| Author |
Message |
canonguy
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 45
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:46 pm
|  |
Just a comment about the review process. It seems that reviews are inconsitent. Maybe the review policy is so strict it can't readily apply to every type of image. Anyway I have had a bunch of images rejected for upsize/grain/ things like that. Well, these pics were taken with a 20D and ISO 200. Processed out the background in PS, but that's it. So I know for sure that grain is not a problem and they have not been upsized. They are full 8.2 MP jpegs at max quality. So, I don't get it. Plus, others from the same batch were accepted.
Also I have a bunch of other pics that were more... "artsy". Pics of martini and wine glasses where I intentionall kept a shallow depth of field to give that short focus, kind of drunk feeling. Again rejected for "poor focus/ composition/ " etc. Maybe I needed to explain this in the notes.
Anyway, these particular pics have been accepted elsewhere. So what should I do?
Resubmit and hope for a different reviewer.
Resubmit with detailed notes.
Lanquish in my own sense of rejection.
|
|
reviewer
Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 1627
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:48 pm
| |
post in Critque at regular size and a shot of a portion at full size.
|
|
fspence
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 60
Location: Midwest, USA
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:25 pm
| |
I've had the same problems, and given a warning about upsizing, and this hasn't been true. A few of my shots were also accepted on various different sites. Maybe I'm not understanding or missing something? I'm wondering if I should submit anymore b/c was told if any more shots were upsized, would lose my account. It might be easier to just leave my shots here and concentrate elsewhere?
While I have cropped a corner off the rare time, most of these photos that were supposedly upsized, were submitted at full size. I don't understand. Any advice would be appreciated.
Fara
| canonguy wrote: | Just a comment about the review process. It seems that reviews are inconsitent. Maybe the review policy is so strict it can't readily apply to every type of image. Anyway I have had a bunch of images rejected for upsize/grain/ things like that. Well, these pics were taken with a 20D and ISO 200. Processed out the background in PS, but that's it. So I know for sure that grain is not a problem and they have not been upsized. They are full 8.2 MP jpegs at max quality. So, I don't get it. Plus, others from the same batch were accepted.
Also I have a bunch of other pics that were more... "artsy". Pics of martini and wine glasses where I intentionall kept a shallow depth of field to give that short focus, kind of drunk feeling. Again rejected for "poor focus/ composition/ " etc. Maybe I needed to explain this in the notes.
Anyway, these particular pics have been accepted elsewhere. So what should I do?
Resubmit and hope for a different reviewer.
Resubmit with detailed notes.
Lanquish in my own sense of rejection. |
|
|
reviewer
Admin
Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Posts: 1627
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:29 pm
| |
Basically, if we view the image at full size and can see hazing, "dots" or pixilization, or blur, the image will not be accepted. You must look at your shots at FULL size to make sure they are still clear.
|
|
canonguy
Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 45
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:02 pm
| |
| reviewer wrote: | | Basically, if we view the image at full size and can see hazing, "dots" or pixilization, or blur, the image will not be accepted. You must look at your shots at FULL size to make sure they are still clear. |
However, you must be sure not to confuse blur with depth of field. I make sure to review all my pics at full size before final processing. I especially check the out of focus areas (because of of DOF) to ensure that does not happen. Abberations will show more in areas with boceh rather than areas with sharp detail.
My concern is two fold.
If you look at other sites like Getty, IS, etc. you can see the wide array of artistic talent in their stock base. Not every one of their stock pictures fits a mold of sharpness, composition, etc., but they are damn good pictures. I would just hate to see that SS miss out on some of that variety and end up with 500,000 photos with little variation for publishers and designers to pull from.
Also, as a photographer, I spend lots of time checking my photos for issues. I have invested in the best equipment and software to produce the best images I possibly can (and I practice to get better every day) When one of my pics is reviewed and passed off with Upsized/Grain/ etc. when I know that can not be the case, it's frustrating. I better not get a "warning" about upsizing pics. I'll be really upset :)
Anyway, I know the reviewer is human and acting based on an interpretation on a set of instructions. I am questioning the process, not the people.
I'll post examples of my rejected pics later.
Thanks!
|
|
StuartE
Joined: 28 Nov 2004
Posts: 1606
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:11 pm
| |
| canonguy wrote: | Just a comment about the review process. It seems that reviews are inconsitent. Maybe the review policy is so strict it can't readily apply to every type of image. Anyway I have had a bunch of images rejected for upsize/grain/ things like that. Well, these pics were taken with a 20D and ISO 200. Processed out the background in PS, but that's it. So I know for sure that grain is not a problem and they have not been upsized. They are full 8.2 MP jpegs at max quality. So, I don't get it. Plus, others from the same batch were accepted.
Also I have a bunch of other pics that were more... "artsy". Pics of martini and wine glasses where I intentionall kept a shallow depth of field to give that short focus, kind of drunk feeling. Again rejected for "poor focus/ composition/ " etc. Maybe I needed to explain this in the notes.
Anyway, these particular pics have been accepted elsewhere. So what should I do?
Resubmit and hope for a different reviewer.
Resubmit with detailed notes.
Lanquish in my own sense of rejection. |
Show a section of the image at 100% - I knew that my images didn't have noise, too, because I was complacent in the quality from the 10D - however, there was noise in some shadow areas - any underexposed sections can generate noise, and that'll be right where people look - so it pays to do a double check and a clean, if there is any doubt...
Submitting with notes is valid - and has helped some things get accepted for me... and plenty of things rejected here have been accepted elsewhere - it's a case of standards, quality over quantity, etc... If you're consistently getting rejections, something is wrong with the images, the reviewers aren't out to get you... :-)
Cheers,
Stuart
|
|
Forgiss
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 5107
Location: For videos of our shoots: https://vimeo.com/shootsimaging
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:42 am
| |
| Quote: | | Well, these pics were taken with a 20D and ISO 200 |
Were you shooting JPEG or RAW? I have improved noise issues on the 10D and now my 20D by shooting Raw (more latitude), next stop... post the images full size, if possible
|
|
Riger
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 524
Location: Dubai
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 9:03 am
| |
Apparently from an Inspector;
| Quote: | | Basically, if we view the image at full size and can see hazing, "dots" or pixilization, or blur, the image will not be accepted. You must look at your shots at FULL size to make sure they are still clear. |
Does this imply that even ISO grain is rejected? I was under the impression that some ISO grain was acceptable ?
|
|
StuartE
Joined: 28 Nov 2004
Posts: 1606
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 9:14 am
| |
ISO noise (grain) is most definitely a huge cause for rejection - wherever did you get the idea it was accepted?? If it's over 400 ISO on a Dslr, or say 100 ISO on a compact digital, chances are good it's going to need noise cleaning or will get tagged for noise/focus/upsize these days...
Cheers,
Stuart
|
|
jack lyric
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 12
|
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:34 pm
| |
i also received rejections along with acceptances which have already been selling pretty much on a daily basis with only a small portfolio.
my question is when you say view the image at 100% i think i did this to check for dust, spots, etc. i used my navigator set to 100%.
is that the correct technique or should i set view to "print size" to see the image properly for presubmission inspection?
using photoshop cs.
|
|
Forgiss
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 5107
Location: For videos of our shoots: https://vimeo.com/shootsimaging
|
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:38 pm
| |
Actually, you want to view it at "Actual Pixels" not print size.
That is where you will see the noise, grain, etc
|
|
jack lyric
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 12
|
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 5:19 pm
| |
i did as you say and it is actually 100% on the navigator so evidently your method and navigator @ 100% are the same.
now....what the heck should i be looking for? for all the super saleable images (if i say so meself) that were sent back to me, i had filtered all dust out at about a setting of 3 to 5 pixels on that filter.
once again, what should i look for in order to submit acceptable images and what the heck should i see at 100% other than scratches, dust, particles, etc. that would cause a rejecto?
thanks again all my fellow stockers
|
|
jack lyric
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 12
|
|
Forgiss
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 5107
Location: For videos of our shoots: https://vimeo.com/shootsimaging
|
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 5:42 pm
| |
What are you shooting on? that will give me a better idea...
Digital or film? what ISO and if digital what MP...
Also, can you paste a link to an an actual size image that was rejected?
|
|
jack lyric
Joined: 21 Apr 2005
Posts: 12
|
|
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:44 pm
| |
pre 3-04 it was film(slides..chromes)...post 3-04 it has been digi
also shooting 6 mp on a nikon d70
here is a sample of a reject...now this is intended to be a dreamy image
copyright was just added for this post.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
26.37 KB |
| Viewed: |
3102 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| |
|
Log in
