Some degree of noise is totally acceptable if it fits the image and the base image is large enough - at 21 megapixels from the 5DII, I wouldn't consider the noise in the sky a big problem. Question is why is the image shown here so small? Too much cropping?

The images on the site are around 9-10 mega pixels so I cropped them to around half size, but they aren't reduced or downsampled.

Steve

Thanks for the comments - I did check the metadata - these were taken at ISO 500 because I was handholding a 70-200 with extension tubes. I wish they had rejected them for noise - I know how to handle that - the artifacts rejection (which includes a lot of detail about compression artifacts) confused me a lot.

Steve

Wow - as the originator of this thread, this has covered a lot of ground. I carried on doing my own research and finally decided to buy the ColorEyes Display Pro software to go with my EyeOne calibrator and spent last night calibrating both my monitors. Before I started, one monitor was quite dark (I had set it at 90 cd/m2 in the past and I noticed some deep red blocking in fall foliage pictures) and the other was bright. The software is a bit complex but gives lots of information on the screen about what they are looking for and it supports multiple monitors with a different profile for each. I decided to up the luminance a bit to 110 cd/m2 and I'm happier with that for on-screen editing.

At the end, I have two monitors where the photos look great. If I have an image in Lightroom on one and Photoshop on the other, the images are visually identical, and my "blocking" problem has gone.

I've been getting a few rejections from IS for "artifacts at full size", and hopefully I will be able to see those now...

Thanks for all your comments - I'm sure someone will say that stock photography will never pay for a $175 piece of software, but I think it will be a good investment!

Steve

I've read quite a few articles about the importance of calibrating the monitor, and particularly in reducing the brightness of LCD monitors down to 90 cd/m2 in order to avoid dark looking prints from the image. I have used ColorEyes Display Pro to get to that level, and it certainly is darker that you would normally expect a monitor to be.

My question - does the group use monitors calibrated down to this lower level of brightness (which I am sure is correct for printing), or a more "middle ground" brightness because most of the buyers will be using monitors calibrated for a higher brightness level, or do you think it doesn't matter as long as the colors are right!

Steve

I personally find them frustrating and I get high rejection rates - usually for "quality of the photograph". I have around 350 images active on most of the sites, 255 on iStock because of their restricted upload process, and just 165 on Fotolia, and I think I got most of those in the initial months. I must be doing something they don't like!

Steve

http://www.backyardsilver.com

I have a slightly different issue which an email to Veer support hasn't solved. How can you edit keywords for approved images?

I have a whole lot of Snapvillage images where the original keywords were mangled in the import and so I have a picture of the Dubai Marina that no longer contains the word Dubai in the keywords. No wonder it can't be found!

Anyone know how to edit an approved photo?

Steve

Quote from: steheap on July 27, 2009, 12:04

Brian

I was one of the contributors to SV whose images were transferred. I checked the site today and I see all my approved photos, but there are no descriptions against any of them. I remember a much earlier post saying that would be corrected. Is that still the case, or do I have to enter new descriptions.

Also, the keywords are just a subset of what we originally present - do I need to do anything about that?

Steve

Hi steheap -

I'll double-check on this - it's possible the system is still processing this info.

Just so I'm clear: do you mean that they are not showing up on your Dashboard -> Approved?   
Have you also checked to see if the descriptions are showing up on the detail pages as well? 

If you have a chance - let me know - that will help us sort this out.

See example on this page for a description on a detail page:  description is visible beneath the title and name:
http://marketplace.veer.com/images/1488046_Protection


- Brian

Brian - I'm sorry if I am being stupid here, but I can't see any way to get to a detail page. Clicking on the image in my approved list just shows the name of the photo in a pop-up box, and I have failed to find any of my photos using the search tools. How would I find an image with the SKU 1414518 ?

Steve

I had a great surprise flying with United last month - the Hemispheres Magazine that is behind each seat had an article about Washington DC, and on the main index page - page 7, was my photo of the Jefferson Memorial surrounded by Cherry Blossom. You can see it in the on-line version of the magazine http://www.ink-live.com/hemi/2009/mar/ although the actual photo is:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5744322

It shows Copyright Getty Images so I assume it was picked up off iStockPhoto. I probably got $3!!

Steve
http://www.backyardsilver.com

Dreamstime

I still have an issue with Dreamstime - it is correctly picking up the monthly total, but it is showing the monthly statistics (total amount earned and downloads) for September 2008 - instead of December.

Anyone else see that issue?

Steve

This is a very interesting thread and taught me a lot! Thanks.

I'm new to the Forum, and apologize if this has been answered before, but it appears to be relevant to the topic. What is the relationship between the categorization that many stock sites require and success in having a photo appear in a search? The selection of the various categories (which are all different from site to site) is one of the most time consuming part of this business.

Steve