Would someone be willing... - DPChallenge Forums

08/16/2006 09:17:12 PM · #1

...to let me email them a full size photo and check it out for artifacting? I've submitted 6 images to a stock site (3 at a time) and keep getting rejected for this reason. I've examined the images at 100% and just do not see it. If you look for me and tell me you see it, I'll just give it up or go get glasses, LOL. It's just driving me nuts! I'll only send you 1. Thanks!

08/16/2006 09:18:52 PM · #2

jp saves the day ... errrr ... pm sent.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/16/2006 09:19:08 PM · #3

Send it on... addy in profile.

eckoe

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/16/2006 09:19:36 PM · #4

if you haven't found anyone, sure, email me, my email is visible in my profile.

brizmama

Nikon D200

08/16/2006 09:20:16 PM · #5

PM sent

faidoi

Pentax K10D

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

08/16/2006 09:21:40 PM · #6

What kind of settings are you using on your camera? Are you using in camera sharpening, noise reduction, etc. Sometimes none is better then some.

08/16/2006 09:25:21 PM · #7

I'm using 9F (which is the highest setting besides RAW). I haven't figured out how to use RAW yet. I'm saving at the highest (12) setting in PS7. I'm not doing any cropping at all on these images.

edit to add: and I'm using very low settings on sharpness, etc. I'm doing that in PS7.

Message edited by author 2006-08-16 21:26:12.

08/16/2006 09:27:01 PM · #8

I sent one each to JP, Leroy and Erin. Thanks guys!

08/16/2006 09:34:51 PM · #9

I'm seeing what they are talking about here.

Especially look at the center most white stripe. But, I think this is more noise than artifacting.

Message edited by author 2006-08-16 21:44:01.

08/16/2006 09:39:03 PM · #10

Do you think just running it through neat image would work? I didn't use any noise reduction on any of these images. Is it necessary to run every image through noise reduction for stock?

08/16/2006 09:39:53 PM · #11

That's what I thought as well, more noise than artifact but that's probably their term.

I ran through NI and it looked mucho better - Kelli, I sent you copies of what I saw and what it looked like through NI.

08/16/2006 09:41:03 PM · #12

Look how slow I am.

Yes, NI worked wonders. I used a bit of the sky as the sample area and removed all noise. It looked swell.

08/16/2006 09:46:42 PM · #13

I think the stock reviewers just have a push button interface for reviewing images, because thier rejections often don't make sense. But, yep, you're looking at noise, not artifacting. So NI should do a pretty good job with it.

08/16/2006 09:54:01 PM · #14

Thanks guys! I'll run them through NI and resubmit. If they still reject them, I'll give up!

08/16/2006 09:56:01 PM · #15

Originally posted by kdsprog:

Thanks guys! I'll run them through NI and resubmit. If they still reject them, I'll give up!

No! Do *NOT* give up! Never, ever, ever give up. Stay the course.

08/16/2006 10:05:08 PM · #16

Definitely don't give up. Some stock sites are more forgiving of noise than others. I have a few images at istockphoto (that sell) that are quite noisy.

Shutterstock on the other hand is VERY picky about noise.

08/16/2006 10:07:11 PM · #17

Originally posted by alfresco:

Originally posted by kdsprog:
Thanks guys! I'll run them through NI and resubmit. If they still reject them, I'll give up!

No! Do *NOT* give up! Never, ever, ever give up. Stay the course.

Well, I didn't mean give up on stock all together. Just iStock. I have 43 images up at LuckyOliver so far. They just don't have any business yet, LOL!

Fujifilm XC 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS

08/16/2006 10:09:43 PM · #18

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

This was istock that rejected them. I was actually wondering if it was standard rejection response. In other words, is this what they put on every rejected image?

buzzrock

Fujifilm X-M1

08/16/2006 10:16:51 PM · #19

I got the picture, and it looks clean when not viewed @ fullsize.

I'm not sure what the agencies definition of artifacts are, but it looks to me that the surface of your paper background showed up..

heres what I see 100%

08/16/2006 10:16:53 PM · #20

I think they use artifacting as an excuse for a LOT of images, I've had that rejection before and I KNOW that I don't have artifacting. :-)

For what it's worth most of the noise in this image is in the luminance channel. I was able to smooth it out a lot by switching to LAB mode and running CS2's noise reduction filter on the Lightness channel.

I'm not sure why most of the noise is luminance noise. Still experimenting with your image :-)

08/16/2006 10:20:00 PM · #21

Originally posted by buzzrock:

heres what I see 100%

See, the same luminance noise is on the paint of the pencils of this image.

I'm thinking since istock has a 2MP size limit that you could get some of these images passed by down-sizing the images some.

08/16/2006 10:30:10 PM · #22

Well, I ran them through NI and resubmitted. I'll let you know what happens. It's funny, the first rejection took over 2 weeks. The second rejection happened the same day I submitted.

08/16/2006 10:32:02 PM · #23

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by buzzrock:

heres what I see 100%

See, the same luminance noise is on the paint of the pencils of this image.

I'm thinking since istock has a 2MP size limit that you could get some of these images passed by down-sizing the images some.

I thought you had to submit at full size. So I can adjust the size down?

08/16/2006 10:34:29 PM · #24

Originally posted by kdsprog:

I thought you had to submit at full size. So I can adjust the size down?

Yes you can, as long as your image meets thier minimum size requirements.