Noise, Out of focus Photo

[liverpix]

Hi,

 

I am back again with another rejection ! ☹️ Not uploaded for a while.

 

A double whammy this time - noise and out of focus.

 

What do you think ? Taken with rx100, ISO 125, f6.3, 1/250 sec.

 

 

[wiskerke]

At the 2048 x 1354 on Flickr with the standard Flickr sharpening it looks terrific,

However 2048 x 1354 is not enough for Alamy.

And no idea what the actual file was like when Quality Control looked at it.

 

wim

[Niels Quist]

Seems over-manipulated to me perhaps resulting in the defects.

 

Actually, it seems to me that the RX100 leaves less room for manipulation than my full-frame dSLR would.

 

Cannot see whether it is in focus.

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Niels Quist

[John Walker]

Looks great but appears to have some excessive sharpening in the fine detail - almost engraving like.  You shouldn't have any problems passing QC with any of the RX100 range of cameras.

Edited September 6, 2019 by John Walker
spelling

[Joseph Clemson]

It's difficult, almost impossible, to make any meaningful comment on an image which has failed QC unless we can see some or all of the original submision at 100%. It is possible to do this by hosting the (prudently watermarked) at a web location which allows a 100% view without further processing. At this point I am unable to advise further because I've never done it and I don't know which image website(s) is best place for this facility - perhaps someone with relevant expereince can add further enlightenment?

[MDM]

56 minutes ago, Joseph Clemson said:

It's difficult, almost impossible, to make any meaningful comment on an image which has failed QC unless we can see some or all of the original submision at 100%. It is possible to do this by hosting the (prudently watermarked) at a web location which allows a 100% view without further processing. At this point I am unable to advise further because I've never done it and I don't know which image website(s) is best place for this facility - perhaps someone with relevant expereince can add further enlightenment?

 

This is what I said to liverpix last time he had a similar query: "This is at least the fourth time if I recall correctly that you have posted on the forum about failing QC for noise or softness so there is clearly a problem with technique. However, and I am sure that this has been said in your previous posts (as well as spacecadet's comment above) but it is pointless posting an image that is not available for download at full size as it is simply not possible to make an informed judgement looking at an image at anything less than full size."

 

Several others said the same thing in previous liverpix query and that was not the first. So not one for taking advice on board it seems. I think his problem is fundamentally because he is shooting jpegs only as admitted in that thread so has no real control over the process. The image above looks incredibly oversharpened.

 

Dropbox is excellent for posting images as it allows raws as well as JPEGs.

Edited September 6, 2019 by MDM

[Alamy]

Just to step in here before anyone thinks that the example posted above was representative of what we were sent. To confirm, it isn't. 

 

The file QC received, when viewed at 100%, looks nothing like the image posted above and is one of the most extreme examples of a QC failure we've seen in recent times.

 

We wouldn't post a 100% crop here without permission but this really was nowhere near the borderline of acceptability.

 

We don't normally intervene in threads like this but the problems with the image that was sent to us are excessive.

 

Alamy 

[liverpix]

25 minutes ago, Alamy said:

Just to step in here before anyone thinks that the example posted above was representative of what we were sent. To confirm, it isn't. 

 

The file QC received, when viewed at 100%, looks nothing like the image posted above and is one of the most extreme examples of a QC failure we've seen in recent times.

 

We wouldn't post a 100% crop here without permission but this really was nowhere near the borderline of acceptability.

 

We don't normally intervene in threads like this but the problems with the image that was sent to us are excessive.

 

Alamy 

Hi Alamy,

 

The image I sent you was exactly the same file that I put up on flickr. There is no way that could have been inferior in any way unless something drastic happened to the file during the upload. The dimension of the original file was 5359 x 3543 and over 10mb. Not sure what you are talking about Alamy or seeing !

[Alamy]

1 minute ago, liverpix said:

Hi Alamy,

 

The image I sent you was exactly the same file that I put up on flickr. There is no way that could have been inferior in any way unless something drastic happened to the file during the upload. The dimension of the original file was 5359 x 3543 and over 10mb. Not sure what you are talking about Alamy or seeing !

 

Are you happy for us to post a 100% crop of an area of the image that shows the issues? This may help you identify the problems we're seeing.

 

Best

 

Alamy

[liverpix]

Just now, Alamy said:

 

Are you happy for us to post a 100% crop of an area of the image that shows the issues? This may help you identify the problems we're seeing.

 

Best

 

Alamy

Ok, as long as you can confirm it was the same file I sent you at 5359 x 3543 pixels. It should be exactly as the one I have on flickr.

[liverpix]

I can send the original file to anyone who wants to inspect it or blow it up.

[Alamy]

2 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Ok, as long as you can confirm it was the same file I sent you at 5359 x 3543 pixels. It should be exactly as the one I have on flickr.

 

Yes, we can confirm they are the dimensions of the image. Here is a 100% crop of the tree area, right of centre:

 

 

And here is a 100% crop of the top of the centre tree area with the roof in the background:

 

 

Can we just ask - what software are you using to process these images?

 

Alamy

 

[liverpix]

2 minutes ago, Alamy said:

 

Yes, we can confirm they are the dimensions of the image. Here is a 100% crop of the tree area, right of centre:

 

 

And here is a 100% crop of the top of the centre tree area with the roof in the background:

 

 

Can we just ask - what software are you using to process these images?

 

Alamy

 

It looks pretty sharp to me and no noise in the sky. Recently I have been using the free Photos software in Windows 10. In the past, I used Photoshop Elements( you still failed me on those photos). You can see the fisherman at the edge of the lake clearly.

[liverpix]

The taxi is pretty clear too and the edge of the lake looks sharp.

[Alamy]

7 minutes ago, liverpix said:

It looks pretty sharp to me and no noise in the sky. Recently I have been using the free Photos software in Windows 10. In the past, I used Photoshop Elements( you still failed me on those photos). You can see the fisherman at the edge of the lake clearly.

 

To confirm, this level of image quality is way off acceptable. There is a highly insufficient level of sharpness and detail.

 

We also wouldn't recommend using the free photos window software to post process your images, and would always recommend shooting and processing in RAW. 

 

Alamy

 

 

[dustydingo]

50 minutes ago, liverpix said:

It looks pretty sharp to me and no noise in the sky. Recently I have been using the free Photos software in Windows 10. In the past, I used Photoshop Elements( you still failed me on those photos). You can see the fisherman at the edge of the lake clearly.

 

Seriously? Compared to the nightclub image you previously posted, this is off the scale (in the wrong direction).

 

With due respect, I've been flitting in and out of this forum (and its wild-west predecessor) for a very, very long time, and I'm comfortable saying this is the most non-acceptable 100% crop of an image I've ever seen--and that includes the time when a contributor claimed his fail for dust-spots was weird because his image contained absolutely no dust-spots: from memory the forum found over a dozen dust-spots once he was persuaded to post a 100% version of a large section of the image

 

I'd strongly urge a recalibration of what you consider "pretty sharp"/acceptable before submitting again. As has been communicated to you many times in the past, there are many image-processing programs that are accessible and not-too-difficult to master, way superior to Window photo software.

 

good luck

 

DD

[liverpix]

9 minutes ago, dustydingo said:

 

Seriously? Compared to the nightclub image you previously posted, this is off the scale (in the wrong direction).

 

With due respect, I've been flitting in and out of this forum (and its wild-west predecessor) for a very, very long time, and I'm comfortable saying this is the most non-acceptable 100% crop of an image I've ever seen--and that includes the time when a contributor claimed his fail for dust-spots was weird because his image contained absolutely no dust-spots: from memory the forum found over a dozen dust-spots once he was persuaded to post a 100% version of a large section of the image

 

I'd strongly urge a recalibration of what you consider "pretty sharp"/acceptable before submitting again. As has been communicated to you many times in the past, there are many image-processing programs that are accessible and not-too-difficult to master, way superior to Window photo software.

 

good luck

 

DD

What nightclub photo was that ? Can't recall. Alamy seem to be fine with the photo on flickr. Even at 100 %, I still can't see any noise in the sky. Remeber it was shot at ISO 125.

[liverpix]

1 hour ago, Alamy said:

 

To confirm, this level of image quality is way off acceptable. There is a highly insufficient level of sharpness and detail.

 

We also wouldn't recommend using the free photos window software to post process your images, and would always recommend shooting and processing in RAW. 

 

Alamy

 

 

If you think that image is noisy, shot at Iso 125 and not sharp then I am lost for words. I'll stick with only posting news and find other stock sites to post on. You seem to be happy with the flickr photo which is inferior to the larger file I sent you.

[dustydingo]

3 minutes ago, liverpix said:

What nightclub photo was that ? Can't recall. Alamy seem to be fine with the photo on flickr. Even at 100 %, I still can't see any noise in the sky. Remeber it was shot at ISO 125.

 

The Cavern Club. See MDM's post above.

 

DD

[Alamy]

4 minutes ago, liverpix said:

If you think that image is noisy, shot at Iso 125 and not sharp then I am lost for words. I'll stick with only posting news and find other stock sites to post on. You seem to be happy with the flickr photo which is inferior to the larger file I sent you.

 

Wouldn't say we were happy with the Flickr photo - just that the photo posted to Flickr bears little resemblance to the image at full resolution and 100% magnification. 

 

ISO levels are irrelevant if you've manipulated the image beyond what it's capable of taking. No matter what label it has, "Noise, Soft" etc, the image is severely degraded and lacking technical quality. 

 

Alamy

[dustydingo]

3 minutes ago, liverpix said:

If you think that image is noisy, shot at Iso 125 and not sharp then I am lost for words. I'll stick with only posting news and find other stock sites to post on. You seem to be happy with the flickr photo which is inferior to the larger file I sent you.

 

I hope Alamy don't mind these other agencies' reference, but I submit (different) images to the big G and one other highly respected agency, with one more on the back-burner. I would be censured in all of them if I posted an image of this (your) quality. If I did it again, I would expect to be barred from submissions altogether.

 

And a friendly hint for your consideration or dismissal: stop thinking "noise", think instead "overall image quality".

 

DD

[Allan Bell]

I have come to the conclusion that it looks over-processed. But that could be just me. 

 

Would the OP (liverpix) care to mention the software used and the steps taken in processing with values for sharpness, noise reduction (if any), etc.etc.

 

This would help the contributing interested parties to understand what might be happening or where things are going wrong.

 

Allan

 

[John Morrison]

At 100% the crops look they're about to 'break up' altogether. PP gone haywire, I'd guess...

[Mr Standfast]

2 hours ago, liverpix said:

If you think that image is noisy, shot at Iso 125 and not sharp then I am lost for words. I'll stick with only posting news and find other stock sites to post on. You seem to be happy with the flickr photo which is inferior to the larger file I sent you.

 

Livpix, just a friendly reminder, but live news do QC spot checks. It's not a QC free route. The criteria is "may have minor defects" which is a way of saying should or could pass QC.  At the moment you "may wish to review your workflow", as regardless of what you have submitted before; further submissions will be of interest. Take a breather, let this experience and the advice you have been given (again) sink in.

[TeeCee]

2 hours ago, liverpix said:

If you think that image is noisy, shot at Iso 125 and not sharp then I am lost for words. I'll stick with only posting news and find other stock sites to post on. You seem to be happy with the flickr photo which is inferior to the larger file I sent you.

Hi Liverpix, I get the sense you feel there's some kind of vendetta against you, as you post yet again about QC rejection. There isn't.

It's in no-ones interest to victimise you, Alamy wants to increase it's stock of quality images, and hence wants you to be successful.
At a quick glance, you do a LOT of post processing, most other contributors here (certainly myself) do almost none. If you want a fast route to success, shoot raw and minimise any post processing (other than checking for dust specs).
It really is that easy.

Tony

Edited September 6, 2019 by TeeCee