QC Fail - First for many years

[John Walker]

Just had an unexpected QC fail.  I check every image before uploading so was surprised to see the fail.  The reason was noise and I just don't have noise (usually) in my images.

 

I checked the image in question and it looked sharp and no apparent noise so what was going on?  Then I spotted it.  Against the clear sky, under a tree on the extreme right were loads of black spots and blurs.  Probably a wasp nest.  Top marks to the QC person for spotting that one.   I have 5 star rating so my images usually go through immediately.  I'm guessing this was a QC spot [sic] check or perhaps there's some auto-checking program in place.

 

Just goes to show how vigilant we need to be before uploading.

[Ed Rooney]

Yikes, noisy wasps? Stinging to get an unexpected rejection, but I don't see that as a noise problem.  

[Cal]

My first and only QC fail so far was due to noise. It took me a moment to spot it but there was chroma noise in some of the darker parts of the image which I suppose could be problematic if it was blown up. At the time I didn't have my process perfected and was just using GIMP to process images with an intermediary to process the raw beforehand. Unfortunately GIMP never did do a good job of removing noise - the NR really just blurred the image and so using my camera above ISO 800 at the time was almost always a non-negotiable "no". 

When I changed over to Lightroom I was (and still am) simply amazed at how it seemingly manages to just delete even stubborn chroma noise, without removing sharpness, just leaving behind the film-like "grain" which is much easier to process out (or even leave in for occasional artistic effect). Even although I push the boat out sometimes nowadays, particularly with bird photos which really require high ISO almost all of the time, I'm still wary of failing due to noise. As a result of this there are some images I just never submitted for fear that what was in it would be "mistaken" for noise - murky water with lots of particles in it being one.

 

@Ed: I don't see it as a noise problem either, per my above sentence, but I suspect it's not worth arguing with QC over for the handful of images, certainly in my own case, that could be mistaken for containing noise and would be too much of a PITA to process it out.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Cal

[Steve F]

Hey John,

That's annoying. Keeps us on our toes I guess. Maybe 'noise' was the closest category they had for random black blobs.... I often delete birds from skies if they look like dust spots or fuzzy black dots.

Steve

[spacecadet]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the top marks. QC should be able to tell the difference. If I had to spot every fliegel out of an image taken on a hot day.........

[Allan Bell]

48 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Hey John,

That's annoying. Keeps us on our toes I guess. Maybe 'noise' was the closest category they had for random black blobs.... I often delete birds from skies if they look like dust spots or fuzzy black dots.

Steve

 

I would have thought a closer comparison would have been dust bunnies.

 

Allan

 

[Cal]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the top marks. QC should be able to tell the difference. If I had to spot every fliegel out of an image taken on a hot day.........

 

They should, but when that's all you do every day, and there are probably many factors influencing how long you can take, I can see how it must be for them.

 

I don't necessarily agree with it, as noted above I have occasionally reluctantly not submitted knowing that something may be "mistaken" for noise, but that's how it goes. Removing distant birds though is something I'd do out of just wanting the image to look tidy. It's more annoying than anything else seeing them.

[Ed Rooney]

2 hours ago, Cal said:

 

@Ed: I don't see it as a noise problem either, per my above sentence, but I suspect it's not worth arguing with QC over for the handful of images, 

 

I agree with you there, Cal. Like us, QC is just trying to do their job. Perfection is not an expectation. 

[spacecadet]

Yes a bit harsh of me even though dust doesn't look like wasps.. I remove birds that are too far away to look birdy. If they have wings at 100% they usually stay.

 

Still John is a 5-star general like me so hopefully won't be banged up for too long

Edited September 26, 2020 by spacecadet

[Mr Standfast]

John, onwards and upwards!

 

 

[Alamy]

On 26/09/2020 at 13:20, John Walker said:

Just had an unexpected QC fail.  I check every image before uploading so was surprised to see the fail.  The reason was noise and I just don't have noise (usually) in my images.

 

I checked the image in question and it looked sharp and no apparent noise so what was going on?  Then I spotted it.  Against the clear sky, under a tree on the extreme right were loads of black spots and blurs.  Probably a wasp nest.  Top marks to the QC person for spotting that one.   I have 5 star rating so my images usually go through immediately.  I'm guessing this was a QC spot [sic] check or perhaps there's some auto-checking program in place.

 

Just goes to show how vigilant we need to be before uploading.

 

Nothing to do with wasps etc - please be assured our QC team can identify true noise in an image and not elements of the scene.

 

There some clear examples of visible noise in the very traditional / classic sense through the image. It's close to borderline, but there. We can post screengrab examples with your permission...

 

As an aside, this was posted in the general discussion area of the forum rather than the QC section so we'll move this over now.

 

Thanks

 

Alamy