David Rosenthal Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Please could someone explain why this apparently sharp and vibrant image failed QC for being soft and lacking definition. Thanks 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geogphotos Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 44 minutes ago, geogphotos said: That is at 50% ? It's not that bad at 50%. But I would not submit at 100%. At 50% only if it was a unique image. Not with thousands of Morgan cars on Alamy already. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, David Rosenthal said: Please could someone explain why this apparently sharp and vibrant image failed QC for being soft and lacking definition. Thanks Sorry to say, but QR is right. wim 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 hour ago, David Rosenthal said: Please could someone explain why this apparently sharp and vibrant image failed QC for being soft and lacking definition. Thanks It failed because its soft. Check at 100% 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Standfast Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 Agree with the above, it's a fail. Soft and lacking definition is sometimes used as a catch all description for a multitude of fail issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 +1 There's a lot of chroma noise as well, and posterisation. Something went very wrong here, not sure what. High ISO setting? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) Agree with the other comments David. Guessing that it was a high ISO image with noise correction applied afterwards, which has resulted in smudgy colours / posterisation?? Can you let us know what the camera settings were for the image? Steve p.s. Not sure if you've passed the initial QC. This may help: https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf Edited March 4 by Steve F 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 soft? post the evidence lacking definition? post the evidence chroma noise? posterization? smudgy colors? POST. THE. EVIDENCE. how are the less** tech savvy going to learn if you don't...? **e..g., me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 9 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: soft? post the evidence lacking definition? post the evidence chroma noise? posterization? smudgy colors? POST. THE. EVIDENCE. how are the less** tech savvy going to learn if you don't...? **e..g., me It looked oversharpened to me, which creates a weird look. Try magnifying the shot (click on image and then click on magnify. Lightroom Classic's Noise Reduction AI is about the best thing I know of to use on noise. Also, oversharpening tends to accentuate noise. Always check at 100%; always back off sharpening if it starts looking too crispy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: soft? post the evidence Ian very helpfully posted a zoomed crop above which is clearly soft - the edges of the objects are fuzzy; look at the wheel spokes and blocks of patchy colour on the green. 21 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: how are the less** tech savvy going to learn if you don't...? **e..g., me I'm sure you're up on this Jeff! And I'm trying my best to be helpful 😛 But seriously, it's not our job to teach people about photography basics. And Google is everyone's friend - first result: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise-2.htm Edited March 4 by Steve F 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) This image shouldn't have needed any NR, in daylight at 100ISO. That said I managed to rescue some accidentally taken at 800ISO with no ill effects, but that was years ago. Today I would have been able to recover this at 3200 but the shutter speed and aperture would have been nuts. Maybe 1000th/f32. Edited March 4 by spacecadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 3 minutes ago, spacecadet said: This image shouldn't have needed any NR, in daylight at 100ISO. That said I managed to rescue some accidentally taken at 800ISO with no ill effects, but that was years ago. Today I would have been able to recover this at 3200 but the shutter speed and aperture would have been nuts. Maybe 1000th/f32. Agreed. But it doesn't look like camera shake. Looks like noise reduction gone wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 1 minute ago, Steve F said: Agreed. But it doesn't look like camera shake. Looks like noise reduction gone wrong. Not what I meant, just imagining the settings in broad daylight at 3200ISO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Steve F said: it's not our job to teach people about photography basics. some of us are looking at car's front left area, from license plate "YY" to wire wheel rims @250% & think it all looks reasonably sharp, at worst "on the fence" (but we are not savvy pixel peepers) so we are gobsmacked by quick declarations of failure; no one is expected to teach processing, just post the evidence supporting rash declarations of undeniable failure if, in fact, image is... ON. THE. FENCE. Edited March 4 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 44 minutes ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: just post the evidence supporting rash declarations of undeniable failure As Steve said, evidence has been posted above 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 I'm not good at judging this kind of stuff, but Ian's crop looks "soft and smudgy" to me. This image might have gotten thru the gate elsewhere. However, Alamy's QC is picky when it comes to technical matters. Downsizing to 3000 pixels (17 MB, minimum file size) might help. Handsome car, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Standfast Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 2 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: some of us are looking at car's front left area, from license plate "YY" to wire wheel rims @250% & think it all looks reasonably sharp, at worst "on the fence" (but we are not savvy pixel peepers) so we are gobsmacked by quick declarations of failure; no one is expected to teach processing, just post the evidence supporting rash declarations of undeniable failure if, in fact, image is... ON. THE. FENCE. No it's a fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 (edited) 5 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said: soft? post the evidence lacking definition? post the evidence chroma noise? posterization? smudgy colors? POST. THE. EVIDENCE. how are the less** tech savvy going to learn if you don't...? **e..g., me The image David posted is 100% if you click on it. You may have to click twice. You could also download it and open it in Photoshop or similar at 100%. What is going on here is not clear. There is no metadata. The edges have a sort of bevel and a thin white line. This means that the entire image at one point was a selection with a feather of 5 to 7px. The white line is 1px wide. Is this a phone image that has been pasted on a new file in Photoshop? Or just a crop out of some bigger image? The jpg artifacts we can see may well have been introduced when posting it online, if not then it may have been a low res jpg to begin with. wim edit: re jpg quality: this file is JPEG, quality 75, subsampling ON (2x2). Edited March 5 by wiskerke 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, wiskerke said: The image David posted is 100% if you click on it. You may have to click twice. You could also download it and open it in Photoshop or similar at 100%. What is going on here is not clear. There is no metadata. The edges have a sort of bevel and a thin white line. This means that the entire image at one point was a selection with a feather of 5 to 7px. The white line is 1px wide. Is this a phone image that has been pasted on a new file in Photoshop? Or just a crop out of some bigger image? The jpg artifacts we can see may well have been introduced when posting it online, if not then it may have been a low res jpg to begin with. wim edit: re jpg quality: this file is JPEG, quality 75, subsampling ON (2x2). Click twice -- brilliant as always. I would never have thought of that. Yup, it looks fuzzy all over, even to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvallee Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 David's post of 24th May 2023 might shed a light on what's going on: "I'm new to Alamy, please could someone tell me if Alamy will allow images that have been cropped. Also if they've been enhanced to improve clarity. One more if Imay, will they permit vintage cars with their number plate showing?" 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 13 minutes ago, gvallee said: David's post of 24th May 2023 might shed a light on what's going on: "I'm new to Alamy, please could someone tell me if Alamy will allow images that have been cropped. Also if they've been enhanced to improve clarity. One more if Imay, will they permit vintage cars with their number plate showing?" Brilliant, Gen. 👍 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 14 hours ago, spacecadet said: Not what I meant, just imagining the settings in broad daylight at 3200ISO! Got it! right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 19 hours ago, Martin L said: It failed because its soft. Check at 100% Or at 200% if using an Apple Retina display where the screen display pixels are 1/2 the size. Mark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, M.Chapman said: Or at 200% if using an Apple Retina display where the screen display pixels are 1/2 the size. Mark Or at 200% if you are minted and using an Apple Retina display where screen display pixels are 1/2 the size Also why has a red arrow appeared on the original post. I'd like to thank David for at least posting a picture that we can assess, it certainly helps me better understand the 'sharpness' expected by QC 1 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