Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'soft'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Alamy Forum guidelines and announcements
    • Forum guidelines
    • Announcements
  • Alamy discussion and community support
    • Introductions
    • Portfolio critique
    • Community support: ask the forum
    • Stock photography discussion and contributor experience
    • Alamy Quality Control and technical talk
    • Let's talk about pics
  • Suggestions and ideas
    • Alamy
    • The Forum

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Alamy URL


Images


Joined Alamy

Found 4 results

  1. 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
  2. Hi, I recently had this photo of the Cavern Clun rejected for being Soft or lacking definition, Noise. What do you think ?
  3. This photo taken down at the Albert Dock, Liverpool last week was rejected for being soft or lacking detail. Doesn't look too bad to my eyes. Taken with a Sony Nex 3N. Camera resting on a 'bean bag' screwed into base of camera, f6.3, 1.3. sec exp, ISO 400. What do you guys think please ? https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpix/36574580635/in/album-72157685113064103/
  4. Hi Fellow Photographers ... I saw that another patron posted a photo that was rejected and he received lots of great input on how to improve his own QC process. I recently uploaded a photograph I took from a trip to Pompeii. It was one of the Pompeii dogs. I felt the image had excellent quality. The picture was taken with a Canon T6s; ISO 250; 1/200 sec. f/5.6 135mm; file size of 16.3 MB; with a resolution of 6000 x 4000 uncropped or enhanced. The image of the dog and surrounding grass is so clear you can see the individual hairs on the dog, the red stitching on the collar, and the grass seed heads at the feet of the dog, which are crisp and clear. The background of the road and surrounding grass are blurred on purpose. Any feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. This was the only image I uploaded and I am at a total loss as to how to evaluate my own images at this point. It was rejected as "soft or lacking detail."
×
×
  • 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.