Offsetting cost of this hobby...microstock?

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP gnagel Veteran Member • Posts: 7,368
Re: what else do the agencies look for?

tundracamper wrote:

gnagel wrote:

Yes...they are concerned with corners of landscapes. And, they can almost tell whenever I raise my ISO settings a notch (even at 800 on the D700)...and they tend to reject most photos in which I've attempted to reduce any noise at all.

Now that I find interesting. I haven't had my D700 long enough to test what iStock will take from it in terms of ISO. However, I'm fairly certain the max ISO they have accepted from my D300 is AT LEAST 1600. It is possible to get a clean image at these ISOs... it's just not possible to push the exposure as much in post. I have also applied noise reduction to numerous images w/o rejection. One just can't go overboard. Plus, in using CaptureNX, it is possible to apply selective noise control to just the areas that need it, which is often the background or in the shadows, where sharpness may not be so necessary.

There's no question that high ISO images can get accrepted. My rejection rate increases dramatically as the ISO increases. Sometimes I wonder if the inspectors are noting the ISO from the EXIF data and basing the rejection from that.  The reason for rejection sometimes mentions that quality is highest at base ISO...and of course I strive for that, ut it isn't always practical.  Perhaps my noise reduction techniques need some work...although I do apply NR selectively as well.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow