Jump to content

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I0000apeWsEbw0os.jpg

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

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

 

aso2EwM.jpeg

 

 

Sorry to say, but QR is right.

 

wim

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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%

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Steve F
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Steve F
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by spacecadet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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 by wiskerke
  • Love 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?"

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 👍

  • Love 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.