LR and Nikon NEF raw files?

[Harrzack]

I just created a 6'-image batch of JPG's from LR 1.4 (it is ok so far on the Mac, OS X 1'.4.11), and uploaded them to iStockphoto. Much to my shock and horror, so far about THIRTY have been rejected for 'artifacts' and 'artifacting'. Comments on the iStock help forum are saying that LR and Nikon NEF's don't really play together well.

It did seem the problems occurred in the conversion to JPG, as the images looked very clean in LR at 1:1. I use the 'home-pagedown' technique to scour the images looking for dust and other blemishes as well as any artifacts, and everything appeared fine.

It would really suck to have to abandon LR or fragment the workflow to accommodate Nikon differences. Is this true or folk-lore? :roll:

 

[Ian Farlow]

I would have to say this is bogus. There may be an issue with the settings you used for export, or if you are using an iStock export plugin there may be issues with the plugin, but as far as NEF and Lightroom being poor matches for each other, I'd say hogwash!

 

[Harrzack]

Hoping for hogwash!

Ian - I sure hope that is the case! I love the workflow, and would hate to have to use Capture NX. iStock wants full res JPG's, so the slider is pushed to the max at 3'' dpi.

I plan to take NEF file from one of the failed images, open it PSCS3, and then export to JPG from there. Then compare the two -- no other changes, and see if I can see a dif.

Having 3' decent images dumped for such trivial cr*p really sux, and renews my misgivings over a lot of the 'quality' practices and standards iStock enforces.

 

[rcannonp]

I plan to take NEF file from one of the failed images, open it PSCS3, and then export to JPG from there. Then compare the two -- no other changes, and see if I can see a dif.

They should look exactly the same since you would be using the same processing engine. It would be interesting to process the images through ACR in Photoshop with no changes and see if they accept them then.

 

[Ian Farlow]

I've had some issue with iStock in the past, and my issues were with their quality standards as well. They seemed to be hit or miss as to what is acceptable. They bashed me on some uploads (that was just to become a member) and I could never understand why. Sure, they sent feedback as to why they rejected the photos, but I could never see what they were talking about.

That, then, presents a third possibility for why some of your images were rejected... iStock reps can be quirky sometimes.

 

[Sean McCormack]

What quality setting are you using?

 

[Harrzack]

Image settings

Sean -

I set everything 'to the max'. When doing the JPG's in PS, I set the level to 12 at 3'' dpi. I think this is iStock's suggestion. I assume I'm getting the same in LR. I've seen info from SmugMug that makes a case (for prints anyway), the level 7 is damn good/good enuf.

I'll try doing a couple thru PS and see how they looks. I have to get over being steamed tho -- those lame iStock rejections press some buttons in me and that is not good and I get really cranky for a few days...

What quality setting are you using?