PHOTO: woman with vacuum series

Hi there!
I made a series with a woman using a vacuum cleaner in a living room. Only one pic of the series was acceptet.



I have no idea, why the other are not, because all where developed the same ...
The images without the model visible were accepted too:



The attached images were refused. Maybe someone can give me a hint, why ?








 

(Edited on 2013-02-11 14:27:21 by kelvinjay)

Read This First


Summary: please post rejection reasons and full sized images for us to look at.

(Edited on 2013-02-11 12:20:01 by jentakespictures)

Hi there,
You must have some idea why the others were not accepted. The inspectors must have left a notice with some explanation. Do as Jen suggested and we'll help you sort this out.

Cheers!

Just from the small images the first looks nice, bright, well-exposed and correct colour balance. The other three look a bit blue, dull and under exposed. But yes, let us see the full size and I am sure someone will give a far better evaluation and help you to get them up to acceptable standard.

I'm going to guess the model release wasn't attached.

Model Releases were attached.


The given reason was:
"This image appears to be over-filtered/over-processed which has affected the image quality. This may include Photoshop filters & effects (over-sharpening, excessive adjustments to levels, curves, contrast, hues, gaussian blurs, saturation, added textures, noise reduction...) or other manipulations. We feel the image would have more value to designers with minimal or no post processing effects so that the designers could add their own post-processing effects. Some images can benefit from minor touch-ups to grab the viewer?s attention and there is no definitive line to what editing makes or breaks a great image but the end result should be a single image that can still be molded into a design. Inspectors judge images based on quality, composition and usability. If you require further explanation regarding this rejection, please submit a ticket to Scout "


And here the images again in fullsize.
This one was accepted.
And these are three of seven that were rejected:
one  two  three

(Edited on 2013-02-12 02:20:28 by antagonist74)

(Edited on 2013-02-13 11:48:48 by antagonist74)

(Edited on 2013-02-13 11:51:07 by antagonist74)

Read the post at the top of this forum, and try not to post full-sized images in the forums.

Without checking the full-sized versions, my impression was this: you have two accepted photos that show a model using a vacuum cleaner. You have two photos rejected that show a model posing beside a vacuum cleaner.

Please do that.

We really can't help much without seeing the same full sized file that you uploaded to iStock.

Didnt't i do that now????

I'm still not seeing any links to the full size files of the images you want critiquing.

I am really trying to insert a link to the pics, but it seems that it will not work. So here are the links for copy and paste...


accepted: http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-001_01.jpg


rejected: http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-002_02.jpg
http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-011_02.jpg
http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-005_01.jpg


sorry for that ...


 

live links:


accepted: http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-001_01.jpg


rejected: http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-002_02.jpg
http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-011_02.jpg
http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/VacuumCleaner-005_01.jpg


Over-processing rejection is likely related to, what appears to be, over-sharpened image (mostly noticeable on the hair against bright background). In my opinion it is not that bad that should cause rejection. You likely have two different inspectors looking at files, that's why one was accepted and others didn't.

First off you have a nice model, a good concept in a pleasing setting. However, I disagree with Slobo and I would not have expected any of these to pass. The hair is really the deal killer here, the best looking out of the series is 011_02 the least sharpened with natural looking hair outlines but it is soft. It looks like you took 011_02 and sharpened the face area to come up with the end result for the other three. The other three have rough looking hair and some sharpening artifacts. Focus on this type of shot really needs to be on the eyes and should not require much, if any, sharpening. You are close, very close, try again you are on the right track.

Agreed, those were properly rejected in line with iStock's standards. Back off on your processing a little and you should be fine. These are VERY nice shots otherwise.

The accepted file is borderline and could just as easily have been rejected for overfiltering as well.

You're welcome to post your re-worked files here prior to resubmitting and we can let you know if they're likely to be accepted or not.

Hi there!
Ok, it seems to me, that the main problem is the hair, richt? I softened the sharpness in that area a bit. But the rest of the images are not much sharpened at all in post-processing. I shot the photos with a sharp lens


So here are some redone images, what do you guys think???


http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/istock/VacuumCleaner-001mod-2.jpg


http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/istock/VacuumCleaner-002mod-2.jpg


http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/istock/VacuumCleaner-003mod-2.jpg


http://mmphotographie.de/_zeugs/istock/VacuumCleaner-004mod-2.jpg

Had a look at the first one and it's still 'way too much'. Hair on left and right sides against the background is fragmented. It doesn't help when your model has too much makeup. Also remove advertising on the cleaner. Point of focus would be better on her eyes (or the cleaner head, with shallower depth of field) rather than her hands. The background is too bright compared to your model. Try a polarising filter to enhance colors naturally (it'll also remove the glare from the floor). Then add a large white reflector on camera right to lighten your model.

(Edited on 2013-02-14 03:06:49 by lucentius)

Sharpening is not that much of the problem as much as slightly overexposed edges of the hair against bright background. While not perfect, I think quality should be acceptable for microstock.

Those still look overprocessed. It's not just the hair. Her face looks excessively artificial, there is a smeary sort of noise-reduction or other fake blurring appearance throughout (except at the oversharpened focal points) and there is artifacting running along many of the contrast edges.

While these would probably image out just fine on a press, they remain borderline in terms of iStock's standards and I'd say these all still run a significant risk of overfiltering rejections again - sorry.

I originally looked at just one photo. Looking at another one I noticed much more pronounced effects of over-sharpening as well as CA artifacts.





And yes, you should focus on woman's face (eye).


How do you convert RAW? What is the setting for sharpening?

The imagens were processed in LR4. Sharpening was at 70/1,2/30/60 (up to down). Maybe 70 seems to a little bit too much ... But i cannot get rid of those green CAs in LR ...