Suscríbete y ahorra con nuestras nuevas suscripciones de imágenes.

Más información
Cerrar

Este sitio utiliza cookies. Al continuar utilizando iStock, estás aceptando nuestro uso de cookies. Obtén más información aquí.

Continuar

PHOTO: rejection: interpolated!

Mostrando 1 a 17 de 17 resultados.
shootsphoto
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Comentado Tue Jun 5, 2012 12:46PM
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)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveIlustrador exclusivo de iStockphotoArtista de Flash exclusivo de iStockphotoVideógrafo exclusivo de iStockphotoEl miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semana
Comentado Tue Jun 5, 2012 12:49PM

Posted By shootsphoto:
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?


I'm pretty sure they know stuff like that. How about posting the sample in the critique forum?
jentakespictures
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Comentado Tue Jun 5, 2012 12:57PM
Yeah, I haven't had that problem with my D800.  You should post the text of the rejection + the photo in the critique forum.
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 downloadsExclusiveEste miembro ha ganado un concursoModerador del foro
Comentado Tue Jun 5, 2012 1:27PM

Posted By sjlocke:

Posted By shootsphoto:
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?


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


That's definitely the best plan of action.

I'll move this over there...
inhauscreative
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsEste miembro es un InspectorExclusiveIlustrador exclusivo de iStockphotoArtista de audio exclusivo de iStockphotoEste miembro ha tenido un Diseño de la semanaEl miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semanaEste miembro ha ganado un concurso
Comentado Tue Jun 5, 2012 8:14PM
Did you make a layer and stretch it in photoshop and resave?
lostinbids
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveVideógrafo exclusivo de iStockphotoEste miembro se retiró del último torneo. ¿Qué pasa? ¿Te asustas por un simple asalto de Photoshop?
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 2:44AM
Posted By sjlocke:


Posted By shootsphoto:
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?



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


Sometimes a new camera catches the inspectors unaware.  I think the same happened many years ago when sony brought out the A900.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveIlustrador exclusivo de iStockphotoArtista de Flash exclusivo de iStockphotoVideógrafo exclusivo de iStockphotoEl miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semana
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 4:45AM
Yeah, but it can also catch the user unaware with new settings they weren't expecting.
shootsphoto
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 9:49AM
Posted By inhauscreative:
Did you make a layer and stretch it in photoshop and resave?

No, I did not. No stretching at all involved. And this rejection reason has happend again - this time with a different picture... ;-(
MivPiv
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsEste miembro es un InspectorExclusiveEste miembro ha ganado un concursoEl miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semana
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 9:56AM
It is much easier to figure out if you post the entire rejection reason and a link to your picture full size
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 downloadsExclusiveEste miembro ha ganado un concursoModerador del foro
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 10:05AM

Posted By shootsphoto:
Posted By inhauscreative:
Did you make a layer and stretch it in photoshop and resave?

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


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.


pixzzle
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 10:26AM
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?
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 downloadsExclusiveEste miembro ha aparecido en la sección El miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semanaModerador del foro
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 10:34AM

Posted By pixzzle:
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.
pixzzle
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 11:25AM
Posted By donald_gruener:

Only if the Inspector takes the time to write that in.

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.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveIlustrador exclusivo de iStockphotoArtista de Flash exclusivo de iStockphotoVideógrafo exclusivo de iStockphotoEl miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semana
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 11:34AM

Posted By pixzzle:
If the upload page was upgraded to the latest web standards (HTML5),


If wishes were Margaritas, we'd all be passed out on the floor.
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 downloadsExclusiveEste miembro ha aparecido en la sección El miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semanaModerador del foro
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 2:30PM

Posted By sjlocke:

Posted By pixzzle:
If the upload page was upgraded to the latest web standards (HTML5),


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.

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 downloadsExclusiveEste miembro ha aparecido en la sección El miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semanaModerador del foro
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 2:37PM

Posted By pixzzle:
Posted By donald_gruener:

Only if the Inspector takes the time to write that in.

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.


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.
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 downloadsExclusiveEste miembro ha aparecido en la sección El miembro ha tenido un Archivo de la semanaModerador del foro
Comentado Wed Jun 6, 2012 2:41PM
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.
El hilo ha sido bloqueado.
Mostrando 1 a 17 de 17 resultados.
¿Todavía no eres miembro?Registrarse
carro (0)