Author Topic: I just cancelled my exclusivity (Read 13626 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #25 on:** May 15, 2011, 19:10 »

Exactly. I can count numerous newbs on IS who go 'I only used the crop tool, why did it updample?'.

Noodles · « **Reply #26 on:** May 15, 2011, 19:31 »

Quote from: volk65 on May 15, 2011, 09:51

Quote from: cclapper on May 15, 2011, 07:21

I personally don't think it wise to go exclusive at any site, but regarding your images...
if you are submitting a bunch with only slight camera angles or minor changes, I can see why some might get rejected. If you have 10 images with only MINOR changes, you should choose the best one or two and only submit them. Before others jump in and start talking about similars being helpful for the designer, I agree, but the keyword you are mentioning is MINOR. If by different angle you mean front view, side view, back view, top view, etc., meaning totally different angles, then I share your disgust with the rejections, assuming all other technical aspects of the image are correct.

As far as your question "But let's assume it is true, so how the other two were accepted?"...you might as well not even worry about the answer. It is what it is. Either go exclusive, accept the rejections, learn from then, resubmit to scout, or as Sean says, post an image so others might help you understand, or give up exclusivity, submit to others sites where you might get some of the others accepted.

But my first paragraph above should be applied to all sites. Most are cracking down on MINOR CHANGE similars anyway.

Hi cclapper,
I know what you mean but;

1) Sometimes minor changes make a totally different concept (thats why I gave the specific example). Just by changing the name on the building, it can be either e-gov, online banking, or e-learning concept.

2) If "minor" change is the problem, then they should say so, "jagged lines" cannot correct themselves from one image to other while I'm using the same settings and geometries.

regardless, increase your antialiasing - soft is better than sharp (when uploading to IS is concerned)

Sean - speaking of monkeys, and completely off topic, thought you might find this funny


Fixing the web with greasemonkey

anonymous · « **Reply #27 on:** May 15, 2011, 20:49 »

Quote from: Perry on May 15, 2011, 16:31

Quote from: sjlocke on May 15, 2011, 16:16
Sigh. A composite or panorama is fine.

The problem here is that an image can be rejected if it's bigger than camera's native size - even if it is a composite or panorama or "added white background".

They should really concentrate only how an image LOOKS at 100%, not what it is shot with.

Ahhhh...someone gets it!!!

lthn · « **Reply #28 on:** May 16, 2011, 02:36 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 15, 2011, 18:33

Quote from: lthn on May 15, 2011, 17:21
Downsizing also degrades image quality

never heard of that, can you please explain why? I do it rarely if I feel that a picture isn´t tack sharp (and cannot do it again) and it does look better "downsized"

Take a really sharp image, and make it smaller - it's gonna loose a lot of it's sharpness, because interpolation is involved, just with upsampling. That's why you always need to apply some sharpening to thumbnails f.e.

lthn · « **Reply #29 on:** May 16, 2011, 02:45 »

Quote from: Noodles on May 15, 2011, 19:07

Quote from: lthn on May 15, 2011, 17:21
Quote from: sjlocke on May 15, 2011, 11:30
Images larger than native camera size are not allowed. Next time don't frame so sharp, or downsize a bit to add white around it.

Other times I didn't forget to wip the exif, no problemo. Thats all for 'not allowed'. Another fail : ) Btw, I do stiched model shots as wierd as it may sound. Whats the problem with that? Downsizing also degrades image quality combined with getting a smaller file for no reason whatsoever... thats reasonable.

Quote from: sjlocke on May 15, 2011, 11:30
What? You can't enlarge an image without upsampling. Using the crop tool to do so is still upsampling. Even a capuchin would know that.

That's juts image size again.

You just failed at photoshop. The crop tool doesn't sample anything anywhere, thats the 'image size' command.

umm, but it does - you can enter size and resolution into the crop tool and volia - resampled!

helix7 · « **Reply #30 on:** May 16, 2011, 07:52 »

Quote from: lthn on May 15, 2011, 17:21

You just failed at photoshop. The crop tool doesn't sample anything anywhere, thats the 'image size' command.

Is there a word for a failed attempt to identify a fail?

lathspell · « **Reply #31 on:** May 16, 2011, 08:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 15, 2011, 12:28

Regardless, you can't submit an image larger than your camera native size.

Another good reason to remove any EXIF information which is not absolutely necessary. No camera information - no native format - no rejection for not matching a camera's native format.

There are cameras providing RAW files which have actually more pixels than the "native" JPEGs with in-camera and external software just using a crop. Trying to explain this to istock's inspectors is a waste of time. The oh-so-clever inspectors always responded with "don't upsample". Hilarious. After removing the EXIFs I never got another "upsampled" rejection. Win-win - bigger files, less rejections.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #32 on:** May 16, 2011, 09:55 »

Quote from: lathspell on May 16, 2011, 08:12

Quote from: sjlocke on May 15, 2011, 12:28
Regardless, you can't submit an image larger than your camera native size.

Another good reason to remove any EXIF information which is not absolutely necessary. No camera information - no native format - no rejection for not matching a camera's native format.

There are cameras providing RAW files which have actually more pixels than the "native" JPEGs with in-camera and external software just using a crop. Trying to explain this to istock's inspectors is a waste of time. The oh-so-clever inspectors always responded with "don't upsample". Hilarious. After removing the EXIFs I never got another "upsampled" rejection. Win-win - bigger files, less rejections.

Yeah, we've never discussed that before, lol...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=256012&page=9
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=226481

etc .... Sounds like you're quite the stock wizard, though.

lthn · « **Reply #33 on:** May 16, 2011, 10:15 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 16, 2011, 07:52

Quote from: lthn on May 15, 2011, 17:21

You just failed at photoshop. The crop tool doesn't sample anything anywhere, thats the 'image size' command.

Is there a word for a failed attempt to identify a fail?

yes: helix7 : ))

lthn · « **Reply #34 on:** May 16, 2011, 10:23 »

To make a long story short, if someone can't tell apart an upsampled pic from /pixel sharp, and can't get the concept of how an image becomes larger by expanding the canvas they shouldn't have anything to do digital image inspection, go back flipping burgers or smthng, I dont really care. : ) Also if someone is pushing the concept that an image shouldn't be larger than the cameras native size, altho it's suddenly all ok if you wipe the exif... well, thats just plain stupid : )