Author Topic: Artifacts at full size rejections at iStock (Read 25457 times)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #25 on:** December 22, 2009, 12:02 »

Quote from: steheap on December 22, 2009, 08:41

It makes me wonder if I have a problem with the camera! The shots were taken at ISO500 hand held using a 70-200 f4 lens with extenders. They are raw from the camera. I'll load the same files with no cropping and no "development" at all tonight - this is helping a lot, thanks.

Steve

You answered your own question.

In simple terms, the best way to make a great lens into an average lens is add a tele-extender.

What extender(s) are you using?

As others have asked, are these full frame or cropped from larger images?

Stu49 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 22, 2009, 12:09 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 21, 2009, 14:39

Quote from: steheap on December 21, 2009, 12:06
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.

Yes but for the end use it's important which size the user can start with. If you only upload 10 megapixels, any noisy pixel will make a bigger part of the image rather than in a 22 megapixel image. So an M size image derived from 22 megapixels will hide the noise much more than an M derived from 10 megapixels. I hope I made this clear, at least that's how the content team has explained things several times at iStockalypses.

But that only works if u want to keep the whole image ! he obviously didn't, as he's already reduced it by 50% !!

therfore 22 to M is not a viable issue, in this case !? If he wanted to keep the whole image he could have rezzed it down by 50%, which would have helped ;-)

steheap · « **Reply #27 on:** December 22, 2009, 12:17 »

Quote

Example: if I put a 1.4 extender on a f/5.6 400mm lens and have to tape the contacts to make it autofocus, the EXIF will show 400mm when it's really, 560mm. If it's a non-Canon extender, it may not be reading the data correctly.

What extender(s) are you using?

Sorry - I wasn't very clear - these are extension tubes rather than an extender. I was trying to focus down to about 12 inches or so by adding "air" between the lens and the body! No extra glass in the optic path.

The photos were full frame in the camera as Raw, and then cropped down to 3000 x 3000 (approx). No downsampling at all - just a simple crop to draw attention to the interesting piece of the picture.

I'm still struggling with what is an artifact though, as opposed to noise!

Steve

steheap · « **Reply #28 on:** December 23, 2009, 13:18 »

OK - I uploaded a full size, non-modified file direct from the original RAW. I converted to JPG to upload it, but used the maximum quality.

Anyone see the artifacts in this one?

Steve
http://backyardimage.smugmug.com/gallery/10708255_7cJAe#748180150_Evx4U

FD · « **Reply #29 on:** December 23, 2009, 13:48 »

Quote from: steheap on December 23, 2009, 13:18

Anyone see the artifacts in this one?

No. Just a very shallow DOF.

Opla · « **Reply #30 on:** December 23, 2009, 14:03 »

Quote from: Opla on December 20, 2009, 18:43

Only looked at the first one.
Lost of noise, plus a small dustbun near the right edge, 1/3 from the bottom.
Also, there is some strange streak on the left, not sure what that is.

So, the strange streak is where you cloned out the OOF branch.
Also, on the one you posted first there is white blob on the left edge, 1/4 from the bottom.
The dustbun, the streak and the blob are all artifacts.
I think I have read somewhere that iS calls noise artifacts too though, not sure about that.

cathyslife · « **Reply #31 on:** December 23, 2009, 14:20 »

Quote

I think I have read somewhere that iS calls noise artifacts too though, not sure about that.

In my experience, a few of the microstock sites use these terms interchangeably when rejecting photos.

danhowl · « **Reply #32 on:** March 21, 2010, 13:10 »

I have had a number of files rejected from iStock with the 'artifacting' message. Each of them were shot at 100 ISO w/o any post sharpening. The files were captured with either a Nikon D3X or a Leaf Aptus digital back. In every case where they were submitted to other sites the images were accepted like ie. Shutterstock and Dreamtime. In some cases, other files shot at the same time of the same subject were accepted by iStock.

It very much seems to me that the review process is inconsistent (at best) and that the 'artifacting' message is used when reviewers can't explain their decision.

stockastic · « **Reply #33 on:** March 21, 2010, 16:30 »

A lot of us have pulled a lot of hair over the "artifacting" thing at IS. Clearly, they are simply misusing the term and in many cases we don't know what, if anything, they are actually seeing that should not be there.

willie · « **Reply #34 on:** March 21, 2010, 17:04 »

we must not forget that it is not only IS reviewers who have xray eyes and see artifacts where we cannot see at 100%.
other sites have Clark Kent working for them too , lol.

then again, it may not be artifacts, but the reviewer having one too many martinis at breakfast. oops, i forgot, you cannot be an alcoholic and a reviewer at the same time

p.s.
i think that reviewer with IS who seems to enjoy rejections due to lens flare should stop placing his martini glass too close to the monitor screen. it's not lens flare dude/duda , it's your blooming martini glass casting a reflection on your screen

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #35 on:** March 22, 2010, 02:07 »

Most of the protested artifacting rejections, when posted in the IS Critique forums, do have artifacting, it's just that the poster can't seem them. If you're so convinced you're getting this rejection unfairly why not post images in the IS forums?

cathyslife · « **Reply #36 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:21 »

OLD THREAD ALERT!

But I will contribute anyway.

Quote

If you're so convinced you're getting this rejection unfairly why not post images in the IS forums?

I'm going to answer a question with a question. If 4 other sites accept your image, which would indicate there is no artifacting, why bother taking the time to do all of that? Clearly even artifacting is subjective amongst the micro sites. I have had images rejected by IS for artifacting and they attach the affected area and I still can't figure out what they are talking about. It just isn't worth my time to beat my head against the wall trying to figure it out when the image is up and selling on 4 other sites.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #37 on:** March 22, 2010, 07:30 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 21, 2010, 13:10

I have had a number of files rejected from iStock with the 'artifacting' message. Each of them were shot at 100 ISO w/o any post sharpening. The files were captured with either a Nikon D3X or a Leaf Aptus digital back. In every case where they were submitted to other sites the images were accepted like ie. Shutterstock and Dreamtime. In some cases, other files shot at the same time of the same subject were accepted by iStock.

It very much seems to me that the review process is inconsistent (at best) and that the 'artifacting' message is used when reviewers can't explain their decision.

I find the review process to be consistent. And the camera doesn't matter. A D3X will most likely only amplify whatever problems you're having.

I saw your IS post questioning artifacting on your World Trade Center picture. It's a great picture but it took me less than a second to see the smoke is loaded with artifacting.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #38 on:** March 22, 2010, 08:15 »

"why bother taking the time to do all of that? "

That is a point of view of course, but IS inspections standards are probably higher, and I have lost count of the number of images I've seen in the IS critique forums where an image has been rejected for artifacting, the poster swears there is none, and then fellow istockers point out that in fact there's loads of it. Just because an image is accepted elsewhere does not mean it's artifact free, just that the standards on other sites are lower. Just take a look at the imagery in general on those sites, they're poor relations to IS.

FD · « **Reply #39 on:** March 22, 2010, 08:16 »

iStock can think what it wants. I can think what I want too. They reject for artifacting and feathering, that's fine with me. I just created 2 actions in Photoshop especially for iStock = reduce to minimal size. That is 2MP. Since I never get downloads above medium, most at XS (an insulting 19-30 cents), it won't hurt me nor them. If they will reject Canon D5II 21MP 100 ISO downsized to 2MP shots for "artifacting", I'm just going to make fun at them. I'll probably reupload all my best sellers at 2MP, and see what they say.

For 19 depreciated dollarcents per download, they can go ...err...

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #40 on:** March 22, 2010, 08:18 »

beauty is in the eye of the beholder blah blah blah...
I've had pix rejected by SS for artifacting and then IS took them
I've had pix rejected by IS for artifacting and then SS took them....
DT, BigStock, etc...
what kicks me more is 'purple fringing'.... out of my 5D MkII... you can't see it at 100%... but if you push it to 200 or more... well well , there it is. ..only in super high contrast such as bright snow meets dark blue sky....
I'm not going off the deep end with this being Mr. Babyhead. I've had other photogs look at these pix too... and they agree. You cant see it... however, if you blow anything up enough, there is going to be an 'event horizon' where the colors are adulterized. ...
My question is... if ya can't see any problem at 100%, why is it a problem?

=tom

...in the long run, it's no biggie to me, I dont make my living on micros... they can take 'em or leave 'em. Funny thing is, I've never had any pic rejected by everyone.. one of the big four always take it.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #41 on:** March 22, 2010, 08:22 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 22, 2010, 08:16

................ I'll probably reupload ..................

that's been my argument for years... I dont know how many times I have waited a few weeks and reloaded the exact same file...... and it is accepted AND it sells.
There's no hardcore science in the review process... many times it's just a roll of the dice. Accepted/rejected. Perhaps I should say, there may be a science, however, you still have humans applying it. And, they are prone to error.

=tom

FD · « **Reply #42 on:** March 22, 2010, 08:50 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on March 22, 2010, 08:22

that's been my argument for years... I dont know how many times I have waited a few weeks and reloaded the exact same file...... and it is accepted AND it sells.

I prefer to play the game openly till the end. I just resubmitted the "feathering" rejects downsized from 21MP till 2MP. I want the original reviewer to lose his face. I also refeathered the originals up to 3px. Of course it destroys part of the image, but any interested buyers can still find it at DT and SS, full size. IS abuses the independents to subsidize its exclusives. For 20-30 depreciated dollars per month or much less than 10% of my microstock income, I don't care.

They are game.

cathyslife · « **Reply #43 on:** March 22, 2010, 09:29 »

Quote

Just because an image is accepted elsewhere does not mean it's artifact free, just that the standards on other sites are lower. Just take a look at the imagery in general on those sites, they're poor relations to IS.

No, the standards on other sites aren't any lower. I have seen plenty of garbage pass through the front page of IS, too. It's a matter of human subjectiveness and human error. And politics and other factors. If the standards on other sites were lower, I wouldn't be getting any rejections at all from them, but I do. And as mentioned above, rejections on images that IS accepted.

stockastic · « **Reply #44 on:** March 22, 2010, 10:06 »

IS is using a technical term - artifact - without referencing a proper definition. If they're talking about compression artifacts in a maximum quality JPG, they're simply wrong. If they mean banding, they should say "banding". If they mean color noise they should say "noise". If they think they're seeing cloning/erasing/retouching/saturation enhancement etc. that is too obvious, then they should send a clip instead of saying "too filtered". If they're rejecting an isolation as "too feathered" and no feathering was actually done, then maybe they're really talking about photographic techniques and lighting, and again the rejection makes no sense without a clip.

No photograph has ever been produced in which at least some participants on a web forum would not claim to find "noise". Just about every digital photo contains noise, because of the physical limitations of the sensor cells and associated electronics.

danhowl · « **Reply #45 on:** March 22, 2010, 11:15 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 22, 2010, 07:30

I find the review process to be consistent. And the camera doesn't matter. A D3X will most likely only amplify whatever problems you're having.

I saw your IS post questioning artifacting on your World Trade Center picture. It's a great picture but it took me less than a second to see the smoke is loaded with artifacting.

Unless you are suggesting that I faked the WTC picture more recently, it would be obvious that I am referring to different images captured with more contemporary equipment and workflow. Leaf Aptus was introduced in 06 and the D3X was introduced in late 08. If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it. It has been a number of files over several months.

willie · « **Reply #46 on:** March 22, 2010, 11:22 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on March 22, 2010, 08:22

Quote from: FD-amateur on March 22, 2010, 08:16
................ I'll probably reupload ..................

that's been my argument for years... I dont know how many times I have waited a few weeks and reloaded the exact same file...... and it is accepted AND it sells.
There's no hardcore science in the review process... many times it's just a roll of the dice. Accepted/rejected. Perhaps I should say, there may be a science, however, you still have humans applying it. And, they are prone to error. =tom

i agree.
how else do you explain when 3 images from the same shoot bearing the same studio lighting and post processing are approved , with a fourth being rejected . if the reason for it is "too similar", it's no doubt reasonable rejection. but when the reason is (choose one )..poor composition, no stock potential, not our ecstatic whatever..lol.. which is more usual with the other 3 never IS..
it has to be a rogue reviewer who just does like (choose one) your name, your port, his/her life, her/his face,etc..

but in this sense, i beg to differ with some of you who said that IS is inconsistent with their reviews. as for artifacts,etc.. i find IS reviewers the most consistent of the top 4.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #47 on:** March 22, 2010, 12:35 »

Quote from: danhowl on March 22, 2010, 11:15

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 22, 2010, 07:30
I find the review process to be consistent. And the camera doesn't matter. A D3X will most likely only amplify whatever problems you're having. I saw your IS post questioning artifacting on your World Trade Center picture. It's a great picture but it took me less than a second to see the smoke is loaded with artifacting.

Unless you are suggesting that I faked the WTC picture more recently, it would be obvious that I am referring to different images captured with more contemporary equipment and workflow. Leaf Aptus was introduced in 06 and the D3X was introduced in late 08. If it were only one or two files I wouldn't think twice about it. It has been a number of files over several months.

I'm not sure where you would get that I'm suggesting you faked the photo.

What I'm getting at is you submitted a photo loaded with artifacts and that you couldn't understand why it got rejected. A D1X should be perfectly capable of excellent quality.

So you either are not seeing the artifacts, don't know what artifacts are, or, and here's my guess, you fall into the "pro" category (been doing this for years, have expensive equipment, etc) and don't agree with their standards. And instead of trying to meet or exceed the standards would rather argue and dispute them.

A D3X is capable of amazing image quality. If you’re still having artifacting issues then something during your shooting (e.g. underexposure), workflow (e.g. RAW conversion), or expectations (e.g. out of camera JPEG should automatically lack artifacting) are a bit off.

willie · « **Reply #48 on:** March 22, 2010, 13:50 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on March 22, 2010, 12:35

A D3X is capable of amazing image quality. If you’re still having artifacting issues then something during your shooting (e.g. underexposure), workflow (e.g. RAW conversion), or expectations (e.g. out of camera JPEG should automatically lack artifacting) are a bit off.

agree . many times even with the best camera, the result can less than "pro".. i suspect from poor exposure , higher ISO, wrong glass, zoom lens poor quality vs prime lesn,post processing, etc.

lagereek · « **Reply #49 on:** March 31, 2010, 10:48 »

I wouldnt worry too much about a certain degree of artifacting, often the camera-settings is the culprit.

"overfiltering" is a much funnier comment, which really means, " havent a clue of whats wrong with this file, but its gotta be wrong"

best.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Artifacts at full size rejections at iStock (Read 25457 times)

RacePhoto

Stu49

steheap

steheap

FD

Opla

cathyslife

danhowl

stockastic

willie

vlad_the_imp

cathyslife

PaulieWalnuts

vlad_the_imp

FD

a.k.a.-tom

a.k.a.-tom

FD

cathyslife

stockastic

danhowl

willie

PaulieWalnuts

willie

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors