VB has rejected a video of mine for 'poor post production.' The comments (presumably left by the reviewer) says that the footage is too short. What does post production quality have anything to do with the length of a video?? And I don't see any issues with the quality of the post production - the same clip was accepted by all the other stock sites that I submitted it to.

And I'm puzzled as to why it's considered too short. It's 10 seconds in length which is the same duration as some other clips that were previously accepted by VB. I can't see any minimum duration mentioned on the site's requirements for footage (only the maximum which is 3 minutes.)

Weird. I'll submit the video again and hope for the best.

Is it just me or are other people having trouble accessing the SS forums? I can access my dashboard just fine.

And now Ive just received another e-mail from Dreamstime. This one is requesting a P-EL license for the very same image. Seems odd that someone would want both a print license and a web license for the same photo. I thought it would usually be one or the other (assuming it's the same client.)

Okay....may as well enable these options and see what happens. Is anyone else getting these kinds of e-mails currently?

I cover the camera mic with duct tape to prevent sound from coming in.

What's the point of doing that? It's dead easy to remove the audio track in just about any NLE software.

This caught me by surprise. This is the first time this sort of thing has happened on DT for me.

Hopefully, some time this century.

I presume it would be an extra bonus to potential customers to know that the file is really high-definition

'High definition' is a term commonly associated with video. If a photo file was considered 'high definition, it would actually have very low resolution (1920 x 1080) - barely enough for a postcard-sized print.

However, Kodak once manufactured a 35mm film called 'high definition.'

I havent seen or heard of a single technical rejection of any image for a long time

Just recently, I actually got an exposure rejection on SS. I couldn't believe my eyes!

Nothing in the least unusual about that.  I have many hundreds of photos that were rejected on SS that are being sold on other sites.  And others that were accepted by SS but rejected by other sites.

Exactly. That's been my experience too with photos agencies in general - with regards to photos.

It happens.  Just move on to the next media and don't waste time on it.

Agreed.

However, if you do post the video here and ask for feedback on why it was rejected, don't get all defensive about it. 

I don't recall me being defensive. Some have passed judgement on my clip and they are free to express their opinion. I can see their point. I openly admitted previously that there are some flaws with this clip and once again, I'll say that I'm not 100% happy with it. Though there are also some aspects of the video that I like. There's a lot of subjectivity involved. 

If you can't take honest criticism of your work, then you shouldn't post it

If some poor soul couldn't, yea I would agree. Though for me, I have no problem with the criticism. Though I notice some people seem to get upset when I use logic.

As is, you are getting awfully close to being blocked, as I really don't want to waste my time trying to help someone who has no interest in actually listening.

I think this is where some confusion got thrown into the mix. Initially, you suggested the use of post production software when I was discussing a shooting technique that has worked well for me in previous time lapse sunsets. In other words, what I did during shooting was deliberate to obtain a particular effect and post production software wasn't really necessary to alter the effect. After all, it's all done in camera. Though I'm sure that LR Time Lapse is great software regardless and would be a powerful and versatile tool to have. I do admit though that the effect I was going for (the fade out) wasn't overly effective in this particular clip. I'm happy with the beginning but it gets dark way too quickly and it's not a complete fade out also. Woops!

However, there was another sunset time lapse I did a few years ago in which I used the same technique and I showed it to another individual and she really liked it. And she commented that she liked the darkening at the end. To her, it was like it was day turning to night. Though with that video, it remained decently well exposed for a longer time before the darkening / fade out.

You can "shoot for yourself" or "shoot for the market."

It can work both ways. There have been videos that Ive shot for myself that have sold on SS. There was also a video that I shot specifically for stock that sold through SS.

You say "we will let the buyer decide" but no you won't -- the reviewer decides what the buyer will see.

And thanks to the reviewers, this video is currently available on two stock agencies (and is also being reviewed on a third.) Actually, it used to be on three stock agencies - when AS previously had the copy with the non-genuine prores codec (which I already stated in my first post.)

Though to be honest, it's not a video that I'm 100% happy with. I'm not bragging about the artistry or integrity of this clip or anything like that. Yea it has it's faults. If a customer finds a use for it and buys it, good for them. If it doesn't sell, I'm not fussed.

The thing is that the camera cannot capture a "natural fade out", as we see it. Not without changing the exposure settings. Our eyes and brain adjust for the light, which means that an exposure adjustment as it gets darker will look more natural.

A natural fade out can be accomplished easily by setting the camera to a fixed exposure setting for sunsets. And Ive done just that very thing on previous time lapse sunsets. Obviously, this is not a complete fade out with this particular clip because I didn't allow the camera to shoot long enough for that. Yes, our eyes and brains adjust for light in real world scenarios but with photography, our exposure settings determine how dark or how light a captured scene will look which can be very different to what we saw with our own eyes initially. With the example of a sunset, the light intensity will gradually decrease over time. Hence the 'correct' exposure settings for a sunset at say 6.30pm will result in a darker image when taken several minutes later. And several minutes after that, the next exposed image will be even darker. Eventually, after more time has passed, we'll get a photo that is essentially black if the exposure settings remain unchanged.

However, on a scene like this, where there's a city with lights, it would look really nice WITH ramping, and would probably sell a whole lot more. Any buyer can fade to black if they want to, but they can't raise the exposure much on a compressed h264 file.

Ah the so called 'holy grail' of time lapse shots. I admit those day to night city TL clips look really amazing. Though with this particular clip, rather than a city, what we see is a few lights from a far away little town. And it's not really prominent within the frame. So it wasn't really my intention to do ramping here. My main focus was capturing the natural landscape - eg the silhouette of the headland on the left.

I like your clip, but it gets indeed very dark, I suppose you did not do any ramping.
From the P5 preview I cannot tell if there is noise in the shadows, but it is likely

Thanks. Though yea I do admit it gets dark pretty quickly. I doubt there would be much in the way of noise in the shadows because I didn't bump up the brightness in post. I basically left it as is.

And there is your problem...

There is no problem. I deliberately maintained a fixed exposure setting during shooting so that the sunset would transition to darkness, simulating a natural fade out. That's how I film all my time lapse sunsets.

Very good point. I can't link it from AS since it's been rejected there but here it is on Pond 5.

 - Edited -