Offsetting cost of this hobby...microstock?

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP gnagel Veteran Member • Posts: 7,368
Re: Offsetting cost of this hobby...microstock?

tundracamper wrote:

Alex Notpro wrote:

I've had photos rejected by all major microstock agencies. And it wasn't for excessive post-processing (I rarely do any PP, except very recently experimenting some some Art effects on my new E-PM2, but those aren't serious photos). Do you have any tips for me?

The most common rejection reason that I am aware of on iStock is "artifacting." That is where the inspector feels the image has been over-processed and the transitions between different regions of the image are "not satisfactory." Of course, I think the inspectors often use that as an excuse when they just don't care for the image.

I did one thing in that area that significantly improved my acceptance rate. I turned of ANY sharpening in the RAW file - even the in-camera sharpening. These agencies leave it up to the buyer to determine how much sharpening should be applied as that will depend heavily on the usage. By turning off ANY sort of in-camera of post-processed sharpening, my acceptance rate went way up!

Many times, when an inspector points to "artifacting" as the reason for the rejection, I can't spot it for the life of me.  I'll view the entire image at 100%...then 200%...and most times I have no idea what they seeing.  Like you said, maybe they just use that as an excuse.


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