| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/31/2004 03:30:30 PM · #76 |
So they´re picky bastards ....
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:00:27 PM · #77 |
So they´re picky bastards ....
Lol, i hope not i have uploaded 10 pics to istock and i`m waiting.
John, how long did you have to wait from uploading to rejection :(
If they reject your stuff then i could be in for 10 rejects.
I have had more luck at Dreamstime and have made a staggering $2.50 so far :)
I had 1 rejection for noise, and since then i`ve run everything through neat image.
Never gonna get rich, but its good fun.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:16:41 PM · #78 |
| John, sometimes I think they get in a hurry and don't look at the whole picture. If you do anything that has a drastic change like the picture you posted, add a note in the comment section. That way they know that it was your intent and not just an oops. I've found that if I do something different a quick note will get it thru. You can always delete the note after it has been approved. |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:25:56 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
So they´re picky bastards .... |
I guess they are picky because they want to build up a good site with good quailty images...Just keep uploading your best work!
And John that photo does not look out of Focus to me...But maybe it is at 100%....Still love the shot!
Melissa
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:28:15 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by melking23:
Originally posted by Nazgul:
So they´re picky bastards .... |
I guess they are picky because they want to build up a good site with good quailty images...Just keep uploading your best work!
And John that photo does not look out of Focus to me...But maybe it is at 100%....Still love the shot!
Melissa |
The 100% thing is what really blows me away. These images have to be noise free at 100% which is not easy to do at any camera setting. I could understand the 100% viewing test if they expected people to make 72dpi prints at 40" on the long side :) |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:37:25 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The 100% thing is what really blows me away. These images have to be noise free at 100% which is not easy to do at any camera setting. I could understand the 100% viewing test if they expected people to make 72dpi prints at 40" on the long side :) |
I don't know much about that but that sounds right...Maybe that is why I have so much noise...and don't really see it. I don't look at my photos at 100% all the time...I like to see the whole photo!
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 04:52:35 PM · #82 |
| I'm not particularly worried about getting what I have submitted approved... none of it was shot for the purpose of 'stock'. They can take what they like from it and I'll submit more shots in the future. I do understand the quality control issue, but I just believe that 100% viewing is overboard in most cases. Requiring noise free images at 100% will certainly keep the image quality good :) |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 05:03:17 PM · #83 |
I have to say that I have had much better luck with IStockphoto.com then dreamstime.com.
4 of 5 images have been approved in Istock with my flower shot being rejected because they have "too many" of them.
However dreamstime has rejected my first 3 images, they are picky, towards me, that is.
Message edited by author 2004-05-31 17:04:07. |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 05:14:18 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Damian:
I have to say that I have had much better luck with IStockphoto.com then dreamstime.com.
4 of 5 images have been approved in Istock with my flower shot being rejected because they have "too many" of them.
However dreamstime has rejected my first 3 images, they are picky, towards me, that is. |
It's not just you... it's the system they use. Some images will get approved at one site and not the other also... |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 05:51:32 PM · #85 |
Wow, what a great thread. I am also very interested in persuing the stock photography field. I have been looking into it for awhile now while working at building up some sort of a collection of potential stock photos. The funny thing is that for my art and design work I have always tended to keep stock photo type images in mind (people subjects mainly) but since photography was mainly a fun diversion I wasn't focussed on that type of photography that much. As a result I know I missed a lot of potentially good images. I'm learning that what sells is just as much a skill as the photography itself. I will be looking into these stock photography sites that have been mentioned and see what happens.
As for viewing images at 100%. I think that it is very important. The noise I can see in my images when viewed at 100% on-screen is what I can see in my prints at 8x10 and larger. I use ACDSee as my image viewer when I am selecting my images for editing and for general viewing. I check each imae at full screen and at 100%. I actually enjoy viewing an image at 100% so that I can get into the picture and explore the details. I use the mode where all menus and toolbars are turned off so that I am only seeing the image and that really helps me to study the images using the entire screen. When I have selected my images and copied the ones I want to edit to a new folder I run them through Noise Ninja, batch processing all the ones with identical ISO's. I just can't discern the amount of editing a photo needs unless I am viewing it at 100%.
T
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 06:16:15 PM · #86 |
One of the first things I read about Dreamstime is this: Structured on categories and subcategories, our database is constantly renewed with fresh images and titles. The standard format is JPG file, RGB. That part about fresh images caught my attention. What exactly does this mean? Do they make available only the most recent images for purchasing? Is a customer not able to see Dreamstime's entire stock? I hope I am misunderstanding this because it could be rather important and a means for this site to continually acquire the very newest images. I appreciate the need to keep images looking current with the times but many images look appropriate for the times regardless of when they were taken. I hate the thought that great images might be removed simply because they are past a certain age irregardless of the photographic content. A great image should be able to sell for years provided that it doesn't look dated. Is this a type of 'scheme' to keep photographers from making too much money with fewer images?
T
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 06:43:46 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by timj351:
One of the first things I read about Dreamstime is this: Structured on categories and subcategories, our database is constantly renewed with fresh images and titles. The standard format is JPG file, RGB. That part about fresh images caught my attention. What exactly does this mean? Do they make available only the most recent images for purchasing? Is a customer not able to see Dreamstime's entire stock? I hope I am misunderstanding this because it could be rather important and a means for this site to continually acquire the very newest images. I appreciate the need to keep images looking current with the times but many images look appropriate for the times regardless of when they were taken. I hate the thought that great images might be removed simply because they are past a certain age irregardless of the photographic content. A great image should be able to sell for years provided that it doesn't look dated. Is this a type of 'scheme' to keep photographers from making too much money with fewer images?
T |
timj,
i think you read into that a little too far. I think what they mean is that there is a constant flow of new pictures into the library... to tell a customer that if they come see some pics today and don't find what they want, that the pics might be there tomorrow. it states that their library isn't stagnant, and is constantly growing.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 06:50:25 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by timj351:
As for viewing images at 100%. I think that it is very important. The noise I can see in my images when viewed at 100% on-screen is what I can see in my prints at 8x10 and larger. |
I don't understand this part. Viewing at 100% is like looking at a 72dpi print. If you have a 3000x2000 pixel image and view it at 100%, it should be indicative of what a 41.6" x 27.7" print would look like close up. I will setup an example of this and show in a few minutes... |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 06:58:30 PM · #89 |
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=95075
I started this thread a couple of days ago but it didn't get much response. It is related to stock photography and this site if anyone didn't see it and would like to add their two cents worth. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:02:22 PM · #90 |
About that being noise free at 100%..isn't that what DPC is asking of pictures also when uploaded for DPCprints? I got told that what you see at 100% is also what you see at p.e. 25% (printsize), although very small and almost not noticable..I personally don't want posters hanging on the wall with noise on it, but I would use a picture that has noise in it on my website (because it isn't that large then)... see my website and then the 'collegebanks' (when you roll over it, it says: wat ik doe), that is a picture with extremely much noise, but almost not noticable!! Istockphoto could switch to a policy accepting somewhat noisy pictures for the use as 'small internet photos', but turning it down for large internet photos and other things (just like DPCprints gives limits to the size you can sell your prints)...
but then again, they would lose their status of selling perfectly good prints, which attracts visitors and buyers (most importantly) as well!!
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:09:20 PM · #91 |
//www.pbase.com/jmsetzler/gallery/view_sizes
Here are some samples...
The first image is just a 640x480 pixel resize of the original...
The second image is a 640x480 pixel crop from the 100% (72dpi) view (39" x 26" print)
The third image is a 6" x 4" crop from a 150dpi print view (18.5" x 12.5")
The fourth image is a 6" x 4" crop from a 300dpi print view (9.3" x 6.2")
The noise level increases as the resolution of the image decreases. In this example, the 300 dpi print is basically noise free. The 72dpi print is extremely noisy. |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:10:22 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Fotowereld:
About that being noise free at 100%..isn't that what DPC is asking of pictures also when uploaded for DPCprints? I got told that what you see at 100% is also what you see at p.e. 25% (printsize), although very small and almost not noticable.. |
Who told you this? |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:15:12 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by timj351:
As for viewing images at 100%. I think that it is very important. The noise I can see in my images when viewed at 100% on-screen is what I can see in my prints at 8x10 and larger. |
I don't understand this part. Viewing at 100% is like looking at a 72dpi print. If you have a 3000x2000 pixel image and view it at 100%, it should be indicative of what a 41.6" x 27.7" print would look like close up. I will setup an example of this and show in a few minutes... |
Yes, it is what a 41.6" x 27.7" print looks like at 72 dpi but at 300 dpi it is 9.9" x 6.6". It is like looking at an 8x10 print up close. Basically, you are viewing your image as good as it can be viewed. A 1:1 image pixel to screen pixel ratio is as good as you can view an image on screen so if you can provide a clean image at this viewing size you are pretty much guarenteed of a clean print as well. As I said, I view my images at full screen size and at 100% depending on what I am editing.
T
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:23:03 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by timj351:
A 1:1 image pixel to screen pixel ratio is as good as you can view an image on screen so if you can provide a clean image at this viewing size you are pretty much guarenteed of a clean print as well. |
I do not disagree with this at all. My point is that the image can still be a great print even when there is noise visible at 100%. It just seems odd to me that the stock approvers want all the images to meet a requirement of noise free at 100%. In my lack of knowledge of that industry, I would think that 50% and noise free would be fine. Any printing at that size of royalty free stock would really need to be handled with a higher resolution image anyway. If someone wanted to buy a royalty free image and print it halftoned at billboard size, once again, the noise isn't going to be a problem due to the different process of printing. |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:30:09 PM · #95 |
//www.pbase.com/image/29605218
Noise free at 100% can be achieved... It just takes effort. This is as close as I have gotten... using a tripod and a cable release. Mirror lockup mode could possibly make it better... |
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:32:40 PM · #96 |
I treat my original noise-filtered images as my negatives. They will be color corrected but not sharpened if I intend to make an enlargement. I figure that the file at it's original size is as good as it can look for a starting point because the size and location of the pixels have not been altered from the original file. I am now using Bicubic Smoother in Photoshop CS to enlarge the file directly to my desired poster size, then I sharpen to taste and then I am done. The image remains very clean and detailed at up to 20x30, in some cases. I used to use Genuine Fractals or a stair enterpolation method at 10% increments but I have found that the new Bicubic Smoother method in CS is just as good with the images I have tried so far.
T
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:39:01 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Fotowereld:
About that being noise free at 100%..isn't that what DPC is asking of pictures also when uploaded for DPCprints? I got told that what you see at 100% is also what you see at p.e. 25% (printsize), although very small and almost not noticable.. |
Who told you this? |
hold on, I will look it up..I asked questions about uploading to DPCprints a week a go or so..and I got this answer..I have to dig in to the fora now to get that back
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:45:14 PM · #98 |
Ok, here it is:
in this topic //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=93244
GeneralE posted this at a sudden moment:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since your monitor only displays 72 dpi no matter what, when you look at a 300 dpi image at 100% in Photoshop, it will DISPLAY at about 4 times the print size -- one inch (300 pixels) of print image takes over four inches of monitor to display.
Think of it as looking at your print with a 4x loupe. |
and he also posted:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Defects which are "hidden" by the screen's resizing for display can show visible problems in the print image. Images look quite different when printed than when displayed on a monitor.
What you see at the 100% display size in PS should be what you get on the print, defects and all. |
Did I misunderstand him in this? Doesn't he say here that what you see at 100% is what you see on the print also (and at 24% which is printsize) but then in a smaller way???
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:47:16 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
//www.pbase.com/image/29605218
Noise free at 100% can be achieved... It just takes effort. This is as close as I have gotten... using a tripod and a cable release. Mirror lockup mode could possibly make it better... |
Is that straight from the camera? That is pretty impressive. Somehow, someway I will get a Canon DSLR soon :)
I understand what you are saying too. I just feel that it is important to make your images look as close to what you intended as possible. For many people, some types of noise is desirable and it depends on the print. From what I have seen regarding stock photography unless an image is in black and white and in a style that is clearly artsy and creative that obviously lends itself well to a grainy look than they mostly desire very clean images. I believe that if you can see the noise at all at 100% than that means it is detail that is in the image and can be seen at larger sizes regardless of printing techniques. With all that being said, perhaps these stock agencies are still being a little too picky in regards to image noise because it is often a desirable thing. Unfortunately you are at the mercy of someone else's ideas regarding image quality.
T
|
|
|
|
05/31/2004 07:47:34 PM · #100 |
Fotowereld: I think I still mean that, but I could well be correct in theory but out to lunch in practice ... :)
Message edited by author 2004-05-31 19:48:45. |
|
