Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 4:05AM
I need a help from contributor and buyer to know where is the issue in this image (link below) that wouldn't be used for iStock, off-set print, web or whatever due isolation problem. Where is the big problem that you would say "Wow, it is to bad to be used for any use in my job and in any media!".
Rejected again for the 4th time with no further info from inspector even requesting politely in the description if the image still have some issue please be kind to inform where the issue is. So no feedback at all from any inspector! Puff. Ok, I know they aren't here to teach me how to fix, but I didn't ask that, just to point me where they saw the issue.
Well, here is the resubmitted image for the 4th time with fixes that for iStock inspectors seems to be impossible to be used due huge isolation problems! Maybe I have really missed it or I'm really blind and didn't see the terrible isolation problem that would harm its use for any buyer that wouldn't be approved 4 times, and you guys can me show it by pointing the cropped area please.
HERE IS THE ORIGINAL WITH NO ISOLATION.
Just a doubt, isn't iStock exaggerating lately in its isolation standards? What I know iStock would be getting softer the rejections against noise, isolation and so on. Excuse-me iStockphoto boss of all inspectors, but you should make mandatory inspectors to provide better info in isolation rejections when it is the 2nd or more rejections on the same image resubmitted! It's a pain try to fix isolations by guessing and waste a lot of time to get rejected again! Mainly when it doesn't seem to be a big problem at all that would harm its image use for any media! Is it too difficult to make it mandatory and inform us? IMHO iStock needs to review its rules on that matter!
Where is the huge problem is in this image that doesn't fit for iStock isolation quality?
Thanks in advance for your time and help.
(Edited on 2012-12-07 05:10:20 by lucato)
(Edited on 2012-12-07 06:09:13 by kelvinjay)
Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 4:48AM
The feathering has got to look as if the subject was shot against a genuinly pure white background. This one looks as if the background wasn't pure white and you dove into Photoshop to fix it. The test is whether it looks cut-out, and I think this one does look cut-out (along the top of the hair in particular). She has that floating in space look.
iStockphoto's standards in isolations are notoriously high so we either meet them or don't submit. Having said that, many buyers could probably use your image quite happily.
Learn to get beyond the 'pissed at inspectors' bit. They're actually pretty good.
Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 5:16AM
^ Thanks for your reply. I have added a link to the original image without isolantion on the 1st post.
I'm sorry, but the feathering look is IMHO equal to the original as you can compare by opening each image in one separated browser tab and in any media use, nobody will inspect an image like that.
Regarding the floating look, IMHO any isolated image without shadows may give such feeling. ;0)
Btw, never said that inspector aren't good, on the contrary, but the iStock standards must be reviewed IMHO I don't see a really reason to rejected 4 times to avoid its use due isolation problems. I don't think that we "must meet them or don't submit" once we learned through the years, iStock isnt the true owner and can learn too to don't be so demanding!
Thanks for your input and have a nice weekend.
(Edited on 2012-12-07 05:24:07 by lucato)
Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 6:02AM
This forum does not exist to debate the inspection standards nor to provide a soap box for people to air their inspection grievances from. If you require a critique from your peers, you can request one without any little temper tantrums. Those who come here who are willing to learn can learn a lot. Those who just want to argue and justify themselves, generally find their threads locked. Please bear this in mind. Thanks.
Regarding the image itself, the hair on top of her head looks to have been unnaturally lopped off. Same on the right side too. Also the part of her sleeve on the right looks odd, maybe it's a fold in the material, but it looks blown out in an odd place. Overall it's not a terrible isolation by any means, and I'm sure the issues wouldn't be a major problem for any buyer who liked it, but iStock sets its own standards and we all just have to try to meet them as best we can.
(Edited on 2012-12-07 06:14:51 by kelvinjay)
Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 6:12AM
It doesn't look too bad to me, but I would agree that perhaps the feathering is rather uniform all round. Also there seems to be more of the "halo" of artifacts that you get when you save as a jpeg than I'd normally expect. They're invisible as far as I can see, but they are there if you do a selection of the background. Have you saved it at maximum quality? And / or is this a jpeg re-save after watermarking?
Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 8:17AM
Try a blink comparison with the original and the isolated versions over two layers in Photoshop and you'll see how right the inspector is.
Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 9:49AM
I see that main problem is lighting. It is not proper for isolated object. You should not have so much shadow on the left side (or any side for that matter). You should have one more light source there. Or, don't isolate.
Couple of years ago this image would pass inspection easily.
Posted Fri Dec 7, 2012 11:18AM
I agree that this is far from terrible and would probably be satisfactory for many buyers.
I also agree that there are a number of places where the isolation just doesn't look quite "right" or natural.
I think that is exacerbated by slobo's valid observation about the lighting. She isn't illuminated as if she is on white, which contributes to it not looking "right."
With sooooo many contributors producing extremely well executed in-camera on-white isolations, which yields a much more convincing, natural looking lighting and natural feathering, it's harder and harder to get something through which is clipped out of a less that perfectly white background.
I'm not sure what further tweaking you can do to this to bring it to the point of being acceptable. You can try Scout but I'll point out that all four rejections were made by very senior, very experienced Inspectors, so it's not like you fell victim to an overzealous newbie.
Personally, for this particular image, I would just go back to the original and reprocess a version that keeps the background.