Search the Community

Rejection reason Soft or lacking definition - Noise I have never spent so much time examining sky and shadows in my pictures and the edges of the frame. But this does not seem to be enough. I would like to rant, but more than rant, I would like to understand why some softness at the edge of the frame is enough to (well I think it's the scaffolding top right which has been softened in perspective correction that is the problem) why the edge of the frame is so important to QC.. "Softness lacking definition" would that be my problem, top right or is it the whole image? Also "Noise" is that the brown in the shadow in the bottom mid right of the image? Or is it that the sky is not right? I'm trying to understand and I am also trying not to second guess myself. If they can't sell a picture like this; well there's possibly a little something they won't like in a LOT of my pictures? (only 25+ years as a professional what would I know?) I'm worried. I'm really worried. The time, the turnaround for a rejection on a unique view (the scaffold). It all seems a very hit and miss. I would be interested in feedback. I KNEW that that piece of scaffolding was soft; did not and does not bother me - it's not the focus or the locus of the image. Is this how it's gong to be, a set rejected over this? Am I missing something? Thank you for your input, I am trying to understand when I must drop an image from my selections. 100% Scaff detail (wont let me load the link) https://photos.app.goo.gl/FxWCnVGqx3jqMLBc7 100% Dark bottom of frame https://photos.app.goo.gl/VZjNWAS4KsiswCvY9

So glad I discovered this. I've been told by many in the forum to check my photos for sharpness at 200% on a Retina Display screen and have been doing so for some years now on my MacBook Pro when I am out and not able to use my iMac which has a regular screen, since the Retina Display screen makes everything appear so sharp. No more! I was toodling around on Adobe's site and came across this method for making the display on your Retina Screen emulate a regular screen in Photoshop, which means I get a better sense of how sharp an image really is, whether I may want to downsize slightly, and what any noise may actually look like. It also makes me more comfortable that I haven't oversharpeded my RAW photos when I view them this way. I thought this might be helpful for others who rely on their laptops while traveling. I still use 200% to check for dust. http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2013/01/viewing-photoshop-cs6-in-low-resolution-on-a-retina-display.html Read the first paragraph - the rest tells you how to download the correct version, etc if you have problems. I'm sure most of you are familiar with Julianne Kost, but for any photo newbies or those who just want to keep up with what's new in Photoshop and Lightroom and keep improving their skills, I highly recommend Julianne Kost's blogs and tutorials. I've taken classes with her at PhotoExpo and read her stuff/watch her videos a lot. Great way to learn & keep my skills sharp. There is so much you can do in Photoshop and Lightroom, that there is always something new to learn. If you have other tips for checking sharpness, feel free to add them to this discussion.

Hi - I am new to Alamy. I submitted 3 photos (as you are required to) and these failed to process (not that I was notified). I tracked it down to one image which was missing meta data, and re-uploaded. 2nd submission failed as the same image which caused failure to process, was rejected as 'too much noise'. So I removed the noise, being careful not to overdo it (with nearly 30 years Photoshop experience, I was even suspecting it wouldn't be enough), and re-submitted. The third submission failed as 'Soft or lacking definition'. Now, I'm not a professional photographer, and I'm sure there are similar, better shot images out there, but this is a massive swing in the other direction, with just a little bit of noise removal. So this appears to be a slow death by QC algorithm. Or do they actually use human beings? If I resubmit with even less noise removal, I suspect it will probably be rejected again on grounds of "too much noise". Trying to find the mid-point of success in such a fine level of pixel definition could take years. I'll try to upload two examples at 100% to show what I mean. It's not a huge amount of noise removal, and I made sure details areas were untouched completely, applying it just to the out of focus backgrounds. I'm going to reduce the 'noise removal' by 50% and see where the AI (or person!) goes next. My theory is that there is no buffer space between 'too noisy' and 'too soft' in certain types of image which include a lot of intentional out of focus areas, and any automated QC will just swing wildly between the two. Note: I can't upload an example - the upload button specifies "existing content" or url, but I can't create 'existing content' anywhere, there's no link/section/guides/answers. Surely in a forum you should just be able to upload an image? E.