PHOTO: Veg. Bad isolation

I don't know if here is the right place to speak about this.

If it is not, could the forum admin put in the right section. Thanks.


Well, for the third time this photo has been refused with the reason:

"[isolation]

The execution of isolation contains stray areas that are either too feathered or rough."

I really don't understand, I cannot see where the clipping is not good. And it is very strange because another similar image, with exactly the same isolation quality has been accepted without any problem, so what?

I would like to have explanation and that somebody from iStock indicates me exactly on the image which part is not correct.


http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/6879/picxzk.jpg

The original image is 4288 x 2848 pixels
•••••

I would like to add, even that if this could be the subject for another discussion that as a professional of DTP for 30 years, I don't understand some so strict rules:

The images that we submit are used either for the web either for printing in magazines or catalogs (some other could be used in other way but it is surely a minority).


1) if an image will be used for the web it will be at 99% of the times not used in a size larger that 800/1000 pixels (most of the time it will be use no more than 400 pixels large)


I don't think that a little out of focus or noise, or over-sharpening or even a not perfect clip (isolation) will be noticeable if the original image is 4000 pixels large.

2) if an image will be used for printing (offset) the size of the print will correspond to about 25% of the original image because generally the images are printed @300 dpi (or more), and after the color separation and the realization of the plates it will surely not be possible to see little imperfections, that very often are considered unacceptable for iStock.

So, I don't understand well this (according to me) excessive and maniacal control of the images: if the image looks good at 50% on the computer's monitor, the use on the web or the printing in magazines will certainly be good.

I understand that iStock wants to have the best quality possible, but it is good to remember that "the best is enemy of the good"…

(Edited on 2013-01-14 12:38:43 by karayuschij)

(Edited on 2013-01-14 12:39:37 by karayuschij)

(Edited on 2013-01-14 12:41:03 by karayuschij)

(Edited on 2013-01-14 12:43:58 by karayuschij)

(Edited on 2013-01-14 13:03:37 by kelvinjay)

You will need a full size version to post in the critique forum, which can then be looked at.

I am not sure that I want to put a full size image, that everybody can download (I don't speak of the the other photographers on this site but of *everybody*), on the forum, sorry.


By the way this is not a request of critique, but a request of a precise explanation from the part of the members of the iStock staff.
The reference number of the image is 22779858 

Hi,

The only place to discuss rejected files is in the Critique Request forum. You can read how to go about getting help from your peers here:

| > PLEASE take 5 minutes to READ THIS FIRST before starting your first Critique thread < |

Regarding iStock's standards, they are what they are and everyone has to meet them and most people manage to do so without any great trouble. We won't debate the standards here, but if you need some help, then please post a full size image for us to look at - the same one you uploaded to istock (with a watermark for your protection) and then we shall see if we can spot what may be wrong and help you put it right.

(Edited on 2013-01-14 13:09:23 by kelvinjay)

Okay kelvinjay, thank you

The OP has started a new thread for their image here.