Author Topic: Out of focus rejections on the rise? (Read 8785 times)

stokfoto · « **on:** July 24, 2009, 07:07 »

Hi,
It was long ago that I learned not to be too concerned about rejections and move on as it is a part of this business but the reason why opened that thread is that lately I have been getting rejections from SS for some of my images being out of focus,which is not true as all the files accepted everywhere else including IS. What I suspect is that may be some reviewers might be checking the focus accuracy by using a software(rather than viewing at %100) which I think could be very deceptive because for instance I use DPP (Canon's bundle software( to process my raw files )and there you have the option to check the AF point used for the picture.But this information isn't always accurate.because I use the closest AF point to focus my targeted focus area then I lock the AF by pressing the shutter release half way down then recompose and shoot. Let's say if I focused on the eyes but used the AF point that is closer to the ear ,and when checked on the software (like DPP)it will show the focus point on the hair ,which is misleading I think as it can only tell which AFpoint was used rather than where the focus actually is

I was wondering if you had similar experience.

PS: it can't be an optical quality issue as I am using L glasses on my 5d m2 and usually shoot on tripod

cathyslife · « **Reply #1 on:** July 24, 2009, 07:35 »

I got 2 rejections a week or so ago for being out of focus or focus not where they felt is should be. I went back and checked, and don't agree with them at all, but I just accept the rejections and move on.

One of those photos was accepted at 3 other places. That same photo was rejected at one place for artifacts. I've been shooting with my Canon Digital Rebel XT for 2 or 3 years now...I don't get artifacts. And if I did, I think I would recognize them by now. I am very diligent about scouring the photo at 100% for problems. The only thing I could see was that the waves in the ocean could be misconstrued as artifacts by a beginner.

These rejections were worrisome and for a moment I wondered if something had happened to my lens. I went on a trip and kept the camera in my computer bag as carry on luggage but the freakin airplanes are getting so small, i had to put the case in the overhead bin. I wondered if it got jostled around. I've checked a bunch of other photos and all look ok (other than obvious operator error!), so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Could be we're going through another phase of new inspector hirings. Or the software thing, like you mentioned. That would certainly explain some of these rejections. I can see where inspectors would try using software to cut their workload down, given the millions of photos that are being uploaded now.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** July 24, 2009, 08:29 »

Or maybe the focus actually is soft. It's hard to commiserate without seeing a full size sample.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:32 »

I find most micro reviewers either don't like selective focus or don't understand it. Whatever it is they do like to reject images with it.

stokfoto · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2009, 09:59 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 24, 2009, 08:29

Or maybe the focus actually is soft. It's hard to commiserate without seeing a full size sample.

Thank you very much for your reply.Sure,you are right without seeing the images you can't really judge if the images were properly focused or sharp enough.but sorry ,since I'd like to keep my ID anonymous here I can not post them.
To my eyes there are no problem with them and as IS and all others approved the images there could't have been any focusing or other issue with the images.

and Zeus,Thank you very much for your reply too. I know selective focus isn't really the most popular among stock agencies so I almost never shoot with a wide open aperture and stick around f11 if not higher depends on my focal length and distance from the subject.

once again thank you all for your time and answering

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2009, 11:11 »

I haven't had any problems lately but I downsize and sharpen a bit if a photo looks slightly soft. They sometimes reject a sharp photo when the background is deliberately out of focus. I think sometimes the reviewer just sees a small part of the image out of focus and rejects it.

Why not upload again and ask for a second opinion? I occasionally do that if I think the reviewer has made a mistake.

Squat · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2009, 12:03 »

Quote from: stokfoto on July 24, 2009, 09:59

...

...I almost never shoot with a wide open aperture and stick around f11 if not higher depends on my focal length and distance from the subject...

Why , may I ask, f 11?
If you are looking to shoot at the sweet spot, stopping down to f11 is not always the sweet spot.
Usually it is 3 to stops from wide open. You should check test reports or do your own test to find the sweet spot.

Hope you don't mind my asking and suggestion.

melastmohican · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2009, 12:26 »

I stopped looking at rejection reason because most of the time they just use canned response which is closest to real reason, e.g "image is either underexposed, overexposed or white balance is incorrect". If I waste my time for fixing and resubmitting got 30% chance to get it right :-) And speaking about "out of focus" rejection it could be that reviewer forgot glasses that day :-) I better spend time doing something productive than trying to figure out what happened.

louoates · « **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2009, 12:40 »

I got so tired of getting that "focus isn't where we think it should be..." nonsense I started shooting many of my closeup desktop shots with Helicon Focus software, using 30 to 50 exposures each so that EVERY freakin' inch of the image is in absolutely sharp focus all the time. Hey, it worked.

That rejection is almost as bad as the "improper white point" one, especially when the white point is dead on. Most of those rejections seem to be shots in full Arizona sunlight. My conclusion was that those reviewers can't handle "real" sun, only the light with which they are accustomed to where they live that is magnitudes less intense.

But like most experienced stock shooters I just shake my head, occasionally spout off here, and move on the the next shot.

melastmohican · « **Reply #9 on:** July 24, 2009, 12:46 »

Maybe programmers changed order of rejection reasons so this one is now closer to the top???

louoates · « **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2009, 13:06 »

Quote from: melastmohican on July 24, 2009, 12:46

Maybe programmers changed order of rejection reasons so this one is now closer to the top???

That is just too logical. Why didn't I think of that?

I suggest this one-size-fits-all rejection-that-we-could-all-understand instead:

I kinda thought that, you know, somethin' just don't look right with this one. Can't quite put my finger on it right (gulp) now but if it pops into my remembrance (pour) I'll maybe look at the image again (gulp) when I manage to roll out of bed tomorrow and be able to read my rejection quota.

stokfoto · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2009, 13:09 »

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 24, 2009, 12:03

Quote from: stokfoto on July 24, 2009, 09:59
...

...I almost never shoot with a wide open aperture and stick around f11 if not higher depends on my focal length and distance from the subject...

Why , may I ask, f 11?
If you are looking to shoot at the sweet spot, stopping down to f11 is not always the sweet spot.
Usually it is 3 to stops from wide open. You should check test reports or do your own test to find the sweet spot.

Hope you don't mind my asking and suggestion.

Hi, Thank you for your suggestion. I know what you mean and it may be true but reason why I shoot with narrow aperture values is that, from my experience the wider depth of filed you have is the better(or much preferred for stock photography) I know there are always exceptions but having images rejected for 'too shallow DOF" in the past I try to be on the safe side even though I know after a point narrow aperture values (after f16 I think) will degrade the lenses performance.

melastmohican · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2009, 13:09 »

I think we have to image how reviewer work looks like:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CReDRHDYhk8[/youtube]

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2009, 13:12 »

I selectively focus everytime at 2.8 and have no problems focus rejections.

melastmohican · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2009, 13:16 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 24, 2009, 13:12

I selectively focus everytime at 2.8 and have no problems focus rejections.

You are not on Shutterstock :-)

louoates · « **Reply #15 on:** July 24, 2009, 13:20 »

Quote from: melastmohican on July 24, 2009, 13:09

I think we have to image how reviewer work looks like:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CReDRHDYhk8[/youtube]

See? I knew there was a better way to treat reviewers.

cathyslife · « **Reply #16 on:** July 24, 2009, 20:38 »

I kinda thought that, you know, somethin' just don't look right with this one. Can't quite put my finger on it right (gulp) now but if it pops into my remembrance (pour) I'll maybe look at the image again (gulp) when I manage to roll out of bed tomorrow and be able to read my rejection quota.

I like it! I totally understand the reason here!

cathyslife · « **Reply #17 on:** July 24, 2009, 20:40 »

I think we have to image how reviewer work looks like:

Oh my gosh, that is too funny!

shutterdrop · « **Reply #18 on:** July 24, 2009, 21:01 »

I like wide-angle shots. The reviewer then states the focus is not were it should be. With a wide-angle lens everything from 2 feet to infinite is in focus.

I reason to believe we have an reviewer malfunction!

rinderart · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2009, 15:30 »

Don't think rejections are on the rise, But I do think theres a gazillion new submitters in the last 3/5 months that don't know how to use there cameras.

vonkara · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2009, 16:38 »

Quote from: rinderart on July 26, 2009, 15:30

Don't think rejections are on the rise, But I do think theres a gazillion new submitters in the last 3/5 months that don't know how to use there cameras.

Either don't know how to use or just use bottle bottom kind of lenses

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Out of focus rejections on the rise? (Read 8785 times)

stokfoto

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

PeterChigmaroff

stokfoto

sharpshot

Squat

melastmohican

louoates

melastmohican

louoates

stokfoto

melastmohican

Sean Locke Photography

melastmohican

louoates

cathyslife

cathyslife

shutterdrop

rinderart

vonkara

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors