Increased rejections - is there a new assessment process?

[quetzal]

Here is the link to the RAW file of the eagle. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j2glrxim3it5aejy5d16c/Bald-Eagle-Seward-Alaska-USA-18-August-2023-00001.ARW?rlkey=x007t11nt73p24vtqcw20fpit&dl=0

 

[quetzal]

Thanks for the correct e-mail address for QC.

[quetzal]

Re. glasses. Thanks Phil. I am a spectacle wearer and have regular check ups. 

[wiskerke]

29 minutes ago, quetzal said:

Hi thanks

I tried to get the file online using other software but it failed. So, here's the eagle image link using drop box. I know where I went wrong with the Kingfisher images - turned out I processed it twice. My own fault. However, the eagle has only been processed as I would normally do for a submission. 

Here's the link = Bald Eagle, Seward, Alaska, USA, 18 August 2023,00001, -ARW_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD-Enhanced-SR-Edit.jpg (dropbox.com)

The link to the RAW file works, but this one doesn't.

 

wim

[Martin L]

31 minutes ago, quetzal said:

Here is the link to the RAW file of the eagle. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/j2glrxim3it5aejy5d16c/Bald-Eagle-Seward-Alaska-USA-18-August-2023-00001.ARW?rlkey=x007t11nt73p24vtqcw20fpit&dl=0

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Martin L
Deleted

[MDM]

I am able to download the raw file but not the JPEG. However, just looking at the raw on my 27" monitor, I would say that this image is not one I would submit to Alamy. The only part that is even approaching sharpness is the eye but even that is not sharp enough. It also has badly blown out highlights on the head feathers. You can try all you like to sharpen it in post but, if it was mine it would be going in the bin, at least as far as stock on Alamy is concerned. Dealing with the noise will cause it to look even less sharp. 

 

Presumably you are shooting at high ISO because you want to use a high shutter speed and the teleconverter requires using a small aperture. In this case you could have used a much lower shutter speed and lower ISO. However, it is safe to say that your camera technique needs a lot of refinement. This is being honest and objective - it is not meant as negative. 

[quetzal]

OK I'll try the jpeg link again - here it is (I don't use Drop box so probably a learning curve). The RAW file looks awful to me on my calibrated monitor when I click the link in Drop box but the jpeg looks fine. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/so30oux45pqz3eldttlzl/Bald-Eagle-Seward-Alaska-USA-18-August-2023-00001-ARW_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD-Enhanced-SR-Edit.jpg?rlkey=hwbslwputtc8cimogcrfc6mp6&dl=0

[John Mitchell]

I downloaded the JPEG. Rather than soft, it looks over-processed and somewhat "plastic" to me, but I'm no expert on this sort of thing. Did you apply a lot of sharpening on the eye and beak? I'm also not a wildlife photographer, but my sense is that Alamy prefers a more natural look to images. Best not to process too much and downsize IMO.

[Martin L]

15 minutes ago, quetzal said:

OK I'll try the jpeg link again - here it is (I don't use Drop box so probably a learning curve). The RAW file looks awful to me on my calibrated monitor when I click the link in Drop box but the jpeg looks fine. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/so30oux45pqz3eldttlzl/Bald-Eagle-Seward-Alaska-USA-18-August-2023-00001-ARW_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD-Enhanced-SR-Edit.jpg?rlkey=hwbslwputtc8cimogcrfc6mp6&dl=0

Seriously without being rude, if you think the jpeg is fine something is not right in the world

At 100% it looks like you clicked on 'make it a watercolour' button.

No software would sharpen the raw enough without artifacts to make it acceptable for Alamy

Edited September 14, 2023 by Martin L

[Marianne]

On 30/07/2023 at 06:27, quetzal said:

Thanks Martin.

Here are two examples ( I have reduced their size for benefit of uploading). 

https://ibb.co/0KmJjBx

https://ibb.co/Kwk89Mt

 

Kevin

 

The background of the kingfisher looks like it has artefacts and it also seems (maybe because the image was additionally sharpened when shrinking) that the tree branch and bird are a tad oversharpened. The fish looks like maybe it was cut out from the background. I'm wondering if, when you used DxO, you overprocessed what already was a really excellent image. It's hard to tell from the smaller image. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm in awe of wildlife photographers and it's a really amazing capture. 

 

Sometimes we perfectionists want to make our images as excellent as possible and with so many tools available, it's easy to spend time perfecting an already perfectly fine image. I'm a very experienced photographer too and I've found that I can still mess up when using a new processing tool. Hours spent making an image better only to realize I've gone too far and that the original didn't need all that extra work. Maybe compare the original to the processed one side by side and see if you were overly enthusiastic? You might be able to layer them and blend the original as a luminosity layer at a percentage that sharpens/smooths the image a bit less than you've done. It also could be that shrinking by using bicubic sharper created the artefacts in the background and the overly sharpened bird, but I'd give it a closer look side by side with the original to make sure you didn't overprocess it.

 

It's an awesome capture, so worth taking another look. 

[John Mitchell]

9 minutes ago, Marianne said:

 

The background of the kingfisher looks like it has artefacts and it also seems (maybe because the image was additionally sharpened when shrinking) that the tree branch and bird are a tad oversharpened. The fish looks like maybe it was cut out from the background. I'm wondering if, when you used DxO, you overprocessed what already was a really excellent image. It's hard to tell from the smaller image. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm in awe of wildlife photographers and it's a really amazing capture. 

 

Sometimes we perfectionists want to make our images as excellent as possible and with so many tools available, it's easy to spend time perfecting an already perfectly fine image. I'm a very experienced photographer too and I've found that I can still mess up when using a new processing tool. Hours spent making an image better only to realize I've gone too far and that the original didn't need all that extra work. Maybe compare the original to the processed one side by side and see if you were overly enthusiastic? You might be able to layer them and blend the original as a luminosity layer at a percentage that sharpens/smooths the image a bit less than you've done. It also could be that shrinking by using bicubic sharper created the artefacts in the background and the overly sharpened bird, but I'd give it a closer look side by side with the original to make sure you didn't overprocess it.

 

It's an awesome capture, so worth taking another look. 

 

I think that thanks to all the miraculous editing software available now, many photographers have become obsessive about post-processing. Best to do as little as possible IMHO. Everyone uses different monitors, and everyone has a different idea of what "perfection" looks like. Sometimes I really miss film... 🙄

[wiskerke]

45 minutes ago, quetzal said:

OK I'll try the jpeg link again - here it is (I don't use Drop box so probably a learning curve). The RAW file looks awful to me on my calibrated monitor when I click the link in Drop box but the jpeg looks fine. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/so30oux45pqz3eldttlzl/Bald-Eagle-Seward-Alaska-USA-18-August-2023-00001-ARW_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD-Enhanced-SR-Edit.jpg?rlkey=hwbslwputtc8cimogcrfc6mp6&dl=0

There is something strange with the two files. Your JPG comes in as 6580 x 4132px.

While your RAW only has 3936 x 2624px as it's native resolution. I didn't know the A9 could do this btw.

I agree that it would take a lot of tweaking to get it through QC even at this resolution.

So here's my try at 3936 x 2624px. 😁

My guess is that the culprit is the combination of the lens at the longest reach plus the converter.

 

wim

 

edit: plus the funny default RAW setting obviously.

edit2: your talons are a lot better than mine.

Edited September 14, 2023 by wiskerke

[Mr Standfast]

24 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Seriously without being rude, if you think the jpeg is fine something is not right in the world

At 100% it looks like you clicked on 'make it a watercolour' button.

No software would sharpen the raw enough without artifacts to make it acceptable for Alamy

Yup.

[quetzal]

Thanks for all your comments. I will take them on board and also wait to hear a response from QC. 

 

[Marianne]

14 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

I think that thanks to all the miraculous editing software available now, many photographers have become obsessive about post-processing. Best to do as little as possible IMHO. Everyone uses different monitors, and everyone has a different idea of what "perfection" looks like. Sometimes I really miss film... 🙄

 

Yep. Sometimes I wish I could set my camera to stop after 36 images and set LR to stop once I fiddle with an image for an hour - I find when I shoot less and process minimally I end up with more keepers. The hardest thing for me is to delete an image when I love the composition but there is something I need to tweak - if it was film, I'd dump it - but because it can be fixed I sometimes spend more time on those almost perfect images instead of just minimally processing and uploading all the good ones that don't need anything more than a little white balance/exposure/contrast tweaking and export to jpg. 

[Mr Standfast]

56 minutes ago, quetzal said:

OK I'll try the jpeg link again - here it is (I don't use Drop box so probably a learning curve). The RAW file looks awful to me on my calibrated monitor when I click the link in Drop box but the jpeg looks fine. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/so30oux45pqz3eldttlzl/Bald-Eagle-Seward-Alaska-USA-18-August-2023-00001-ARW_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD-Enhanced-SR-Edit.jpg?rlkey=hwbslwputtc8cimogcrfc6mp6&dl=0

 

 

I wouldn't send this to Alamy, too soft and blown highlights.

To be very blunt I wouldn't send it to an LRPS panel either.

 

I've looked at your portfolio, excellent quality and enviable images.

 

I can see why you are confused.

 

All the best.

 

 

[MDM]

48 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

There is something strange with the two files. Your JPG comes in as 6580 x 4132px.

While your RAW only has 3936 x 2624px as it's native resolution. I didn't know the A9 could do this btw.

I agree that it would take a lot of tweaking to get it through QC even at this resolution.

So here's my try at 3936 x 2624px. 😁

My guess is that the culprit is the combination of the lens at the longest reach plus the converter.

 

wim

 

 

I wondered about the raw size as well as it's a 24MP camera. A very quick search shows there are a few raw sizes. If anything like the Nikons from around 2017, the lower size was mainly for burst shooting but image quality suffered. Sony made the Nikon sensors as well so comparisons are probably valid. Using the smaller size also gives a lot less room for downsizing in post which could help. I am not familiar with the camera or the lens but I suspect shooting at the higher res without the converter and then cropping would give better results. Presuming Kevin doesn't live in Alaska and can't easily reshoot, it's a hard lesson.

Edited September 14, 2023 by MDM

[wiskerke]

Have a good look at the RAW file. At full resolution the file size should be around 47MB. This one is 21MB.

The pixel size should be 4000x6000px = 24 Megapixel. This is 3936 x 2624px and it says it's 10.33 Megapixel.

The Exif says the focal length is 840mm, but it also states it's FocalLengthIn355mmFilm is 1260mm.

Aha PIE gives some more information:

Sony Crop Size: 3936 2624

Reduced-resolution image.

Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent: 1.5

So it's a setting on the body I didn't know it had for still photography.

Then again I've never worked with the A9. But I have with the A7 and A7R2 -both owned-; A7R3 and R4 -both rented. The rest is on my wish list.

 

wim

 

[MDM]

40 minutes ago, quetzal said:

Thanks for all your comments. I will take them on board and also wait to hear a response from QC. 

 

 

There is no doubt you will get a reply along the same lines as everyone is saying here. The JPEG has no chance of passing QC. I wonder what monitor you are using to view your images?

[Steve F]

Bird is too soft in both the JPEG and RAW file - lens at limit, or some slight motion blur. Nice portfolio.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Steve F

[MDM]

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

Have a good look at the RAW file. At full resolution the file size should be around 47MB. This one is 21MB.

The pixel size should be 4000x6000px = 24 Megapixel. This is 3936 x 2624px and it says it's 10.33 Megapixel.

The Exif says the focal length is 840mm, but it also states it's FocalLengthIn355mmFilm is 1260mm.

Aha PIE gives some more information:

Sony Crop Size: 3936 2624

Reduced-resolution image.

Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent: 1.5

 

 

 

So it's APS-C format on a full frame camera which with the teleconverter will give approximately 2X magnification of the subject in the viewfinder when shooting. This doesn't mean the quality of the image as captured by the sensor is going to be better than shooting full frame without the teleconverter and will probably be worse in fact, moreover because of the additional effect of the converter in reducing the amount of light getting through to sensor. This results in the high ISO used, more noise, lower dynamic range - all working together to cause deterioration in image quality. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by MDM

[M.Chapman]

10 hours ago, quetzal said:

Re. glasses. Thanks Phil. I am a spectacle wearer and have regular check ups. 

What monitor are you using? If it's a Mac Retina display you need to inspect at 200% size in PS/LR to see a similar sized image to what would appear on a non-retina display at 100%. Inspecting at just 100% on a retina display gives the impression the image is sharper than it is.

 

I've downloaded the RAW and JPGs and agree with the comments. They just aren't sharp enough. It seems you're really pushing things by using a 1.4x converter + 200-600 zoom + 1.5x crop setting (so little scope for downsizing). The NR/sharpening over-processing on the jpg hasn't helped either. I tried my own processing on the RAW - but there's no saving it.

 

Mark

 

 

[John Mitchell]

9 hours ago, Marianne said:

 

Yep. Sometimes I wish I could set my camera to stop after 36 images and set LR to stop once I fiddle with an image for an hour - I find when I shoot less and process minimally I end up with more keepers. The hardest thing for me is to delete an image when I love the composition but there is something I need to tweak - if it was film, I'd dump it - but because it can be fixed I sometimes spend more time on those almost perfect images instead of just minimally processing and uploading all the good ones that don't need anything more than a little white balance/exposure/contrast tweaking and export to jpg. 

 

I generally do only basic tweaking in RAW and then export. OK, I admit, I'm a bit of a dunce when it comes to the more advanced post-processing stuff, and I don't enjoy it. Layers, masks, and the like give me a headache. I used to put more effort into trying to save flawed images, but nowadays, if downsizing doesn't do the trick, I tend to just move on.

[wiskerke]

8 hours ago, MDM said:

 

So it's APS-C format on a full frame camera which with the teleconverter will give approximately 2X magnification of the subject in the viewfinder when shooting. This doesn't mean the quality of the image as captured by the sensor is going to be better than shooting full frame without the teleconverter and will probably be worse in fact, moreover because of the additional effect of the converter in reducing the amount of light getting through to sensor. This results in the high ISO used, more noise, lower dynamic range - all working together to cause deterioration in image quality. 

Plus the JPG was a 3294x2069px crop of the already small 3936 x 2624px APS-C image.

And to make matters worse it was rezzed up from 3294x2069px = 6.8 Mpx to a whopping 6580 x 4132px  = 27 Mpx.

However when the existing JPG is downsized again to 3294x2069px it may well pass QC.

I set texture to +50 and sharpening at +10, which does give some slight halos on close inspection though.

It's by no means perfect, but it may well pass. Now is may well pass good enough? That's a gamble that everyone has to decide for one self.

 

wim

[Steve F]

25 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

Plus the JPG was a 3294x2069px crop of the already small 3936 x 2624px APS-C image.

And to make matters worse it was rezzed up from 3294x2069px = 6.8 Mpx to a whopping 6580 x 4132px  = 27 Mpx.

However when the existing JPG is downsized again to 3294x2069px it may well pass QC.

I set texture to +50 and sharpening at +10, which does give some slight halos on close inspection though.

It's by no means perfect, but it may well pass. Now is may well pass good enough? That's a gamble that everyone has to decide for one self.

 

wim

 

I thought the RAW file looked too soft to rescue. But not an expert!