Rgbstock forum

forum > Technical questions > Please do not over filter your files

Please do not over filter your files

1. Gramps8 August 2011, 10:55 GMT +02:00

Argh !

I've just had 'Old Stables' accepted, one of which has been made to look old. Great, I made it look old because the stables are Victorian. The same reason I made two copies of an old water pump look old.




But they were rejected with the reason:

Please do not over filter your files. Can you upload the original?

Yes I can. In fact I have !

This keeps happening with photo's I have intentionaly made look old,washed out or grainy. I even mention it in the description. They are not over filtered, they are meant to look that way, that's the whole point.

OK. moan over I feel better. Now where are those little pink pills.

2. xymonau8 August 2011, 11:19 GMT +02:00

I can't see the last two images, Phil.

3. Gramps8 August 2011, 12:02 GMT +02:00

Sorry, forgot to unlock. Should be good to go :0)

4. xymonau8 August 2011, 12:43 GMT +02:00

I love them. Very effective! They'd look great on cards.

5. Gramps8 August 2011, 12:53 GMT +02:00

Only if you can download them :0)

6. crisderaud8 August 2011, 15:40 GMT +02:00

Really like that last one. Looks like an old postcard.

I have the pink pills, but federal laws prevent me from sharing them.

7. Gramps10 August 2011, 20:13 GMT +02:00

Cheers Chris but I have my own.
Any of the Admin like to answer my question ? I won't stamp my feet and throw teddy out of the cot, honest :0)

8. certifiable13 August 2011, 15:33 GMT +02:00

They are over filtered, meant to look like that or not, the image quality is gone...
don't get me wrong I like grain a lot, hell I still shoot with film... but the original quality is lost, meant to look old or not.
Most stock sites would not accept shots like that.

9. crisderaud13 August 2011, 20:32 GMT +02:00

Stephan is correct Phil. Although I like the final effect, the image is now a finished product and not simple stock. I suppose the dividing line is what is filtered and what is over filtered. A change in tone and hue or to black and white is acceptable as well as fractal art. Beyond that, you run the risk of having the image rejected.

As a rule of thumb, effects are limited to just slightly more than the standard adjustment layers.

10. xymonau14 August 2011, 0:51 GMT +02:00

I beg to differ. We may offer free stock images, but there are a lot of people who just want to use images as backing for slides in their church, or for church bulletins, web pages, etc. My images would be the most filtered on the planet, and I have the third most downloads on here. True, not every download means the images are used, but I do get emails from people about how they have used them, so some are being used.

Perhaps we need to decide which market we are aiming for. If it is only a professional market, then I am probably out. Lots of people need a finished product as they have no capacity to edit images.

Maybe we could introduce a grading - unedited, edited, and graphics. Heavily edited photos would then become graphics.

I would also like to point out a very heavily edited image of mine which on this site has had a lot of downloads:


It was rejected in the unedited state, as it was taken with a flash. So I messed with it every which way. I expected it to be rejected, but it wasn't. And the downloaders seem to like it. It has been used on a lot of blogs. If something is pleasing to the eye, then someone will use it.

11. certifiable14 August 2011, 9:05 GMT +02:00

In my opinion you can't compare yourrose with the waterpump... The rose would still qualify in my eyes, the waterpump is on a whole different level...

Like I said, I like that stuff, the whole reason why I shoot with film and try to create that effect( without a computer ), but I'm not submitting them here, most stock sites would never accept that.
That doesn't mean the images are bad, just not stock material, the quality of the image is to degraded... I wouldn't mind if they start accepting thngs like that though.

12. Gramps14 August 2011, 23:51 GMT +02:00

OK I can accept a standard, if that's is what it is, as long as it is a standard. If so, why was the old stables accepted and the waterpump rejected ? . I'm quite happy to abide by a set of rules as long as those rules are consistant.

As far as what is acceptable as stock; I've always regarded it as anything the users want to download.

So, I will double check the 'rules' and if required will stop sending those that do not fit within them, I'll put them up on google, fliker, yahoo or whatever instead.

I don't intend to make a great issue out of this, just trying to get things straight, so can we regard this as a closed thread.

Admins have my email adderess should they feel the need to contact me.

13. certifiable15 August 2011, 10:55 GMT +02:00

The level of 'filtering' (for lack of a better word) is way different on the files in my eyes, the waterpump has not only it's color changed, it has a lot more grain AND on top of that there is that border of fading around the image.

the old stable almost falls in the 'monogrome' editting, where the pump actually fals in the filtering catergory.

14. Gramps15 August 2011, 12:58 GMT +02:00

@13 Cheers, points taken. EOS.

Please sign in or sign up if you want to participate in the forum discussions.

Lightbox . FAQ . contact . license agreement . terms of use . about . www.hqstock.com free stock photos totally free stock photos stock photos high quality free stock photos totally free stock photos totally free stock photos totally free stock images free stock images editors' pick alternative to sxc.hu Rgbstock blog and news
| English | Deutsch | Español | Polski | Português | Nederlands |
Shutterstock official partner of Rgbstock Saqurai AI official partner of Rgbstock