Jump to content

M.Chapman

Verified
  • Content Count

    2,212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M.Chapman

  1. Presume you mean iPad, not iPod. I’ve tagged successfully on a standard iPad, but much prefer doing it on my Macbook. Mark
  2. I flatten in PS after conversion from RAW in ACR. If you want to check whether you have got extra layers, then in PS Top menu>Window>Tick layers or click F7 key and have a look. Image is flattened in PS using Top menu>Layers>Flatten image. When I get extra layers I'm not expecting it's when I use the Lens Correction filter in PS. Mark
  3. Is it that it sometimes it creates another (invisible?) layer. Try flatten image, then Save. Mark
  4. I've not tried Luminar 4 (not out yet?), but I have tried Luminar 3. In general I liked it, with most controls being fast and responsive, but there were a few "show stoppers" for me. Clone and heal tools were too slow on my MacBook Pro 2012. No manual CA removal (auto gets rid of most, but not all) No manual defringe (auto gets rid of most but not all) Eyedropper WB sometimes gave me slightly strange results Image rotate tool too laggy/jumpy to level horizons (might be fine on a faster PC) Unable to get converted RAWs to have same level of fine detail as LR/PS/ACR Suggest downloading a trial before committing funds. I'll try it too when it comes out. Mark
  5. Since Alamy's minimum size requirement was reduced to 17MB (just under 6MP), Pentax ist D images no longer need upscaling for Alamy. It's allowed me to salvage some of my older images too. 72ppi isn't relevant for Alamy submissions. Mark
  6. Agreed, but if Liverpix sees Alamy's posting rendered in his browser as 2x larger than he sees it in PS at 100% I can appreciate where some of the confusion has originated. When an image is rendered in a browser, does it use the DPI setting in the image and assume a 72 DPI display? Or does it ignore this? Mark
  7. Agreed - But browsers and settings are relevant to what he will initially see on screen vs Photoshop. I have a theory.... Maybe Liverpix is using a small high DPI display with pixels that are about 1/2 the size that most of us use. So when he looks at his image at 100% in PS he sees it at a magnification that is 50% of what most of us see. Hence the sharpening artefacts are far less noticeable to him. Just like if those with ordinary PPI displays view his image in PS at 50%. However his browser is "high DPI aware" and so is doubling the size of things he looks at to make them easier to view/read. So Liverpix sees Alamy's crops 2x larger than PS at 100% Liverpix. What is the resolution and size of your computer display? Mark (still trying to be helpful)
  8. Here's a screenshot of your image rendered at 100% in Photoshop together with how Alamy's posting appears on the my screen using Google Chrome set to 100%. Both windows were open at the same time and I simply took a screenshot. So on my system it appears Alamy have posted 100% crop. Not 200%.. It seems you must be seeing something different. If you are seeing Alamy's version as 2x larger, then your browser is rendering Alamy's image differently to that seen by most of us. Check which browser you are using and what its settings are. I ask again, are you using a Mac with retina display (maybe with display scaling enabled)? Mark
  9. Thanks. I will. I just tried half a dozen different UK servers and they all worked fine. Maybe I was just unlucky. Unfortunately I didn't write down the two servers that gave me problems, and with over 600 UK based servers to choose from it could take a long time to find it again as they've already disappeared from my recents list. Mark
  10. Thanks guys. Maybe I was just unlucky. I'll make a note of the servers involved if I see problems again. Mark
  11. I'm not sure what happens with other agencies, but on Alamy, if a customer buys an image (based on the low res preview), and then finds the full resolution downloaded image doesn't have the quality they need, they will ask for (and be given) a refund and the sale is therefore lost. That would count as a failure in my books, especially as the customer may get frustrated and go elsewhere (which then affects all of us). Alternatively, if the customer can see a high resolution section of the image before downloading (e.g. Fine Art America allow this) they are likely to decide not to buy. Again, a failure. Mark
  12. They obviously didn't inspect it closely, or have low standards, or want landscape photos that look like engravings. Mark
  13. I'm experimenting with NordVPN to enhance my internet security when using Wi-Fi hotspots. Everything I've tried so far seems to work fine except that, depending on which UK based VPN server I select, I find that I can't access "My Alamy" in Alamy Measures and an error message appears message saying that Alamy has unexpectedly disconnected. The behaviour is repeatable. Some of the UK servers are fine, others are not. It's as if Alamy is blocking access to certain sections of "My Alamy" based on the IP address of the server requesting the info. Maybe Alamy have seen malicious activity being originated through some VPN servers and so have blocked them? Is anyone else using VPN, and if so are you seeing this issue? Mark
  14. Definitely worth contacting Alamy via email contributors@alamy.com. Alternatively fill in the "Report Unauthorised Use" form (link at the bottom of your dashboard) and explain the use doesn't match the licence purchased in the text box and include the URL where you found the evidence of cover use. Mark
  15. Also applies to ACR in PS CC although the method of setting is a little different. It's great that LR's and PS ACR's develop defaults and presets are now shared. Saves a lot of confusion as I use PS most of the time (without LR) but sometimes revert to LR. Mark
  16. Knew I'd read it somewhere before. Thanks for the link. Mark
  17. I suspect that some of those that say they apply no sharpening are referring to output sharpening. But they are quite likely using the default RAW conversion settings in LR / ACR which may apply a touch of sharpening to overcome the effects of any anti-aliasing filter (if present). Adobe to do a pretty good job with their defaults. I've heard they also apply some hidden (behind the scenes) adjustments so that the results from each camera sensor are broadly the same when using the default settings. I don't know if this is true, but I do find the results from each of my cameras raw files are broadly similar when using the default settings. Adobe have however recently increased the default sharpening from 25 to 40 which I find is more than needed. All my presets still use the old LR default of 25 to my images during RAW conversion. If the converted image isn't sharp enough I will downsize in PS (using resize bilinear to keep edges smooth and halo free) to 24MB or 17MB. I use this trick a lot with my my 14-140mm zoom as it's not as sharp as my other lenses. I very rarely apply any other sharpening beyond that. Mark
  18. May I ask what monitor/display you’re using. Is it a large retina display with tiny pixels? Are you viewing from an unusually large distance? I ask because you seem to be missing what’s obvious to the rest of us. With respect to noise and focus, the image has been so over-sharpened that noise has been created and detail lost. Mark
  19. That's interesting... I'm confident the level of sharpening applied to my image http:// https://i.postimg.cc/Pr6kFP2L/Sony-RX100-image.jpg is about right for Alamy. Sure it's possible to make it look "sharper", but if it's taken too far the edges start to become noticeably unnatural and the image starts to become "gritty" and Alamy QC will fail it. Compare these 200% crops (with 100% inset) from my image showing the rigging on the boat. I've included 200% crops because you seem to be struggling to see when your images start breaking up at 100%. The first is sharpened correctly. The transition from the lighter sky to each rope is reasonably smooth (halo not noticeable at 100% and slightly noticeable at 200%). The second is significantly over-sharpened. Note the very obvious lighter pixels (halo) that have appeared around the ropes. They are clearly visible to me at 100% and even more so at 200%. The ropes also show very noticeable jagged (staircase) edges. Although the 100% crop in the second image may look sharper, the image has been significantly "damaged" by the sharpening process. In real life, is the rigging surrounded by halos? No it isn't. The trouble with over-sharpening is that once the "damage" is done, it can't easily be repaired. Simple blurring does not recover the original. That's why Alamy (and other agencies) prefer lower levels of sharpening. The customer can easily add extra sharpening if they want to, but it's extremely difficult to remove from an over-sharpened image. Hope that helps, and that you can see the differences between the above images. (PS. Please check your browser is set to show pages at 100% as mentioned by Jill above) Mark
  20. Here's an example of what images from the Sony RX100 can (should?) look like. I started from RAW and converted to black and white in PS so you can compare. https://i.postimg.cc/Pr6kFP2L/Sony-RX100-image.jpg Mark
  21. The EXIF/META data shows that the camera jpg is set to high contrast and hard sharpness. That's not the full story, but I certainly wouldn't set in camera contrast and sharpening that high as it will create artefacts in the jpegs. My Sony RX100 is set to sharpening "soft" and contrast "normal". The EXIF / META data also suggests the image has seen both Photoshop Elements 8.0 and Windows 10 image editor. Besides the in camera sharpening and contrast being set too high it looks to me like something must also have gone wrong with the subsequent processing of this image. Auto enhance may not be helping either. Alamy need pretty "clean" images without too much processing (especially if starting form a jpg). Shooting in RAW gives much more latitude. Do you still have the original jpg (before you did the editing)? If so, can you upload that and I'll take a look at that file? (tomorrow morning) Mark
  22. OK got it thanks. Alamy's crops are at 100% not 200%. Something has gone very, very wrong with this image. It almost looks like it's had the PS emboss effect applied. I'll take a look at the EXIF/Meta data to see if it reveals anything. Mark
  23. Liverpix, Instead of arguing I wonder if you can answer some of the questions that have been asked, then we might be able to help you. 1) Post a full resolution copy of the image (add a watermark if you like) since you don't agree that Alamy's crop is 100%. If you don't want to set up an account then use the free image hosting service at https://postimages.org/ and make a note of the delete URL so you can remove later. Posting the complete file will also provide the Metadata which will allow us to check the camera settings and potentially some of the post-processing applied. 2) Please describe your workflow used to produce the image in question. As you know the RX100 is perfectly capable of producing images that pass QC, especially at ISO 125, but the images posted so far (by you and Alamy) look like they may have been massively over-processed, but it's hard to be sure without seeing the actual jpg and the EXIF data. Mark (keen to help)
  24. It could be that you've had a zoom on that image previously using exactly the same search term(s) as, in my experience, that does seem to promote placement of that image. Sales on the other hand don't seem to cause an image to be promoted, indeed I sometimes wonder if sales demote an image. Go figure... Alamy can change the algorithm at any time, and so far as I can tell there hasn't been a rerank for absolutely ages - so it's probably not worth getting too worried about CTR. Mark
  25. No need to apologise. If Brazilnut had pasted his entire August blog rather than just a link, then I'd have the same views as you. But a discrete "click on it if you want to" link seemed quite appropriate. August's thread is still quite concise. In fact, the discussions over the rights and wrongs of posting a link has probably been more of a distraction than the link itself... Oops... Sorry... Mark
×
×
  • 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.