock reviewer correct in this case? Yes, as much as I don’t like admitting that. It still does not explain why NONE of my images found acceptance – although I like my images processed rather heavily at times – and iStock does not. Still, these are their rules – after all it is ME trying to get accepted at THEIR site – so I have no argument here. All in all – I think that: a) it is quite a constructive discussion b) it focused me in the right direction c) I can and I will do better (for starters, I will re-shoot this image, to stop people from further dissing the camera, which was an innocent participant here
198
« on: February 07, 2008, 04:57 »
Hatman12: also - one or rather two things I want to add: First - thanks for the kind word regarding my other pics. It is true, I tend to take some liberties  with my photos - which is obviously a bad habit where stock images are concerned. Second - I said in the original post: "3) They may actually be right – which is why I am posting this. Maybe someone more experienced and critical than me can give me some feedback ?" From this perspective - the really helpful thing would be a 100% from the image and a comment clearly indicating "This is something which should not be there"...
199
« on: February 07, 2008, 04:27 »
Well - I wouldn't call it "appallingly" bad - but following the discussion, I think that I can see at least some of the shortcomings. The biggest was probably the light, which was (intentionally) set up to provide basically shadow-less and reflection-less lighting, which in turn produced very flat image. Following that - I still need to figure out what some default settings in CS3 RAW converter really do. As I said before - until this happens, I am back to RAWShooter.
My problem is not so much with defects at 100% or 200% magnification - but rather with the fact that that none of the 15 (so far) images submitted at iStock was accepted - while all these pics have been accepted and sell on other sites. To me it is a bit puzzling - particularly that (as also said before) no one ever uses the pic at 100%, nor even at 50% magnification.
Having said that - I accept the fact that it is not my place to argue reason, but rather learn the rules of the game and play by them.
Which I am going to do.
Regarding the use of my camera - I also think that part of the problem could be not using MLU, since the pic was shot at 1/10 sec or so - that is at shutter speed where mirror lockup should be used. I usually remember about this - but,alas, not this time...
Anyway, I will shoot this setup (with some mods) again in a day or two and submit the results. I may not terribly like what most of you guys are saying - but I am listening.
200
« on: February 07, 2008, 03:08 »
No problem. Thanks everyone for contribution and explanations - there is a lot of sense in what has been said - from my perspective it is simple: I will just need to lift my game a notch.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
