Jump to content
Everlite1knight

Rejecting all images - retouching issue - illustrations

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Apologies if this topic is a frequently discuss, currently new to Alamy and looking for a little further understanding.

 

So far, I've had two rejection notices stating; noticeable retouching. These are digital illustrations; so i'm unsure how this applies, but I can accept the feedback for those images.

 

The other illustrations are all rejected. So what do i do? 

 

The work I create are digital illustrations; not photography. I work in the film industry as a matte painter; creating photo realistic digital backgrounds for film and TV. So this is the kind of content i submit to Alamy. This type of content is usually more conceptually different; for example futuristic cityscapes, among others but done in with a photorealistic goal. You can see the kind of work here: https://artstation.com/everlite  

 

So far I've submitted maybe 10-20 images. That are all digital illustrations; not photography. None are specifically related to each other; all are different.


I can understand someone who submits 100 photos of a fruit bowl and if one image is bad, then there's a high chance the rest might be too .. however in this case, every image i've submitted is diversely different in theme, techniques, content etc .. I feel that one bad image shouldn't be a cause to reject every other image without reviewing them; each image should be evaluated alone.  

 

Do I simply submit the other images again one at a time in hope they will get seen? 

 

Another question; the choice between photo and illustration. what would this fall under https://www.artstation.com/artwork/XBz4y   this is a digital illustration with photographic elements.

 

I'm sure there's a purpose why this policy exists of rejecting all images, but doesn't seem appropriate for illustration work.

 

Thank you,

David

 

 

 

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Everlite1knight said:

I feel that one bad image shouldn't be a cause to reject every other image without reviewing them; each image should be evaluated alone.  

Alamy do not have the time for this. This is QC policy in every industry across the world - as soon as an error is found then QC stop looking and send the work back. As for the error you can post your rejected image here so that the people here can have a look. There is a lot of accumulated experience here on the forum and you will get some valuable feedback. It might not necessarily be what you want to hear or phrased  smoothly and diplomatically, but it will be valuable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Everlite1knight said:

but doesn't seem appropriate for illustration work.

I see what you mean, but Alamy's rejections are on technical issues alone, so if they find a technical error in an image then they assume that it cold well be there in others, even if they are looking at illustrations which are created from scratch individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two that were rejected were:  ruined city 005 and ruins 7k  the others were not seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little more detail on Alamy QC

 

Basically, Alamy use an industrial type sampling system for QC. Once the contributor has passed their initial submission test, it is assumed they have the skills and workflow to consistently submit acceptable images. The only only check Alamy  make is to examine a small number of images from each batch submitted. It the sample is OK, they assume the rest are OK too. They rely on the professionalism and skill of the contributor. 

 

If an image fails they assume a problem has arisen in the photographer's workflow. They reject all images in the queue to allow the photographer to examine whether the problem is a one off or something which affects several images, and re-submit as required. There is usually a short period of suspension from uploading to prevent contributors from simply removing the bad image and submitting all the rest without checking them further first.

 

The system is the same ass it widely used in industry. No company inspects every nut, bolt and widget they receive at goods inwards. They inspect a small sample and if they find a bad one, they reject the whole batch  and return it to the supplier for them to sort out their problem.

 

 

The problem we (you) have here is it's not clear whether the kind of image you are submitting is being assessed in the way that a photograph is. If so, it seems likely to be rejected because (to me at least) they look rather soft focus and grainy/noisy when viewed at 100%. It may be best to contact Contributor Relations and describe the kind of image you are submitting and see if there is a way round these rejections.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love them all, however sky has artifacts in them, the others with sky won't pass either.

Send in door and drone and you wont have any trouble getting them past QC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I've not downloaded the actual images as the last thing I need is to have to "register" for yet another app/website/whatever, but looking at one of your excellent breakdown videos I couldn't help but notice many obviously repeated elements--and repeated elements as an indicator of "obvious retouching" used to be one of the specific examples Alamy used to show contributors as something for which images would be rejected.

 

So I wonder, is this a factor in the rejected images?

 

DD                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some jaggies (aliasing) on diagonal lines on the vehicles. The ruined cities have interpolation artefacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback thus far.

 

Hm, so maybe if i reduce the images by 40% or so, that might crush the artifacts?  I still feel the concepts are valuable and if the only offending issue is noise, or blurry areas, then reducing the size could resolve this. Most of the images are around 8-10k so even at 4-6k in size, that could be useful.

 

So what do i select when adding similar images? photography or illustration?

 

dustydingo - i dont believe you have to register to download the file, it should open the page and the link is available. It's a paid account, so there shouldn't be any issues.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Everlite1knight said:

Thanks for the feedback thus far.

 

Hm, so maybe if i reduce the images by 40% or so, that might crush the artifacts?  I still feel the concepts are valuable and if the only offending issue is noise, or blurry areas, then reducing the size could resolve this. Most of the images are around 8-10k so even at 4-6k in size, that could be useful.

 

So what do i select when adding similar images? photography or illustration?

 

dustydingo - i dont believe you have to register to download the file, it should open the page and the link is available. It's a paid account, so there shouldn't be any issues.

 

 

:) no worries, thanks mate.

My question about repeated elements I can now offer as a definite statement--there are noticeable repeated elements in many of your images that I am sure Alamy would identify as obvious retouching. I do wish we still had private messaging . . .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dustydingo - thanks for the feedback. Could you highlight which image has areas of repetition so I can review this more clearly? Thank you.

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Everlite1knight said:

Thanks for the feedback thus far.

 

...

 

So what do i select when adding similar images? photography or illustration?

...

 

 

 

I think it would be helpful to refer to Contributor Relations. Photorealistic images is a grey area and they may be best placed to offer a meaningful response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Everlite1knight said:

dustydingo - thanks for the feedback. Could you highlight which image has areas of repetition so I can review this more clearly? Thank you.

 

David

Mate, I've just e-mailed you on your gmail account.

 

DD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the repeated items are okay, because, after all these are illustrations. I see images here showing objects with 50 repeats across the board. The image does need to be artifact-free, though. 
I’ve found sometimes, depending on who is doing the QC, acceptance of artistic images is hit or miss. You take two people looking at the sky. One, looking at the clouds, says, “I see a dog!” The other one looks at him like he’s crazy and says, “Dude, that’s just a sky with clouds. Are you tripping?” 😂

I’ve had artistic endeavors fail. I deliberately introduced grain that enhanced the vintage look I wanted refused because of noise. Sometimes what you envision as art isn’t recognized by those grounded in pure photography.

Good luck.

Betty

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic digital illustration. I think Alamy would benefit from having as much of your work on the system as possible.

 

You bring up a very real problem with photographic digital illustration.

 

I am nowhere near your high level, but I sometimes ftp a combination of straight photographs, lightly retouched photographs of real places, photographic digital illustration, and obvious digital illustration, all of them FTP to _stock. After acceptance I designate photographic digital illustration and obvious digital illustration as "illustration" in the Alamy Image Manager.

 

However this is after submission. I am always concerned that Alamy QC will mistake a photographic digital illustration for a photograph and disqualify it for obvious retouching. If it is a photographic digital illustration, in many cases, obvious retouching does not really matter. Sometimes obvious retouching enhances the image.

 

To date my fallback position has been to not Alamy submit any photographic digital illustration that show digital retouching. A loss for the Alamy library.

 

A solution to this problem, would be to have the ability to divide our submissions accordingly, and ftp them to either _stock or to a new address _illustration. Alamy could then apply the proper QC to the illustrations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

A solution to this problem, would be to have the ability to divide our submissions accordingly, and ftp them to either _stock or to a new address _illustration. Alamy could then apply the proper QC to the illustrations.

On the web upload there is the option to tick either photograph or illustration.  I don't know because I've only ever used the photo tick box but does this handle the differentiation for QC purposes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 crops with simple defects:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8p5vtjk3vhrlaby/crop-ruined city 005.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ssdy68a5eh8sb5q/crop-ruins 7k.jpg

(Sorry don't know why dropbox insists on showing them this big - they're normal at download though.)

 

I think the problem that QC has with these images is that at thumbnail size they suggest to be photorealistic.

Anything that looks a certain way in thumbnail, but turns out to be totally different when opened at 100% by the client gets a rejection.

So in general if you use parts of bitmaps, they should have the correct size at the definitive end size. So if you start with a 10x10 pixels piece of bitmap, but the end size is a 7000x4000 pixels, your initial 10x10 don't look so good. It's called uprezzing and yes you can, but only with very good files, like RAW files and then only to a certain size, say to a 14x14 pixels. It's not such a big deal with moving images, but still images are being scrutinized throughout the industry at 100%.

So check your initial jigsaw puzzle bitmap parts, see which one got uprezzed the most, say 400% and then decrease the pixel size until you're at 100% again. Now see how big your end file is.

My guess is about screen size at 4k.

Do you have a Retina screen? Use at least 200% as a final control.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive images. Shame two failed QC. Downsizing to 6MP (using bilinear resample) may help with the artefacts? But the joining errors will still be visible.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.