PHOTO: Why no resubmit and why model release

Displaying 1 to 15 of 15 matches.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Mar 3, 2013 7:36AM
The photo was rejected for lighting which I understand. But why was a resubmit not offered?

Also, why was a model release required?

Thanks again.

Here's the rejection.

(Edited on 2013-03-03 07:36:51 by ChenRobert)
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Sun Mar 3, 2013 9:11AM

Posted By ChenRobert:
The photo was rejected for lighting which I understand. But why was a resubmit not offered?

Also, why was a model release required?

Thanks again.

Here's the rejection.

(Edited on 2013-03-03 07:36:51 by ChenRobert)




Any time you have naked children, you will need a model release.

Any time the main subject of a photo is a person, you will need a model release.

Can't say why there is no resubmit offered as you have not provided a link to the full size file, which is required if you want us to to something other than offer guesses based on a thumbnail. If you want my guess, it would be the very distracting blown out element in the foreground that makes it a no resubmit, but link up the full size file and we can give you some real feedback based more on experience and evidence and less on guesswork.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:04PM
I'll send you a site msg. Thanks!
kelvinjay
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has won a contestForum Moderator
Posted Sun Mar 3, 2013 9:25PM

Posted By ChenRobert:
I'll send you a site msg. Thanks!


Actually, we'd prefer it if people posted in the forums, that way everyone can learn from your experience. We don't offer one to one guidance via sitemail, the aim is to share the knowledge amongst the whole community, using the forums. Feel free to ask any questions here. You also will then get a broader range of opinion.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:41PM
This file was initially rejected due to a lack of a MR. Although I don't understand why a MR is needed (as I highly doubt any male can identify himself in the photo), I submitted a MR. It subsequently was rejected due to the lighting (see the first post).

I "scouted" it questioning why a resubmit was not offered. I speculated the blown area in the foreground as the cause for the rejection and provided a cropped version (without the blown area in the foreground) with the ticket. It is here. A received the following response:

-----
Comment:
Hello

Apologies for the delay in responding to your ticket.

Yes, I agree. I think it's even better cropped to be honest.

I've changed the status to 'can resubmit' so the file can be re-worked, re-submitted and re-evaluated.

Regards,
Scout
-----

So, I was able to resubmit (thanks Scout). I re-submitted the image (same image I provided Scout) and it was rejected a second time without a resubmit due to composition of lighting (standard language).

If Scout believed the image to be "even better cropped" to allow for a re-submit, couldn't Scout have accepted the image rather than change the status to a re-submit (that allowed a third set of eyes to inspect the image)?

(Edited on 2013-03-14 21:44:06 by ChenRobert)
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:53AM
I'm presuming you now have a release for the baby?



If Scout believed the image to be "even better cropped" to allow for a re-submit, couldn't Scout have accepted the image rather than change the status to a re-submit (that allowed a third set of eyes to inspect the image)?


Scout provided you the resubmit because the lighting was still unacceptable, regardless of crop. That's the "re-worked" Scout mentioned. There appears to be no improvement in your newer version, it just looks cropped.

Allowing a third set of eyes to inspect is part of our checks and balances that keeps our inspection process relatively consistent.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:47PM
Yes, I have a release and it was submitted.

When Scout replied "I agree", it was in response to my question if the blown area in the foreground was the issue and the cropped image was acceptable.

Or relatively consistently inconsistent.

Approved images with different quality standards makes the approval process difficult for newbie contributors (and presumably for the buyers).
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:00PM
Well, we're all humans here, even Scout. And the goal has never been to make the approval process easy. It's certainly quite do-able, as the millions of approved images in our collection demonstrate. (seriously, I say this good-naturedly with a smile on my face).

The Inspector who looked at your resubmit was not privvy to your Scout conversation. What they saw was an image that had been rejected for lighting, resubmitted with essentially the same lighting. Even with the highlight cropped, the rest of the image is underexposed and the white balance is off. If the image had been in my inspection batch I would have rejected it as well.

The fact that Scout agreed with you regarding cropping off the highlight does not necessarily mean that that's ALL the image needed prior to resubmission.

You were given no resubmit the second time around because the Inspector could see the two attempts, saw no apparent improvement on the second attempt, and therefore (correctly) stopped it there. I've just reset the file to Can Resubmit for you so you can give it another shot. I'd recommend posting it here before uploading again so we can give you some feedback before you put it back in front of an Inspector.
jentakespictures
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:31PM
Posted By ChenRobert:
Although I don't understand why a MR is needed (as I highly doubt any male can identify himself in the photo), I submitted a MR. 


Donald has answered your other question, but the photo needs a MR because a person is the main subject of the photo.  Also, because there is nudity.  See: http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=648


Particularly:


When is a model release always required?


[li]When the model’s face is visible.[/li]
[li]When unique features are visible (tatoos, scars, custom clothes etc).[/li]
[li]When the photo is suggestive or has nudity.[/li]
[li]When the overall situation in the photo (location, events etc.) would make the subject recognize herself with little difficulty.[/li]
[li]When the model is participating in a professional or semi-professional sport or activity (motor cross, rodeo, basketball etc).[/li]


 
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:45PM
Thanks, though Kelvin did already answer that question above.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Apr 3, 2013 11:56PM

Posted By donald_gruener:
Well, we're all humans here, even Scout. :) And the goal has never been to make the approval process easy. It's certainly quite do-able, as the millions of approved images in our collection demonstrate. :) (seriously, I say this good-naturedly with a smile on my face).

The Inspector who looked at your resubmit was not privvy to your Scout conversation. What they saw was an image that had been rejected for lighting, resubmitted with essentially the same lighting. Even with the highlight cropped, the rest of the image is underexposed and the white balance is off. If the image had been in my inspection batch I would have rejected it as well.

The fact that Scout agreed with you regarding cropping off the highlight does not necessarily mean that that's ALL the image needed prior to resubmission.

You were given no resubmit the second time around because the Inspector could see the two attempts, saw no apparent improvement on the second attempt, and therefore (correctly) stopped it there. I've just reset the file to Can Resubmit for you so you can give it another shot. I'd recommend posting it here before uploading again so we can give you some feedback before you put it back in front of an Inspector.


Thanks Donald, I didn't think the lighting was bad to begin with. Let's this this again...see here

Your thoughts?
tomprout
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Apr 4, 2013 6:08AM
Robert, this is a beautifully executed image of a significant event in the lives of the parents. What I'm struggling with is how it could be used commercially.


Personally (and I emphasize that) I would keep this specific image in the family album and upload shots of the delivery room equipment, instruments, guernys, or of the happy mother holding her newborn, the nurses giving the baby to mom or dad to hold, etc

(Edited on 2013-04-04 06:11:12 by tomprout)
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Thu Apr 4, 2013 11:18AM
It certainly has potential use for healthcare industry clients, who produce LOTS of brochures and informational pamphlets. It may be somewhat limited in some countries. The majority of my own graphic design clients are in fact healthcare industry so I myself do a lot of this kind of work and I use a lot of these kinds of images. That said...I know that my clients would ask me to find an image without genitals so prominently visible. I'm in the U.S. and that may be less of a problem elsewhere.

The lighting is looking much better. I wouldn't reject this for lighting.

The adjustments you've made have brought up some noise. It may be passable given the circumstances, but is borderline and some Inspectors may perceive it as too much.

The CA (purple fringing) on the surgical tools is more noticeably now - I would definitely suggest fixing that.
lostinbids
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerThis member chickened out of their last cage challenge. What, are you scared of a little photoshop challenge?
Posted Thu Apr 4, 2013 11:56AM
To me there is a bit of CA on the cord too.  Easy to fix with a colour adjustment layer and the brush tool.  Great image.
ChenRobert
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Apr 4, 2013 12:15PM
Thanks Tom, Donald, and lostinbirds. I'm removing the file from dropbox as I forgot to watermark it.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 15 of 15 matches.
Not a member?Join