Author Topic: Inspection process itself? (Read 6643 times)

cshack · « **on:** April 13, 2008, 07:20 »

I was wondering if anyone knows the image approval process form a technical standpoint? In other words, what software do they use to view the images? Are they looking at them at 100% or is the inspection at 200% or greater? I guess I’d like to know the process itself. How they do it form step one to finish. This way I could try to save myself some grief by pre-inspecting my images as they do rather than how I do it now.

We all know what they are looking for to reject but the bottom line is HOW they do it step by step?

Thanks

rjmiz · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2008, 07:53 »

You have all the tools and equipment that the reviewers have when they scrutinize your images.

There is no special software, just a default, or installed graphics viewer, monitor, keyboard, and pointing device.
There should be no reason for the reviewer to view your image at more than 100%. Any further magnafication
above 100% is counter productive, as you are sure to find noise, artifacts, etc above 100%

Reviewers in a perfect world, would have their monitors calibrated, (and frequently) to ensure concise and accurate color.
"We all know what they are looking for to reject but the bottom line is HOW they do it step by step?"
Just like you do at your own computer! Reviewing is extremely "Subjective", although there are specific guidelines
they are all asked to follow. Some are site specific. An example would be "No text in the image".

After you have been around a while, you will develop a feel, and know how for what each site requires for acceptance.
There are no tricks, or secrets to submitting if you follow the general guidelines as with any image:

In focus
good subject matter
good composition
good color
free of artifacts, noise, and trademarks, and copyrights
Model releases where required

If you remember the above, you are submitting an image that has already passed 75% acceptance.
The other 25% depends on the reviewers mood, and their opinion as to whether the image is stock worthy.

Good luck.
The MIZ

hospitalera · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2008, 08:14 »

I agree with Robert completely, and yes, 100% is the largest we look at ;-) SY

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2008, 09:22 »

agreed RJ,
but then again..
good composition
good color
if you look at some of the featured photos, that too is HIGHLY subjective.

some looked extremely OVER-PROCESSED
and off focus and even over blase

one sometimes wonder how these were even selected.
eg. one judge even selected a squirrel as BEST PHOTO?

vikavalter · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2008, 12:39 »

Quote from: JSL on April 13, 2008, 09:22

agreed RJ,
but then again..
good composition
good color
if you look at some of the featured photos, that too is HIGHLY subjective.

some looked extremely OVER-PROCESSED
and off focus and even over blase

one sometimes wonder how these were even selected.
eg. one judge even selected a squirrel as BEST PHOTO?

i liked the squirrel
finally something more natural but still well lit in microstock, we need to get easy on all the smiling orange people and get more of the natural but still well done shots

vikavalter · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2008, 12:48 »

im strictly told to look at the images I process for a serious comercial photography studio only at 50%
but on other hand we all know that there won't be noise or focus issues at 100% in those shots
still I suspect some reviewers do go furher and zoom at 200 and so, I's sure they do so at Istock, god forbid if there will be "made in ....(not visble ending)" on the tiny coffee mug, that isn't even the main part of the shot itself. And they've got to zoom larger than 100 to spot that.

Graffoto · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2008, 16:05 »

Quote from: vikavalter on April 13, 2008, 12:48

I'm strictly told to look at the images I process for a serious commercial photography studio only at 50%
but on other hand we all know that there won't be noise or focus issues at 100% in those shots
still I suspect some reviewers do go furher and zoom at 200 and so, I's sure they do so at Istock, god forbid if there will be "made in ....(not visible ending)" on the tiny coffee mug, that isn't even the main part of the shot itself. And they've got to zoom larger than 100 to spot that.

Yup, I agree. For certain the IS reviewers sometimes are looking at over 100%
I am also positive that some of their 'artifacts' comments are found by looking at 200% or even 300%.

Too bad there is no way for the site admins to lock down the reviewer's software to make going above 100% an impossibility.

rjmiz · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2008, 16:37 »

The controversy over reviewers looking at images over 100% intrigues me.
The statement by nosaya "I am also positive that some of their 'artifacts' comments are found by looking at 200% or even 300%.."
I am not aware of how he/she is positive, but this alarms me, and I need to know the reason why THEY do this!
What is the motive and reasoning is behind such a practice?

If anyone has a logical answer it would be worth me listening to it.

The MIZ

Susan S. · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2008, 18:35 »

I'm not an inspector and I only submit to istock

When I started out I needed to look at 200 per cent for everything. Once I had spotted an issue at 200 per cent, I found that it was often visible, now I knew what I was looking for and where it was, even at lower magnifications. These days, with a callibrated monitor and more practice, I can see problems if they are there at 100 per cent. A callibrated monitor makes a huge difference in seeing artifacts - if you have a monitor that blocks up the shadow areas then it can be much harder to see issues at 100 per cent.
But I do still check the edges of the images taken with my wide angle lens at 200 per cent, as there is more likely to be chromatic aberrations in those areas and it's easy for me to miss it at 100 per cent - my close in vision is deteriorating rapidly, and even with glasses I don't see a clearly as I once did (the curse of getting old!). The only istock rejection for artifacts I've had in the last eighteen month has been for a chromatic aberration that I missed on the edge of an image. All my other rejections have been for lighting - I like images darker than istock does. ( I'm not a volume uploader though).

Graffoto · « **Reply #9 on:** April 14, 2008, 01:54 »

The reason I am positive is that I have had a couple of rejections for artifacts where IS included a snippet of the suspect area.

Yup, in the model's hair was some color bleed from the blue background i was using.
But the snippet they sent was at 200% (I guess to make sure that I saw it?).

I looked at the image at 100% and made certain I was wearing the 150 glasses that I use when doing post (I only need 125 to read normal text).
I could not see the 'artifacts' at 100%.
SS, FT, SE, DT all accepted the same image!

As an aside. I used to grade diamonds (So I was a diamond 'inspector).
Even though 'rejections' if you will, were to be done at 10X magnification. The need to process a large number of stones and make sure that nothing received a better grade that it deserved, made pushing the scope up to 15X or 20X magnification to find the imperfections almost a necessity.

The IS inspectors are dong the same thing.