PHOTO: rejection: interpolated!

Hello iStockers, today I got a "nice" rejection reason for interpolation. I'm 100% sure I did not interpolate. A few days ago I bought the new Nikon D3200 (lucky me) with amazing 24 Megapixels. Evidently not all inspectors know about this boost in pixels. Anybody having similar rejections based on the new Nikon D3200?

(Edited on 2012-06-05 13:32:35 by kelvinjay)

I'm pretty sure they know stuff like that. How about posting the sample in the critique forum?

Yeah, I haven't had that problem with my D800.  You should post the text of the rejection + the photo in the critique forum.

That's definitely the best plan of action.

I'll move this over there...

Did you make a layer and stretch it in photoshop and resave?

Sometimes a new camera catches the inspectors unaware.  I think the same happened many years ago when sony brought out the A900.

Yeah, but it can also catch the user unaware with new settings they weren't expecting.

No, I did not. No stretching at all involved. And this rejection reason has happend again - this time with a different picture... ;-(

It is much easier to figure out if you post the entire rejection reason and a link to your picture full size

Again, if you post a link to the image you uploaded here, then I'm sure that someone will be able to quickly spot what's going wrong and where. Details of how to do this are in the sticky thread at the top of this forum.

The standard upsampling rejection notice states your camera max res:

==> UPSAMPLING: CANON 5D MARK II native resolution is 5616 x 3744. Your file is 4292 x 4975. As part of iStock standards, we only accept files at their native resolution.
What did your rejection notice say?

Only if the Inspector takes the time to write that in. That doesn't always happen nor are the Inspectors required to - some do this as a courtesy to make it very clear why they're rejecting.

Well that does not sound very efficient.
If the upload page was upgraded to the latest web standards (HTML5), the EXIF data could be checked in the browser and the file rejected even before the user pressed the upload button, saving the inspectors time. There would have to be an override for panoramic stitches.

If wishes were Margaritas, we'd all be passed out on the floor.

That's actually the main reason the Inspectors don't usually take the time to manually add in the resolution information.

Yeah, you've hit on the reason why automatically checking doesn't work. If the uploader can hit an override button when uploading a panorama, someone who upsamples could also simply hit the override and we're right back where we started.

The rejection notice is pretty clear. When someone receives it, even if the Inspector hasn't stopped their workflow to look up a given camera's native resolution and typed in a detailed comparison of the camera's specs vs the size of the file, it should be a pretty easy and logical conclusion that the contributor should revisit the file they uploaded. There isn't a lot of room for mystery as with a lighting rejection or some copyright issues.

That said, the Suggestion Forum is always there for anyone who wishes to tell iStock how they can do things better.

shootsphoto, your thread got a bit derailed but there are a few things you can do.

If the file was rejected in error, you can submit a Scout ticket.

Or you give me the file number, and I will take a quick look at your rejection to see if there was indeed an error.