Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Happy new year all ..

 

I see quite a few threads on increased QC failures, so thought I'd post my latest experience.  Most of my submissions are via the Live news upload route, as I mainly do weather, topical pictures etc which bypasses the normal QC mechanism.  However I do upload stock from time to time, and need to do more of that for sure.  Upto now I've had 5 star rating for several years and to  be honest I reckon I became complacent over quality, with virtually instant approval.  So, last week I had my first batch sitting in QC for several days, and received my first QC rejection in many years.   Valuable lesson learned 😉

 

All the best for 2021 Simon 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Simon said:

Happy new year all ..

 

I see quite a few threads on increased QC failures, so thought I'd post my latest experience.  Most of my submissions are via the Live news upload route, as I mainly do weather, topical pictures etc which bypasses the normal QC mechanism.  However I do upload stock from time to time, and need to do more of that for sure.  Upto now I've had 5 star rating for several years and to  be honest I reckon I became complacent over quality, with virtually instant approval.  So, last week I had my first batch sitting in QC for several days, and received my first QC rejection in many years.   Valuable lesson learned 😉

 

All the best for 2021 Simon 

 

 

thanks for sharing, i had a similar experience in late November with my first rejection,  so it's nice to hear i am not alone.  Mine was also total complacency, it was soft news, that i felt i was too marginal through LN but wanted up quickly,   i went through a set of images judging focus based on focus mask in C1, all looked good, quick process- upload to meet the over night reset, hit QC- oh well.  After the rejection shock i went and had a look, and yep totally in focus, except at totally the wrong part of subject- narrow depth of field. 

 

no more rushing.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Noise is what they said  - although it was shot at ISO 640 on a Fuji XT-30 with their excellent  F2.8 lens.  That camera doesn't really do noise until well above that, and I can't see any noise. Personally I think the lighting was a bit dodgy, and not all elements were focused as well as they could have been  ( and that was the complacent bit, as I could have done better ).  I would put the picture up, but they're quite niche and I don't want to give that away. I will re-do when I get chance and  when the pug is in the mood 😉

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Simon said:

Noise is what they said  - although it was shot at ISO 640 on a Fuji XT-30 with their excellent  F2.8 lens.  That camera doesn't really do noise until well above that, and I can't see any noise. Personally I think the lighting was a bit dodgy, and not all elements were focused as well as they could have been  ( and that was the complacent bit, as I could have done better ).  I would put the picture up, but they're quite niche and I don't want to give that away. I will re-do when I get chance and  when the pug is in the mood 😉

 

Can we see a 100% crop please? IME they are extremely sensitive over chroma noise, not so much luminance noise (grain without colour) as long as it isn't excessive. I've seen me converting largely colourless scenes taken at ISO 100/200 on a full frame camera (!) where i've lifted the exposure by maybe 0.5-0.75 stop to monochrome to get rid of any hint of blotchy colour noise. It's the kind of thing you'd never pay a blind bit of notice to normally but it seems to be something QC really look out for. 

 

Occasionally I submit "singles" to QC if I'm not sure (I am 3 stars) because I find that doing a mix of news and stock could risk me becoming complacent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cal said:

 

Can we see a 100% crop please? IME they are extremely sensitive over chroma noise, not so much luminance noise (grain without colour) as long as it isn't excessive. I've seen me converting largely colourless scenes taken at ISO 100/200 on a full frame camera (!) where i've lifted the exposure by maybe 0.5-0.75 stop to monochrome to get rid of any hint of blotchy colour noise. It's the kind of thing you'd never pay a blind bit of notice to normally but it seems to be something QC really look out for. 

 

Occasionally I submit "singles" to QC if I'm not sure (I am 3 stars) because I find that doing a mix of news and stock could risk me becoming complacent.

Blimey, you get problems only lifting exposure that much on ISO 100/200, doesn't sound right

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Blimey, you get problems only lifting exposure that much on ISO 100/200, doesn't sound right

 

I should clarify - I haven't had QC failures for it, but I am extremely careful about chroma noise (splotches of colour) after my first and only QC fail for it back in early '19 I think it was. I suspect much of what I "correct" wouldn't be a QC fail, but I don't particularly want to risk it either way. I review on a 27" 5K iMac so the level of detail visible when zoomed in is quite revealing.

Edited by Cal
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my fails was for chroma noise in dark winter shadows that I had tried to lift. I'm now much more aware of this at the time of shooting and cropping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys put me to shame - I've obviously been very lucky in the past... I did lift some shadows, I often have to - usually shooting straight into the sunrise which I do most mornings,but that didn't apply to this pic. Having said that my pics sell pretty regularly, so something must be ok. Onwards an upwards.

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

You guys put me to shame - I've obviously been very lucky in the past... I did lift some shadows, I often have to - usually shooting straight into the sunrise which I do most mornings,but that didn't apply to this pic. Having said that my pics sell pretty regularly, so something must be ok. Onwards an upwards.

 

Can we see a 100% crop please? I asked this above so not sure whether you missed it or are unwilling to show us... things like this really help other contributors be aware of the actual limitations applied by QC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal said:

Can we see a 100% crop please?

 

4 hours ago, Simon said:

I would put the picture up, but they're quite niche and I don't want to give that away.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

 

Christ. I apologise all, I think I need to go to specsavers! Again!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cal said:

Christ. I apologise all, I think I need to go to specsavers! Again!

😎

Edited by spacecadet
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Simon said:

Noise is what they said  - although it was shot at ISO 640 on a Fuji XT-30 with their excellent  F2.8 lens.  That camera doesn't really do noise until well above that, and I can't see any noise. Personally I think the lighting was a bit dodgy, and not all elements were focused as well as they could have been  ( and that was the complacent bit, as I could have done better ).  I would put the picture up, but they're quite niche and I don't want to give that away. I will re-do when I get chance and  when the pug is in the mood 😉

 

unrelated, but the way Fuji cameras are built, in theory 640 actually has more noise than 800. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find lifting shadows even at 100 iso on a Sony small sensor camera can create noise pretty good. I try and protect highlights so sometimes I need to lift the shadows in camera raw, so I don't protect highlights as aggressively as I used to because bringing down highlights works really well these days in Photoshop better than lifting shadows. Hope the reshoot goes better for you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Normspics said:

I find lifting shadows even at 100 iso on a Sony small sensor camera can create noise pretty good. I try and protect highlights so sometimes I need to lift the shadows in camera raw, so I don't protect highlights as aggressively as I used to because bringing down highlights works really well these days in Photoshop better than lifting shadows. Hope the reshoot goes better for you.

 

Yes, I find I have to be noticeably more careful with my A77ii (APS-C) than with my A99 (FF) despite the A77ii being a couple of years newer. I'm looking forward to when my budget allows for the upgrade to the A99ii which I believe has the same focussing system as the A77ii (which is bloody good). Paired with a 150-600 or similar it will probably finally negate my need for APS-C for the long lens stuff. But that's quite a good few sales away yet... 

Edited by Cal
  • Upvote 1
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.