Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Erin1 said: I just created this account so I could link a URL to post an image. This is one of the photos I took on Saturday, and it was taken with the 50-200mm lens. Thanks Erin. Have you edited this? You're well off the histogram for both blacks and whites. And you've got very clearly visible dust spots in the sky which are also an automatic fail for Alamy. Also looks low resolution. Thanks again, but can you put up a full resolution image in colour that you're happy with the editing for. Edited March 11 by Steve F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin1 Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 Yes, it's been edited, but not sharpened. I'll put in a color photo in a few minutes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, Erin1 said: Yes, it's been edited, but not sharpened. I'll put in a color photo in a few minutes. Cool. Which software are you using? You shouldn't generally be sharpening your images much. e.g. I just use the default sharpening on output in Lightroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin1 Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 I'm using Photoshop CS6. I rarely sharpen my images. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Question to everyone else. Does Alamy Forum not display JPEG images without making them very pixelated - i.e. the sky? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 The Alamy forum has a less-than-stellar reputation with jpeg displays. It would be far better to see the image on a file hosting site. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 13 minutes ago, Erin1 said: I'm using Photoshop CS6. I rarely sharpen my images. Erin, thanks a lot. Can you post a link directly to the image on the hosting site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) We need it at 100% without the watermark and not resaved to be able to offer an opinion. Edited March 11 by spacecadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, spacecadet said: Click on the image. Ah, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Steve F said: Ah, thanks. I don't think that's the original export though. If it is we have our answer- it's awful. Edited March 11 by spacecadet 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Hi Erin, yes, this can't be the original export from PS. Need the exported image to be saved on imgbb at peak export quality (I don't mind about the watermarks, just add a watermark in PS to an exact copy of the original file. And export with your normal settings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) I put it in ACR and simply hit auto. This is how the bottom left corner came out. If straight from such a quality camera, it should have brought out the darker areas but they are just black blobs. And the vines and flowers are also pixel blocks of colour. This has to be a very compressed image. Perhaps the in camera settings are set to low quality jpeg. Jill Edited March 11 by Jill Morgan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Jill Morgan said: I put it in ACR and simply hit auto. This is how the bottom left corner came out. If straight from such a quality camera, it should have brought out the darker areas but they are just black blobs. And the vines and flowers are also pixel blocks of colour. This has to be a very compressed image. Perhaps the in camera settings are set to low quality jpeg. Jill I think it has been reduced on export, but unfortunately we may be talking to someone who doesn't know the ropes yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin1 Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin1 Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 I'm leery about posting full images online without watermarks, but ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 hour ago, spacecadet said: I think it has been reduced on export, but unfortunately we may be talking to someone who doesn't know the ropes yet. I've tried to figure out where the sun is in the sky -- seems like over the photographer's left shoulder and not quite at the golden hour. The photo seems under exposed a bit, and too wide a dynamic range for something that's not obviously taken at sunset. Sky should be brighter, I'd think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Rebecca, I think that you're seeing underexposure and some sort of automatic correction. The EXIF data; f/13, 1/200 shutter speed, and iso 200 seem like a strange combination to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Hogg Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Maybe needs some kind of filter to balance the light 9 minutes ago, Brian Yarvin said: The EXIF data; f/13, 1/200 shutter speed, and iso 200 seem like a strange combination to me. I agree 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) Erin, thanks for posting. Firstly, I can see as soon as I import this into Lightroom (LR) that the image is underexposed. The histogram is off to the left. The blue patches on the photo are where LR has identified that there is no information available in the shadows and it's just pure black. I can also see that the image is not that sharp when I zoom in. If you can't spot this, you'll need to compare with an image you've taken with a sharper lens. Here's a crop of your image at 100%. Here's a crop of one of my recent images at 100%. And this was taken with a 24MP full frame camera (as opposed to your 36MP camera): Original image on Alamy: Edited March 12 by Steve F 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin1 Posted March 11 Author Share Posted March 11 Thanks for the comparison. I've just downloaded a software update for the camera, which can only help. I may also buy a calibration board. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Yarvin Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Erin, I don't think you need any of that. It's more about the settings you're choosing. At some point, you'll need to calibrate your monitor, but this is more about the mistakes you're making when you shoot. The only thing you need to buy is a modern prime lens. Otherwise, try less underexposure, Adobe1998 instead of sRGB, wider f/stops and faster shutter speeds. They should all work together to give you a vast boost in file quality. And then, after you nail those things, try a tripod and monitor calibration - with that, you'll be a master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Erin, most lenses have a sweet spot at around F7or F8 where the lens is sharpest. I wouldn't ever normally be using F13 unless I was trying to get a really long depth of field and I was using a tripod. 1/200s should be fine, especially if you have image stabilisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sooth Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) there's compression artifacts in and around the "TEST" watermarks, so this photo doesn't show the original quality. was this image "save for web" or "save as". in photoshop, use the latter "save as" for best quality jpg. if you use "save for web" you basically compress and severely reduce the quality of the image which is not what you want. as for a test image, it's ok to crop a part of the image so it's small enough to post. **please don't reduce the image size**, i.e., "image size" in photoshop, instead, use the crop tool and crop the image to what you want to show. i suggest 1/3 from the left (i guess showing the weather vanes), top to bottom; add your watermarks, and "save as". for your in camera settings, what file formats did you shoot this image with, raw, L jpg, M jpg? JPEG: L(36M:7360x4912), M(22M:5760x3840), S(12M:4224x2816), XS(2M:1920x1280) RAW: (36M:7360x4912) Edited March 11 by sooth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ognyan Yosifov Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Erin1, I wonder why you are wasting precious time with this instead of going out and taking more photos. I've seen photos with awful quality sold here. It's an editorial site, not a fine art one. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Ognyan Yosifov said: Erin1, I wonder why you are wasting precious time with this instead of going out and taking more photos. I've seen photos with awful quality sold here. It's an editorial site, not a fine art one. Just saying... Because QC keeps failing him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now