Noise, Out of focus Photo

[liverpix]

14 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

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

Thanks for that. I will try to digest that. My photo actually got failed for being out of focus(which I presume there is some softness) and for noise. Do you think my photo is out of focus and has a lot of noise ?

[liverpix]

21 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

Thanks for the advice. I actually had an eye test last year and there was no mention of cataracts.

[liverpix]

20 hours ago, Colin Woods said:

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.

Thanks, I normally set my shutter speed and aperture  similar to the settings that you mentioned when shooting in good light and adjust them when the light falls,

[MDM]

17 minutes ago, liverpix said:

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.

 

You are joking aren't you? Liverpool sense of humour or what. The whole image is completely pixelated and the detail has been destroyed. 

[liverpix]

16 hours ago, sb photos said:

 

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?

Yes, I must have over sharpened the photo. I have been using the free Photos software which comes with Windows 10 lately but I used photoshop elements in the past and still got fails.

The reason I got a fail for this photo was because they said it was out of focus and had noise. Strange they think it is out of focus(soft) when most thinks it is over sharpened.

[liverpix]

10 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

You are joking aren't you? Liverpool sense of humour or what. The whole image is completely pixelated and the detail has been destroyed. 

No, not joking.

[Inchiquin]

57 minutes ago, liverpix said:

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.

 

Yes indeed you have and it looks exactly like the section that I posted, just a bit larger.

 

I've now decided that you're deliberately winding us up, so I'm out.

 

Alan

[M.Chapman]

9 hours ago, liverpix said:

No, not joking.

May I ask what monitor/display you’re using. Is it a large retina display with tiny pixels? Are you viewing from an unusually large distance? I ask because you seem to be missing what’s obvious to the rest of us. With respect to noise and focus, the image has been so over-sharpened that noise has been created and detail lost.

 

Mark

Edited September 8, 2019 by M.Chapman

[liverpix]

42 minutes ago, Inchiquin said:

 

Yes indeed you have and it looks exactly like the section that I posted, just a bit larger.

 

I've now decided that you're deliberately winding us up, so I'm out.

 

Alan

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying I faked the photoshop screenshot ?

[liverpix]

18 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

Hi, my browser is set at 100%. Don't think that really matters because the actual portion of the photo that is shown remains the same despite changing the percentage on the browser.

[MDM]

 

 

1 hour ago, Inchiquin said:

 

Yes indeed you have and it looks exactly like the section that I posted, just a bit larger.

 

I've now decided that you're deliberately winding us up, so I'm out.

 

Alan

 

 

34 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying I faked the photoshop screenshot ?

 

I don't think that is what he means. Why would any rational person fake a screenshot. Then again - these are strange times we live in. 🙄😫

 

What you should have done rather than taking a screenshot is zoomed your image to 100% in Elements, cropped it and saved the crop as a JPEG, not done a screenshot as this clearly changes the size. 

 

This whole thing is intriguing though from a psychological perspective. Can you really not see what is wrong with this picture?

[John Mitchell]

Actually, the image is so over-sharpened that it's impossible to tell whether or not it's in focus. I think that QC should have given "Excessive Sharpening" rather than "Out of Focus" as the reason for failure. Why they didn't do that is a bit of a mystery. Can't speak to the noise part, except to say that over-sharpening might have also given the image a "noisy" appearance to whoever did the QC -ing.

Edited September 8, 2019 by John Mitchell

[Colin Woods]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

This whole thing is intriguing though from a psychological perspective. Can you really not see what is wrong with this picture?

 

This is why I always leave 2-3 days between processing a batch of images and doing a 100% check on each. Its easy to keep on working on a picture without really looking at it. By leaving it a few days I see the picture with fresh eyes, rather than just looking to reconfirm my original choices. There have been plenty of occasions when I have saved a masterpiece and retired satisfied, just to re-open it a few days later to think "yuk, what was I thinking" and delete it immediately. This is more frequent when I am working arty shots for POD, when "arty" can very easily slide into "overcooked rubbish". 

[MizBrown]

5 hours ago, liverpix said:

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.

 

I've looked at what you uploaded, at what Alamy posted, and it was over-sharpened.  I suggest you consider what Betty posted earlier.  It's obvious to all of us and not obvious to you.  You might want to get an eye exam, check for cataracts and glaucoma.  This looks like someone used an engraving filter, as someone else said. 

[sb photos]

9 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks for that. I will try to digest that. My photo actually got failed for being out of focus(which I presume there is some softness) and for noise. Do you think my photo is out of focus and has a lot of noise ?

 

After following this thread since it was started and only commenting once, putting it bluntly, the OP must be in denial. We all see very serious issues with the examples posted and our suggestions are getting nowhere. Further posts would appear to be pointless, best to get on with more important things, I certainly have many. We have done our best.

Edited September 8, 2019 by sb photos

[liverpix]

9 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

Actually, the image is so over-sharpened that it's impossible to tell whether or not it's in focus. I think that QC should have given "Excessive Sharpening" rather than "Out of Focus" as the reason for failure. Why they didn't do that is a bit of a mystery. Can't speak to the noise part, except to say that over-sharpening might have also given the image a "noisy" appearance to whoever did the QC -ing.

Thanks for that. I agree with that comment, very well put and fair. The texture of the building((sharpened) may have given an appearance of grain as well because if you look at the sky at 100% you can't hardly see any noise. 

[TeeCee]

14 hours ago, liverpix said:

Yes, I must have over sharpened the photo. I have been using the free Photos software which comes with Windows 10 lately but I used photoshop elements in the past and still got fails.

The reason I got a fail for this photo was because they said it was out of focus and had noise. Strange they think it is out of focus(soft) when most thinks it is over sharpened.

Why sharpen anything? If it's perfectly in focus when you press the shutter, it'll be plenty sharp enough for Alamy.
Here's what's expected...

"All images should be checked at 100% (actual pixels) for correct exposure, colour cast, noise, camera shake and that no sharpening has been applied etc. using professional imaging software."

 

Link here... https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/guidelines-for-submitting-images/

[Michael Ventura]

I work with a handful magazines on a regular basis and all of them do not want any sharpening done EVER, to the photos.  So, I never sharpen my photos for any use.

[TeeCee]

19 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

I work with a handful magazines on a regular basis and all of them do not want any sharpening done EVER, to the photos.  So, I never sharpen my photos for any use.

Ditto Michael.

Edited September 8, 2019 by TeeCee

[MDM]

12 hours ago, Colin Woods said:

 

This is why I always leave 2-3 days between processing a batch of images and doing a 100% check on each. Its easy to keep on working on a picture without really looking at it. By leaving it a few days I see the picture with fresh eyes, rather than just looking to reconfirm my original choices. There have been plenty of occasions when I have saved a masterpiece and retired satisfied, just to re-open it a few days later to think "yuk, what was I thinking" and delete it immediately. This is more frequent when I am working arty shots for POD, when "arty" can very easily slide into "overcooked rubbish". 

 

For sure. My tastes in how I treat images change on different timescales - days to years. Looking back on some images I processed years ago, I wonder if I am the same person. I always keep the raw images (as well as the layered PSDs if I do work in Photoshop). 

[MDM]

2 hours ago, TeeCee said:

Why sharpen anything? If it's perfectly in focus when you press the shutter, it'll be plenty sharp enough for Alamy.
Here's what's expected...

"All images should be checked at 100% (actual pixels) for correct exposure, colour cast, noise, camera shake and that no sharpening has been applied etc. using professional imaging software."

 

Link here... https://www.alamy.com/contributor/how-to-sell-images/guidelines-for-submitting-images/

 

Interesting. They had removed the no sharpening thing for a long time, replaced by something along the lines of don't oversharpen which of course is totally subjective. The accepted norm in recent years seems to have been default Lightroom sharpening although that has been increased by Adobe a while back. I wonder what the etc means as there are more ways to sharpen an image than unsharp masking - Clarity control in LR/ACR and simple downsizing to name two.  

[Allan Bell]

I seem to recollect that Alamy would accept INPUT sharpening, to a point. BUT definitely NO OUTPUT sharpening.

 

Allan

 

[MDM]

19 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

I seem to recollect that Alamy would accept INPUT sharpening, to a point. BUT definitely NO OUTPUT sharpening.

 

Allan

 

 

These are totally subjective quantities and very loosely defined - it would not be possible to distinguish at what stage the sharpening occurred either without examining the raw conversion metadata and/or history log which are not required by Alamy. As I said above, there was and probably still is an unwritten rule that a small amount of sharpening (e.g. Lightroom default) is acceptable but that is a very generalised thing. We can discuss over lunch in Ely if you like. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by MDM

[DJ Myford]

That is also my recollection. At first, they said no sharpening at all. Then the issue was raised of difficulty passing QC due to the anti-aliasing filter on DSLR sensors. I think (but may be wrong) that they were pressed on the issue at a meeting and responded with the "minimal input sharpening okay, but no output sharpening" line, which was subsequently reported in the forum. I can't remember it ever being formally set down, but again I could be wrong. 

[jodyko]

https://www.alamy.com/blog/your-most-asked-alamy-quality-control-questions

 

"We suggest that you don’t sharpen your images and leave this to the end user. This is because sharpening is very specific to individual images, this makes it difficult to give general sharpening settings. However, if you do find that a small amount of sharpening improves your images it is fine to do this."

 

I knew I'd read this at some time.