Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cryptoprocta said:

I sometimes put a note in the caption or description that the image was shot at a high ISO.

 

I recall reading that no one at QC ever looks at captions, keywords or descriptions... but just the pic itself...

Edited by John Morrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Morrison said:

 

I recall reading that no one at QC ever looks at cations, keywords or descriptions... but just the pic itself...

It's for the benefit of any buyers who might be concerned about possible noise. Like when I write in certain descriptions, "NB this is a stock photo of X, not X", to avoid refunds and time being wasted.

I assume QC can see the high ISO setting.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rudix said:

This is an interesting discussion for me as well, thanks for asking the question Starsphinx!

 

I would normally not consider submitting a photo with that much noise but it is a personal thing, I hate noise! I have no idea where QC would draw the line and as I am trying to protect my QC rating it is not easy to submit and see....

 

I do do a bit of noise reduction (using LR about 5 for luminosity and color at default for FF and 10 or so for AP-C) on most of my images but it is not really needed as I seldom shoot at really high ISO's, seldom exceeding 6400 and then only on a camera with clean high ISO capabilities. 

I am the same with noise - I am not keen on it.  Although I have found that a thorough submerging in low light situations has given me a rather more balanced view.  I now shoot a lot of football games under floodlights.  I only have bottom level lenses at the moment so the ISO and noise are off the scales.  It has taught me some useful discipline in taking shots,  I am a better judge of the quality of noisy images (ie whether the shot would have been pin sharp at iso 100 under bright light), and customers buying for personal stuff (which is what happens with my football shots) don't care - if they can recognize their relative or themselves they will not be put off by noise.

Still, I am very much intent on saving enough to get some much better quality lenses that will work better in low light.  Trying not to get sidetracked into looking at bodies - my 7200 does everything I need it to, failures are mine, not the camera,  and I should be able to achieve improvements with better glass first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starsphinx said:

I am the same with noise - I am not keen on it.  Although I have found that a thorough submerging in low light situations has given me a rather more balanced view.  I now shoot a lot of football games under floodlights.  I only have bottom level lenses at the moment so the ISO and noise are off the scales.  It has taught me some useful discipline in taking shots,  I am a better judge of the quality of noisy images (ie whether the shot would have been pin sharp at iso 100 under bright light), and customers buying for personal stuff (which is what happens with my football shots) don't care - if they can recognize their relative or themselves they will not be put off by noise.

Still, I am very much intent on saving enough to get some much better quality lenses that will work better in low light.  Trying not to get sidetracked into looking at bodies - my 7200 does everything I need it to, failures are mine, not the camera,  and I should be able to achieve improvements with better glass first.

I can see you have no choice but to shoot with high ISO and love with the noise for the kind of shooting you do and you are right, for shots like that it does not really matter. Nice fast lenses will help, but they do come at a price. I, unfortunately, love new "toys" so I can seldom resist......

 

I do love night photography but for what I shoot a tripod is usually practical so i can stick to lower ISO's. I also normally need to stop down for DOF so the fast lenses do not really help. When I was shooting motor sport professionally I used to carry 2 Canon 1 series bodies and lenses like the 400L f/2.8 or 600L f/4 all day but that is no longer fun!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

OK have had a play following recommendations on this thread and this is the result DSC_6734-5_zpswnbhtxwh.jpg

I am sure that will be fine, no obvious noise to distract from the image!

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

OK have had a play following recommendations on this thread and this is the result DSC_6734-5_zpswnbhtxwh.jpg

 

 

That is white noise. Do not try to upload.:)

 

Allan

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for **** sake.

It was showing yesterday - and is still showing for me presumably because of history or whatever.

Will people please excuse me while I go and find a different image host as I am fed up to the back teeth of photobucket right now - Very rare I need to host images this way and not had a problem in the past but this week they have been ****.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right I have signed up for the free bit of dropbox - I am going to put the first jpeg and the worked on jpeg up together.  Both are views of the image at 100% - I dont feel the need to put the original NEF up on this one.
The original

p.jpeg?size=1280x960&size_mode=3

The worked on one (showing more of image because have saved it smaller to help)

p.jpeg?size=1280x960&size_mode=3

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I seem to only be able to this with links - which does not make any sense.  When I copy and paste the share link into the other media box it just turns red and wont show it
Original
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ysdummy0dy918dc/DSC_6734.jpg?dl=0

Adapted - showing more of picture because saved smaller

https://www.dropbox.com/s/08rt0ihfapjmoi5/DSC_6734-5A.JPG?dl=0

Edited by Starsphinx
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rudix said:

I use FlickR for linking, up to 1000 photos it is free as far as I know.

I am in the process of quitting Flickr after their insane new rules where they have gone from size - admittedly a huge size - to the number of files.  Now my files on there are small and only screen resolution to help reduce image theft - I never put full-size files there.  I do have over 1000 but they will take up less space than 500 full sized files.  I am not willing to sit there having my use restricted because I have more numbers while someone else uses more space but has fewer items.

Also my Flickr was very much a showcase of my work - no chance of me putting unfinished stuff there lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem here is I can see all the images fine - on firefox where I am signed in.  I am having to go to chrome where I am not logged in to see what other people see - and I have no idea why this is.

If anyone knows why the links I am putting up work for me but not for anyone else please let me know - this is driving me potty.



Edit further information when I sign in on Chrome I still cannot see the images that I can see on firefox

 

 

Edited by Starsphinx
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I am in the process of quitting Flickr after their insane new rules where they have gone from size - admittedly a huge size - to the number of files.  Now my files on there are small and only screen resolution to help reduce image theft - I never put full-size files there.  I do have over 1000 but they will take up less space than 500 full sized files.  I am not willing to sit there having my use restricted because I have more numbers while someone else uses more space but has fewer items.

Also my Flickr was very much a showcase of my work - no chance of me putting unfinished stuff there lol

I agree, also use it as a showcase and only small images with copyright on them. I have been a paying user for many years so the new rules did not really affect me.

 

I only showcase albums, not the photo stream so when I upload something just for a quick show and tell I don't put it in an album. I share the links to the albums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK it seems from what I can tell that the original photobucket images higher up the page (first post 15.08 yesterday) are now showing again - at least I can see them on another browser not signed in which I could not before.

Sorry for the hassle - not sure what is going on and whether it is something I am doing or not doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.