Why Would Faa Refuse To Print?

Not in focus and grainy.

IMHO that would look fine when printed and the customer would have been happy. The noise and DOF issues aren't significant, especially given the subject and the size of the image.

Normally FAA would contact you to upload a better image. I don't know if they did that? It has happened to me that FAA contacted me after making a sale and asked me to upload a better image. When I spoke to staff they said it was a mistake and it was fine for printing after all.

If FAA won't print that I'm not sure how much hope I have. I use a scanner for my pen and pencil drawings/sketches and run them through the sharpen filter a couple times and I don't think they look any sharper than that photo, though I've printed them out on my own printer at 200% to test them and they look fine to me. Maybe I shouldn't offer prints if this is the headache they are going to cause.

It doesn't look sharp to me. It looks fine on my screen, where it is postcard sized. However if you look at the detail of its main page, which is mainly the eyes in the case of a portrait like this, there is very little sharpness. There is a "school" of art photography where "out of focus" seems to equal "moody", and gets a pass. This doesn't strike me in that way. It seems to lack both highlight detail, and strong blacks. Looking at the eye, it does not grab me like it should. It's a great statue, a great job framing, and the mood could work, if only it were about twice as sharp. I would want more light, greater DOF, and more contrast. Did you perhaps "over-process" the image by repeated application of digital filters? (This tends to smear pixels and reduce contrast.)

The bigger concern here for me is the disconnect between faa and the artist.

No, they didn't contact me, and won't reply to my inquiries. As for image quality, there IS a slight graininess, which given that this is an ancient artifact and I was not allowed to use flash, bright lights, or a tripod, is understandable. However, the buyer was aware of the graininess, and still wanted the photo, enough to contact me and ask me to have it done myself.

It looked really good on a canvas print, the final print was stunning.

This event has left me thinking that I can't trust FAA to sell my work.

As soon as can get my entire portfolio transferred over, I'll be going to a competitor.

It wouldn't be so bad if FAA would actually respond, but they won't.

My manuscripts is much better than my cursive.

Odd indeed. More worrying is that FAA QA didn't contact you./ I only had this happen once for a shot I had taken with my camera phone and QA contacted me for a new upload.

- Richard Reeve
ReevePhotos.com

Vicki;

You asked for opinions here and got a few. If you didn't want to hear that it looks grainy and OOF, don't ask for opinions. Also, did you check your spam box? Maybe FAA did contact you. If I had taken that image, it never would have been uploaded on the web.

I agree that it would look fine. I think it's completely subjective. If it had been discussed with the customer and they agreed to it, FAA should have printed it.

It's plenty sharp enough. We can look at 100% and imagine pushing the sharpening even further in LR, but that's not necessary, it's not going to be printed at 100%, and some additional sharpening will be applied by the printer anyway. The noise level is very low. You couldn't do much better than this, given the low light and being handheld (or hand-braced against something). I'm also wondering if it was behind glass.

Bottom line, the customer would have liked it just fine. A gallery might not have accepted it, but that's not what FAA is about.

its not really in focus, though it should print as a small or a card. and there is some grain to it, though not enough to really say it can't print at any size. they usually give a reason why though and a sample.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I also think it looks fine for printing. I disagree with Joseph!

be sure to check your spam box. and if you have aol or comcast - you may never get the mail. i had to switch my email to get all the mail again.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

It is showing one size larger available than what your file resolution is.

Perhaps that is the problem ? There is a big discrepancy on the Height I believe there.
I don't know if FAA's letter to the Collector is a generic " will not print " . I don't think they state anything about " available on one size down".

Shame - hope you were able to save a sale. I can see it is a bit soft - but thousands of years old !

Same thing happened with several of mine, one of which I had printed myself at Walmart and sent to the buyer (a facebook friend) myself. The print at Walmart was great and the customer happy.
I would also like to know when FAA speaks to customers if they suggest a smaller print size to them that would print ok. if the larger size is not going to be clear.
It would be nice if FAA would be more proactive in cases like that. Offer a smaller print.
Also would like to see a way FAA could suggest using an artists discount code to buy a print, when someone is purchasing a card.
I haven't had a sale for over a month and have spent hours administering groups, uploading new work of mine, participating in contest and on and on.
Think my frustration is demanding I spend a bit more time on my other sites.

Those things should not be subjective. Common sense!

In this case, the buyer brought up the issue of a smaller size, and FAA refused to print at any size. My main issue though is their lack of response. I have checked my spam folder, and I contacted them at the time this happened, and then again a few days ago. NO response.

I am not arguing with anyone about the graininess or quality, I asked for opinions. I am just stating that any "problems" visible to anyone involved in this discussion, would also be visible to the buyer, and the buyer wanted the art enough to track me down on Facebook and ask me to print it myself. I would think FAA could, in a case like that, print it with the forewarning to the buyer that it might be grainy.

At any rate, as I said, my biggest issue is that I've gotten no response. It makes me question whether they will print other work of mine, leaves me feeling like my yearly fee is money in the trash, and uploading work is a waste of time.

Could it be that it was shot in a museum and there are copyright issues?

Diane Diederich, I thought that might be an issue too, though I had permission to photograph the artifacts...

If that WAS the issue, I still think FAA should have contacted me, how would they know whether I had the permission and documentation or not if they don't communicate with me about it?

there is a certain softness to it which I think is borderline in terms of printability. But on the right cheek there are what seem to be sharpening artifacts. Hard to say exactly what it is, but maybe tell us more about the photo? Which camera/lens, did you heavily crop or was it perhaps soft and did you try to remedy that by aggressive sharpening?

One thing is for sure: FAA would not deny you a sale without a good reason as its money out of their pockets too. And the one time I did have a QC issue I received a mail stating exactly what the problem was and communications with FAA HQ were fairly smooth.

At any rate, I'll be transferring a lot of my work elsewhere, to another POD site that doesn't charge artists a fee and hasn't refused to print any of my work. I'll leave my stuff up hear until I get it all uploaded there though, and probably until my current paid year is up.

Vicky…I agree…they should let you know the reason. It is a little soft but I think it would be fine for a print. Strange.

To me, in the loupe box, (the full size view window), it looks enlarged and blurry. I think that's the problem.

I don't think it's about the artifact, I have seen some things in the recently sold pages that are much more questionable in regard to copyright violation than your image.

I am surprised you didn't get an email, I thought that was standard. Have you checked your spam folder or your email here? Bummer about them not getting back to you. I'd PM Abbie Shores, the moderator here, or I'd pick up the phone and call.

Vicki, FAA/Pixels has a money back guarantee on prints, no questions asked. So they have a definite legitimate business interest in quality control to prevent probable or likely returns. From my perspective, I find it hard to believe that you have an artistic preference for the softness of the image. It would be better, in my opinion, if you would address the underlying quality issues, and be grateful that FAA is indirectly protecting your reputation by printing only your best work.

They really want you to make sales, but only sales where you, FAA, and the buyer all get a good deal. Those three stars just didn't come into conjunction in the heavens this week. Since the buyer contacted YOU, you could always order a print from anywhere, yourself, and ship it direct to the customer, with paypal as payment medium.

There is very little editing of any kind done to the work. I do see in the smaller thumbnail what does indeed look like processing "artifacts", but you can see if you click on the image and look at the larger picture, those are actually cracks and variations in the surface of the alabaster, unless you are seeing something different than what i am referring to.

Regardless, it makes no sense that FAA would not contact me, or, if they did, it was lost in cyberspace somewhere.

I am surprised the customer told you that and you didn't get any feedback from FAA.

Sounds like evasiveness here. It may not be, but it looks that way, because

FAA should/could print it smaller, but won't? Are you sure of that? It is evasive of them to not explain.
Or
FAA, by refusing to print any size, wants itself out of the equation about copyright...by Not Replying....so any onus is on you, not them......Smart tactics.
Or, their Reply got lost!


You might get a reply if you make this Private ?

Which is it FAA.?

Viva, yes the lack of reply is my main issue with this. If they don't want to print it fine, I can sell it on my own website, and other POD sites, I just wish they would reply to me, tell me the issue. They said not printable in any size, I can't imagine it not even being suitable for a small print.

As far as I know FAA doesn't meddle with copyright unless there is a specific complaint. And something about the image looks off but I can't quite put my finger on it. It wouldn't pass any stock photo site QC for sure.

If you want us to help you figure this out we'll need more info. Which camera/lens, how processed? To me it looks like it was cropped or something.

If you think about it, FAA is a small business, but does a lot of sales. It seems somewhat logical, if not unfortunate, that at times an issue slips between the cracks. Yes, if they did not contact you, they should have. But it seems silly to me to stop selling here over one incident. Even sillier to keep announcing it in a forum discussion.

the whole idea is. while a walmart print might be fine and all. if you had to pay for a canvas print and the customer said - this isn't in focus i want my money back. you would be stuck with a print and less money. and that's why they reject things that don't look good. but their mail is often erased by the ISP. and there is little clear communication as to how an image should look, and those rules seem to change and fluctuate a lot. like there was one person who said his thing sold at 48" despite noise and blocks. so its hard to know, and asking them is also next to impossible. or when you do change something and they don't think it's enough that's also bad.

museums can't put copyrights on statues.

however they could have asked the buyer to wave the 30day and get the print or run a filter over it which oddly makes it even blurrier and that seems to be ok.

and its doubtful its copyright anyway considering the stuff that's sold here, which is a much higher issue.

if your on comcast, they sandbox the mail, you may never see it. on aol they may simply erase it, especially if there is an attachment. if you have those services, that's what happened to it.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

I think communication is important, whatever issue arises, someone should contact the artist and give an opportunity to fix.
FAA correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it true that there are two people and then the creator of the website handling everything?

So there may be a lack of response due to nobody there to respond?

I had this issue and was contacted a few times and eventually I deleted everything in my galleries and started over.

That being said you only found out because the customer contacted you. How many printings are denied where customers just don't contact the artist therefore we never know? Makes me wonder. I think the process may be automated "canned messages" maybe, not from FAA but from where FAA outsources printing. Could that be?

Never put your eggs in one basket!

I agree with Joseph "But it seems silly to me to stop selling here over one incident."

I would say don't make a knee jerk decision over one incident. Nothing is perfect. My advise is Diversity!

The one time I had an issue with FAA not wanting to print something, they contacted me, not the buyer. You can try messaging Isabella and see if she can get a handle on it.

Check your spam folder in your email. See if there is something in the way of email setup that will allow FAA notices to not be dumped. AOL puts them in spam, but they are still accessible. Other than that, I don't know what other email servers do with them.

I think a solution to the SPAM problem with messages would be simple to program. Probably FAA should send an email, but also always send a message on the FAA/Pixels message system, which isn't true email, but is not subject to issues like spam filters.

I'll find the suggestion thread now, and post the suggestion there.
Those who think this is a good idea could add an echo of the suggestion on that thread.

i've been wanting them to send an internal mail and a regular mail - so we really know there is an issue. or a flag saying there was something wrong and an all clear that it's ok now. i hate submitting something and never knowing if its good or not.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

If FAA prints a substandard quality print they run they risk of getting it back as per their guarantee. Don't blame FAA for your photo quality but they should have contacted you.

To be clear…I wasn't saying that the museum had a copyright on the statue. They do however, restrict photography of their displays in most cases to non-commercial use.

Granted, FAA looks the other way on copyright most of the time, but maybe they were contacted in this case about it. In any case Vicki should have been informed.

I've never had a problem getting a hold of them. That's weird. The person to talk to is Dawn unless she is no longer here. Shoot a note to Lady Isabella.
I've had similar issues when I first came here and worked with Dawn through email to understand why. If they refuse to print at any size then it means the image will not look good (FAA standard; which is high print quality images) at any size. They offer museum quality prints and guarantee it. It does not matter if you or other people think it's fine. Most people's eyes are not trained to see the issues. FAA is trained and can see the whole image at the printing size. If it is blurry, has jpeg artifacts, full of pixels due to original lighting or being over processed...even in a minor way, it is not museum quality. They have a reputation to uphold.
I'm sorry that you feel that you have to leave. I'd be wary of a site that will print anything because quality is very important to your image as well.

Looks out of focus and grainy to me.

Thank you everyone for you input, perhaps the graininess was the issue, or perhaps because FAA didn't know if I had documented permission for this photo. Either way, I maintain they should have contacted me. I am going to try once more to reach them on the issue, this time perhaps directly messaging someone by name as was suggested by several people. In the meantime, I guess I have to make this image unavailable through FAA.

Jani Freimann, I never said the other site will print "anything", I said they had never refused to print any of my work.

My appologies, Vicki. My poor word choice.

I remember it used to be that when you signed into FAA the first page that would come up is a message about a printing problem! That was a good system.

I took a look at two of your paintings. The owl and the lily pad painting. Both are soft, but probably would print well from FAA at the under 20 inches size. More so the owl than the lily pad. Even though you can see the texture of the canvas in the thumbnails. I viewed them in the green loop and through that box you can see what the image will look like at its full resolution. You have both of these available for larger than they should print. One of the confusions here, at the upload stage, is if a price box is available it means you can print it at that size. Not so. It just means that your images pixels x pixels can print at that size if the image is perfectly in focus and has not artifacts or pixilation. Those two images should have at least the largest sized price box empty due to the softness of the images and the fact that you are offering at least one size too big of your image based on the pixels I see through the green loop.

I found this chart that will help you understand how FAA sees your images.

One side of your image must be at least this many pixels in length or more (your images pixels x pixels show in bold above the price chart after you upload your image). If the image just barely makes the requirement, I suggest dropping one size down just to be on the safe side. If the pixels sizes land in between, choose the lesser of the two:

8 x 0 = 686 (pixels)
10 x 0 = 857
12 x 0 = 1229
14 x 0 = 1200
16 x 0 = 1371
20 x 0 = 1714
24 x 0 = 2055
30 x 0 = 2571
36 x 0 = 3086
40 x 0 = 3429
48 x 0 = 4114
60 x 0 = 5143
72 x 0 = 6171
96 x 0 = 8229
108 x 0 = 9257

Use the pixel chart for both sides. Height and width.

ex: Your owl is 2196 x 2195. The largest print size you can make available is 24 x 24 if the image is in perfect focus, but you have it available for one size bigger.

Remember, if your images are blurry or pixelated they still will not be printable. Probably at any or most of the sizes you offer. It must be sharp (not over sharp) at the required pixels. The photo cannot be enlarged to fit. Clean, sharp photos straight from the camera or scanner is best. If you do some processing, take the biggest one or two sizes you can offer off by leaving the price box empty. Especially if it barely fits into the required pixels by pixels. Even a little processing degrades the image.

So far, in following this system, I have not had a single problem with getting orders printed.

It's a challenge to know how to photograph artwork (always photograph in the RAW setting of your camera. More info to work with) and it is not the same as photography. Its imperative to not photograph too close or too far away, to have perfect lighting for each and every piece (which is different for each painting) and it is even more imperative that your camera is completely still. It took me a long time to learn how to do it for myself and to know how to process the images properly. For those who don't want to bother with the work it will require to learn it, scanning is a great option.

I had the same print sell in the 24x36 canvas size to three different people in the same day.

The file must have been reviewed once for each order. Twice it went through just fine and once I got the email that I needed to edit it.

I sharpened the file and then it was ok to print the third time. I thought sharpening the print changed the look of it but none of them were returned.

There have been others that were not fit to print and then suddenly they were fit to print without changes. I've only had two returns. One was because they wanted a bigger size and I don't know about the second one but it wasn't one of the images that was flagged for printing issues before it shipped.

The review for print ability is a human review process and inconsistent.

An image that is a little more grainy and/or blurry will probably look fine printed on canvas than paper but there is a bigger financial risk to ship out a canvas because it costs more so who knows how decisions are made or what the criteria is.

It's been a year or so since the last print quality email after an order was received.

Interesting discussion. Yes, the OP's photo is a bit soft at 100% and she is aware of that. I don't agree that the noise level is even significant. I do agree that microstock agencies wouldn't accept it, but that's not necessarily relevant - we're not selling stock, just prints. And not 'fine art' prints either, despite the FAA name; the market is just conventional wall art for homes and offices. Sharpness is always subjective and I am pretty sure a medium-size print of this photo would look fine - meaning the perceived sharpness is acceptable, given the subject.

Adam Jewell makes it pretty clear that many photos are skating the edge, at least in some ways and as seen by some people. I definitely have a few in that category but I don't post anything I don't think would give a satisfactory print, and note the word 'satisfactory'. I'm not claiming to be a 'fine art' photographer nor am I charging 'fine art' prices.

I really hope the OP gets a satisfactory response from FAA and posts it here.

I have never heard of FAA not contacting the artist before canceling a sale because of print issues until this thread. I do like the idea of an internal message to go along with the email since some email providers pick and choose what emails to let through to you.

FAA's official policy is to contact the artist for a new or better version of the file rejected.

Dawn is still here and makes the final call on what will go to print. There is a QA team that pre-screens prints before she sees them. If all three (Not always the same three) say OK then it goes to directly to print. If ANY say reject it, then it goes to Dawn for the final say.

I cannot say why this didn't print. I will say that canvas masks some issues and just because it looks great on a 24 inch canvas doesn't mean it will look great as a 48 inch acrylic or even a 24 inch acrylic.

If a print sale was refused it was only after faa had tried to contact you to get it sorted first.

Yikes!!! I am sorry to have posted anything to this thread......turned out when I requested to be notified of responses by email ....then went to my hotmail I had something like 20 notifications......BUT they were all just the original post at the top. I stopped notifications but wonder what happened? Lady Isabella?

Weird they didn't contact you. Even if the email is missing, don't they usually post a bulletin that shows up as soon as you sign in to let you know that your image won't print? I know they use to.

That notice would only stay up until you fixed it or they canceled the sale.

If you never logged in OR stayed logged in during that time you would miss it.

Thank you for replying Lady Isabella, I suppose it is possible the email got lost. I do get other emails from FAA without issue though. What is most troubling to me was the lack of response and the thought that if the buyer hadn't contacted me I never would have known. If there is an issue with one image, not a big deal, but I wonder if this has happened without my knowledge other times. I am closing the discussion now, as it has developed a life of its own at this point. I'm still with FAA a bit longer as it stands, many things I do like about the site, I just wish they had let me know the issue so I can try to avoid it in the future.