Posted Mon Jan 14 1:16PM
Well, for the third time this photo has been refused with the reason:
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.
Here you can see (full size) the clipped part of the image:
Thanks in advance for any help.
(Edited on 2013-01-14 13:32:01 by donald_gruener)
Posted Mon Jan 14 1:35PM
Getting a grasp of iStock's standards for isolation can be somewhat of a learning curve at first, but once you train your eye to notice the little details you'll find the rejections are few and far between. I looked at your photo in Photoshop and took a few crops with arrows pointing toward where I saw some of the issues with the isolation. In addition to these however, there seem to be other areas where the brush you used didn't seem to be the right size for the edges.
Just out of curiosity - would you consider shooting this against 255 white or perhaps an actual background that you didn't have to photoshop in? White isolations tend to sell pretty well and so do artistically done backgrounds that look natural (ex: in someone's home, at a market or in a restaurant). Best of luck in the future!
Posted Mon Jan 14 1:53PM
^ Agreed, both with the problematic details, and the suggestion to leave it on white. The artificial background exacerbates the problem and likely reduces the saleability of the image.
Posted Mon Jan 14 2:18PM
Also I think that this part of the photo has some issues https://www.dropbox.com/s/11ti841zj9jxoil/onlycroppart.jpg
Posted Wed Jan 16 10:51PM
Thanks viennetta, donald–gruener and CHBD, your comments are very usefull for me.
I will try the white background, it is a very good idea.