QC interpretation of chromatic aberration and digital noise in an image.

[sb photos]

Earlier today I was editing images shot yesterday and I came across something I can't recollect having seen before. Placards from a demonstration contained large photos, one with obvious digital noise from 66% view in the shadows around multiple large bore pipes carrying gas. The other showed chromatic aberrations at 100% view. In each placard the defect was in the photo in the layout, not my PP. I'm curious if anyone has ever had a QC fail for something like this, where perhaps someone new to QC failed the image? In my case as I'm uploading reportage later, I could upload them, but in this instance I won't as I shot more than I needed.  

[Marianne]

It could fail - the only fail I've had in years was due to the high resolution of my camera showing the variations in the color of grains of sand and dirt on a horse racetrack. The photos was shot in excellent winter daylight on a bright but overcast day at ISO 100 - beautiful diffusion of the light - no grain even in the deep shadows of the stands viewed at 200%, but the variations in the colors of the grains of sand & dirt in the racetrack were interpreted as grain rather than dirt. So, if you wanted to upload them, I'd go the news or reportage route since it seems that would be safest. I just re-uploaded everything else and left out the offending image. 

 

I upload to a couple of other sites, and it's always surprising to me that an image rejected by one for some unexplained reason will sell on another site again and again. I had a photo illustration once that was rejected everywhere except for one site where it was licensed for one year exclusive use for $750, $325 to me, and has licensed several times since then. So, if you like the image upload it via reportage. For most buyers, I think the image itself, rather than its technical perfection, is what's important.