Increased rejections - is there a new assessment process?

[MDM]

1 hour 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

 

Sure. I didn't pay too much attention to the JPEG beyond seeing that it looks way over-processed in comparison to the raw image. So yes it could be possible to doctor the image so it might or might not pass QC.

 

However, I think the bigger picture here is that Kevin (an FRPS no less) is getting such poor results in-camera, as evidenced by the raw image, and that this is clearly not a one-off as he has been failing regularly. So surprisingly it is his camera technique in the broadest sense that needs addressing. I would still like to know what monitor he is using to view his images, as even a cursory examination of the raw image reveals serious problems that should be immediately evident to anyone with even basic knowledge of digital imaging, never mind such an experienced photographer.

 

There should be no need for any excessive post-processing on a regular basis in order to pass QC or pass the test of showing one's raw images to a bunch of fair critics like us if one's equipment choices and camera technique choices are up to scratch.

Edited September 15, 2023 by MDM

[Mr Standfast]

14 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

 

There should be no need for any excessive post-processing on a regular basis in order to pass QC or pass the test of showing one's raw images to a bunch of fair critics like us if one's equipment choices and camera technique choices are up to scratch.

 

 

Yes. Now of to the shed to do stock pictures of hitting a nail on the head.

[Martin L]

3 hours 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

What is the point of forcing a, let's face it, pretty mundane pic through QC, when on zooming it just doesn't compete with the thousands of other bald eagle pics?

I would shrug, blame the camera (never me of course ) and move on to something that may have a better chance of licensing

[wiskerke]

55 minutes ago, Martin L said:

What is the point of forcing a, let's face it, pretty mundane pic through QC, when on zooming it just doesn't compete with the thousands of other bald eagle pics?

I would shrug, blame the camera (never me of course ) and move on to something that may have a better chance of licensing

For one, my point was trying my hand on an everyday image from a lens and maybe even lens+converter combo I consider buying.

The other is trying to understand what and why things go wrong. Others do crosswords or sudoku or maybe play Call of Duty.

But you're right of course, this is why 99% of my images are not on Alamy. 👴

 

wim

 

[MDM]

18 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

The other is trying to understand what and why things go wrong. 

 

 

 

That is one of my main motives for contributing to forums as I can learn a lot from others' mistakes (as well as my own of course). The other motive is I do enjoy helping people especially when they take it on board.

 

As for the teleconverter, I think they are mainly relics from the days of film when it was necessary to frame in camera (slides in particular). Nowadays with a high MP camera (36MP or greater say), I think it would be better to use a quality lens with no converter and crop and frame in post. That would be my advice to Kevin in any case.

[Phil]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

As for the teleconverter, I think they are mainly relics from the days of film when it was necessary to frame in camera (slides in particular). Nowadays with a high MP camera (36MP or greater say), I think it would be better to use a quality lens with no converter and crop and frame in post. That would be my advice to Kevin in any case.

 

Actually recent generations of major camera manufacturer's teleconverters are quite good when used properly. 

 

I have a Nikkor TC-1.4IIIE as well as a Fuji XF 1.4X.   Both work very well when used behind good glass with proper exposure.  They're popular with wildlife and bird photographers which are a tough crowd to please.  The Sony 1.4x TC is also highly regarded.   Dunno about 2x TC's  as I have no real experience with those but they may be a reach too far.

[M.Chapman]

On 15/09/2023 at 10:00, 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.

Oops, missed that. Numerous technical problems here then.

 

What's puzzling is that the OP raised similar issues at the start of the thread with different images, but which have similar IQ problems. Clear advice was given on the forum, but the OP still decided to complain to Alamy QC. This suggests the OP can't see the problems with these images, which leads me back to the questions about the monitor being used and the level of zoom being applied when inspecting...

 

Mark 

Edited September 17, 2023 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

Nowadays with a high MP camera (36MP or greater say), I think it would be better to use a quality lens with no converter and crop and frame in post. That would be my advice to Kevin in any case.

+1 There are numerous advantages to this approach, particularly the option of cropping and reframing in post so the subject is off-centre allowing copy space etc. , not to mention faster shutter speed or lower ISO.

 

Mark 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

Hey, let's leave the guy alone.

 

He asked for help has thanked you all for it.

 

There gets a point where it turns into something else.

 

 

[MDM]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

 

Actually recent generations of major camera manufacturer's teleconverters are quite good when used properly. 

 

I have a Nikkor TC-1.4IIIE as well as a Fuji XF 1.4X.   Both work very well when used behind good glass with proper exposure.  They're popular with wildlife and bird photographers which are a tough crowd to please.  The Sony 1.4x TC is also highly regarded.   Dunno about 2x TC's  as I have no real experience with those but they may be a reach too far.

 

OK. I've not had a teleconverter for a long time and never had a decent one. It would be interesting to test with a quality lens and quality converter such as the Nikon you mention - with or without a converter and examine the differences on a good monitor.  I'm not going to invest in one to find out though as the good ones are expensive and I would have no real use for it in what I do.

 

 

 

[geogphotos]

I want to hear from people who do it, try to do it, get it wrong, try to get it right.

 

Lets encourage people to post about problems, errors, requests for help

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by geogphotos