Noise, Out of focus Photo

[liverpix]

16 minutes ago, liverpix said:

The crops on here do not compare to 100% on my photoshop elements software. We just have to disagree. I may try and get a screenshot done if I can.

This is what I see at 100%.

 

https://postimg.cc/WFJ788My

[liverpix]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

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

Thanks.That looks a bit soft to me. I suppose I would sharpen before I submitted a similar photo in case it failed for being too soft.

[Betty LaRue]

54 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Thanks.That looks a bit soft to me. I suppose I would sharpen before I submitted a similar photo in case it failed for being too soft.

You are not recognizing a perfectly processed image.

Thats where you have gone wrong. It’s likely it’s not your fault because your eyes and perception of a properly processed image is just off from what the rest of us see.

It’s like someone who is colorblind. They see the world’s colors wrong. I in no way mean to be insulting, but I’m wondering if your eyesight is good. I don’t know your age, but I do know if you have cataracts, everything does look blurrier than if you don’t. Then you would feel the need to sharpen to the point it appeared sharp enough to you, when in reality it was unacceptably oversharpened for Alamy.  Sometimes it’s reading glasses (or computer distance glasses) that need updating.

The reason I’m bringing this up is some years back I also was having some failures. It was attributable to my eyesight, but it took a load of bricks falling on my head before I realized it. When I got that sorted, it was easy for me to know what was sharp and what wasn’t.

 

Many years ago, I took a watercolor class. One gentleman could never get his colors right. That’s because he was seeing through cataracts, which caused him to look through the amber-tinted lens in his eyes. It would be like trying to get a sky blue shade while looking through Amber-tinted sunglasses. Sharpness most definitely is affected also.

Betty

[Colin Woods]

1 hour ago, liverpix said:

Thanks.That looks a bit soft to me.

Put your camera on a tripod and, using a remote release,  take a photo of something a few feet away at f/8 at a reasonably high shutter speed (1/250 or 1/500th). That will be as sharp as you get. Keep that photo as your comparison. That is how I learnt to be diligent and, no matter how much you like an image, not upload anything that is softer than your reference image.

[MizBrown]

12 hours ago, liverpix said:

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

 

Oh, dear.

[The Blinking Eye]

5 hours ago, liverpix said:

Like I said above, those crops by Alamy are near 200%, not 100%. How would you like it if they judged your photos at 200% and not 100%.

 

I like your photos that have passed QC though. I spent a few days exploring Liverpool in 2016. Fascinating town, gritty, arty, and full of character.

[Jill Morgan]

At first, I put the browser image next to the image in PS side by side on my monitor and it looked like Alamy's image was larger than the image in PS.

 

Then I realized my browser is set at 150%.  So Liverpx, is your browser set normal, or are you like me and enlarge the browser

 

Once I realized this, I reset the browser to normal, the image crop is the same size as the image of yours that I put in PS.

 

Jill

[sb photos]

6 hours ago, liverpix said:

This is what I see at 100%.

 

https://postimg.cc/WFJ788My

 

I see your 100% post as if an art filter had been applied, looks more like an engraving than a photograph. What has changed since your earlier uploads?

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

You are not recognizing a perfectly processed image.

Thats where you have gone wrong. It’s likely it’s not your fault because your eyes and perception of a properly processed image is just off from what the rest of us see.

It’s like someone who is colorblind. They see the world’s colors wrong. I in no way mean to be insulting, but I’m wondering if your eyesight is good. I don’t know your age, but I do know if you have cataracts, everything does look blurrier than if you don’t. Then you would feel the need to sharpen to the point it appeared sharp enough to you, when in reality it was unacceptably oversharpened for Alamy.  Sometimes it’s reading glasses (or computer distance glasses) that need updating.

The reason I’m bringing this up is some years back I also was having some failures. It was attributable to my eyesight, but it took a load of bricks falling on my head before I realized it. When I got that sorted, it was easy for me to know what was sharp and what wasn’t.

 

Many years ago, I took a watercolor class. One gentleman could never get his colors right. That’s because he was seeing through cataracts, which caused him to look through the amber-tinted lens in his eyes. It would be like trying to get a sky blue shade while looking through Amber-tinted sunglasses. Sharpness most definitely is affected also.

Betty

 

Funny you should mention this. I have cataracts, and I'm beginning to have trouble judging the sharpness of on-screen images. Fortunately, my colour vision seems OK for the time being. Eye surgery is on the menu for next year. I figure it's better to get them done early rather than wait for the world to turn muddy.

[meanderingemu]

7 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks.That looks a bit soft to me. I suppose I would sharpen before I submitted a similar photo in case it failed for being too soft.

 

in the end,  maybe i am presumptuous in my assumption  that you are only a contributor,  this is not important.  What is crucial is how it looks to the buyers, they are the one paying, and for that i rely on Alamy QC team, as they have much more data.   

[M.Chapman]

16 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks.That looks a bit soft to me. I suppose I would sharpen before I submitted a similar photo in case it failed for being too soft.

 

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

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

At first, I put the browser image next to the image in PS side by side on my monitor and it looked like Alamy's image was larger than the image in PS.

 

Then I realized my browser is set at 150%.  So Liverpx, is your browser set normal, or are you like me and enlarge the browser

 

Once I realized this, I reset the browser to normal, the image crop is the same size as the image of yours that I put in PS.

 

Jill

Or simply save the Alamy image to disk and open it along with the full image he posted. Clearly they are the same. I can only surmise that the OP has severe eyesight problems if he things that image is a normal photo. As somebody else said, it looks more like an engraving. 

[MDM]

1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Funny you should mention this. I have cataracts, and I'm beginning to have trouble judging the sharpness of on-screen images. Fortunately, my colour vision seems OK for the time being. Eye surgery is on the menu for next year. I figure it's better to get them done early rather than wait for the world to turn muddy.

 

I had lens replacement surgery 3 years ago and the difference was truly unbelievable. You get used to the gradual deterioration and don't notice it is happening both in terms of visual acuity and colour. The colour change is much more subtle as the lack of acuity becomes pretty evident when modifying the eyesight prescription no longer has any effect. The experience of removing the eye cap on the morning after the first surgery was just absolutely amazing. From the colour perspective, I liken it to having a dirty old tobacco-stained filter removed from my eyes. From the acuity perspective, the difference was incredible - the fine detail had returned to my world.  My only regret was that I had kept putting it off in the hope that I could get it done for free on the NHS but the criteria for that in my area were virtual blindness so I dipped into the piggy bank and paid for it. Best £5000 I ever spent. 

[Inchiquin]

10 hours ago, liverpix said:

 

The crops on here do not compare to 100% on my photoshop elements software. We just have to disagree. I may try and get a screenshot done if I can.

 

 

Then there is something wrong with either your software or the way you are using it. I have downloaded the full size file from the link you posted here, and at 100% in Photoshop Elements it is EXACTLY as the crops that Alamy has posted.

 

Sorry, but you are wrong and Alamy are right. 100%.

 

Alan

[John Morrison]

To the OP: since Alamy has failed the image, it's counter-productive to keep arguing the same points (100%? 200%,? etc). Better to review your PP routine, see what went wrong and, hopefully, put it right...

[Inchiquin]

Just to emphasise what I posted above, this is your image. Notice the "100%" at the top of it?

 

 

Alan

[Mr Standfast]

Morning Liverpix,

Guess you feel you had a bumpy ride yesterday. When people get bad news they go through stages of anger denial bargaining before they reach acceptance. There are good people on this forum, listen to them, take your time and let it sink in.

Regards 

James

[Colin Woods]

3 hours ago, John Morrison said:

Better to review your PP routine, see what went wrong and, hopefully, put it right...

Therein lies the issue. The OP sees his image as fine and that Alamy have got it wrong.

[John Walker]

Hi Liverpix,

 

Keep in mind that you have raised your profile with Alamy now.  Make sure every one of your future submissions is perfect - scrutinised at 100%.

 

Good luck

 

John

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, John Walker said:

Hi Liverpix,

 

Keep in mind that you have raised your profile with Alamy now.  Make sure every one of your submissions is perfect - scutinised at 100%.

 

Good luck

 

John

Yes, he has rather put himself in harm's way. Though QC is very fair. It's just what they see at 100%- nothing else matters. OP just has to get things straight.

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, MDM said:

 

I had lens replacement surgery 3 years ago and the difference was truly unbelievable. You get used to the gradual deterioration and don't notice it is happening both in terms of visual acuity and colour. The colour change is much more subtle as the lack of acuity becomes pretty evident when modifying the eyesight prescription no longer has any effect. The experience of removing the eye cap on the morning after the first surgery was just absolutely amazing. From the colour perspective, I liken it to having a dirty old tobacco-stained filter removed from my eyes. From the acuity perspective, the difference was incredible - the fine detail had returned to my world.  My only regret was that I had kept putting it off in the hope that I could get it done for free on the NHS but the criteria for that in my area were virtual blindness so I dipped into the piggy bank and paid for it. Best £5000 I ever spent. 

 

Thanks very much for sharing your experiences. Sounds very encouraging. Fortunately, the lens replacement surgery will be free here in Canada, even though I'm in relatively early stages.

 

Now, back to sharpening...

[liverpix]

18 hours ago, The Blinking Eye said:

 

I like your photos that have passed QC though. I spent a few days exploring Liverpool in 2016. Fascinating town, gritty, arty, and full of character.

Thanks, I have been photographing the city for over 30 years.

[liverpix]

6 hours ago, John Walker said:

Hi Liverpix,

 

Keep in mind that you have raised your profile with Alamy now.  Make sure every one of your submissions is perfect - scutinised at 100%.

 

Good luck

 

John

Thanks. I've been looking at other sites recently, less hassle,lol.

[liverpix]

9 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

Morning Liverpix,

Guess you feel you had a bumpy ride yesterday. When people get bad news they go through stages of anger denial bargaining before they reach acceptance. There are good people on this forum, listen to them, take your time and let it sink in.

Regards 

James

Thanks. I only speak out cause it seems unfair.

[liverpix]

12 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

Just to emphasise what I posted above, this is your image. Notice the "100%" at the top of it?

 

 

Alan

That doesn't look bad, I see a lot of detail there. Why don't you show the full screenshot at 100%. I am using photoshop elenents similar to you but my crop shows a wider area of the photo. I have posted my 100% crop earlier.