David

[Betty LaRue]

2 hours ago, Martin L said:

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

Agreed. David put his work out there & hopefully has learned why it failed. Information is always welcome, at least to me, when one is confused about something. I’m sure he knows what to look for now.

[MDM]

3 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I’m sure he knows what to look for now.

 

 I'm not so sure at all what he did here. He would need to re-post the image with the EXIF data included, preferably with an explanation of how he took and procesed (if at all) the picture. 

[Betty LaRue]

13 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 I'm not so sure at all what he did here. He would need to re-post the image with the EXIF data included, preferably with an explanation of how he took and procesed (if at all) the picture. 

Whatever his settings were, however he processed, he knows it ultimately caused some bad things to happen to his image. If he takes advice & inspects at 100% (or 200% depending) he should know what defects to look for now I would think.

 

I don’t know when David started the thread he was asking how to shoot it to avoid QC failure so much as wanting to know why it failed.

What we don’t know, but David does, are the conditions the image was taken in. A dark & gloomy day? Late evening with not enough light? I know when I started out submitting, I tried to rescue a few images here & there that were underexposed, but I couldn’t stand to delete because I loved the subject. Using the tool brush that lightens can sometimes make the area look horrible with color shifts. I learned a bitter lesson that was “do not fall in love with your images.”

 

A weird thing. One of those underexposed rescued images passed QC. Whether it was looked at by QC I’ll never know. I’ve come so close so many times to deleting it because I’m ashamed of it but it has actually sold a couple of times. I suspect it was looked at because back then, my QC history wasn’t that good. I think it sold because the subject matter has not been covered well & the buyer must’ve been desperate.😁

[MDM]

22 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Whatever his settings were, however he processed, he knows it ultimately caused some bad things to happen to his image. If he takes advice & inspects at 100% (or 200% depending) he should know what defects to look for now I would think.

 

I don’t know when David started the thread he was asking how to shoot it to avoid QC failure so much as wanting to know why it failed.

What we don’t know, but David does, are the conditions the image was taken in. A dark & gloomy day? Late evening with not enough light?

 

I'm not so sure he is a very experienced photographer at all so may not know what to do without specific advice. If he returns and provides more info things may become clearer. I won't hold my breath given how long it is since his previous post. 

[KitJames]

On 04/03/2024 at 13:07, David Rosenthal said:

Please could someone explain why this apparently sharp and vibrant image failed QC for being soft and lacking definition. Thanks

 

The colours are OK. But when I zoomed in your image to 100% and compared to some of mine, the difference in sharpness becomes apparent. The entire image is soft, honestly. What did you use to take the photo?

[M.Chapman]

7 hours ago, Martin L said:

Or at 200% if you are minted and using an Apple Retina display where screen display pixels are 1/2 the size

:-))) Trouble is that now I've got used to these superbly detailed displays I fear there's no going back. Luckily prices aren't so bad when buying secondhand.

 

Mark

[Brian Yarvin]

Now David has gone missing. It may be possible that we weren't giving him the answer his was looking for. I'd love to know the story behind this image!

[Mr Standfast]

As Gen has pointed out, David has asked for help before.

 

 

[gvallee]

35 minutes ago, Mr Standfast said:

As Gen has pointed out, David has asked for help before.

 

 

 

Yeah, he didn't reply to us either then.

 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

does David hot weather 142 images = David Rosenthal 0 images?

does Dhw = DR ?

Dhw (142) images:

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/?cid=FMSNQPN2J2P22WJAF8X3BBKXW2YR6VZYNLTETBWLKAWK6V7C55SPJEP7GXZY9G7F&name=David%2bRosenthal&st=12&mode=0&comp=1

 

Dhw offers many file sizes, including:

File size: 18.6 MB (0.7 MB Compressed download)

Dimensions: 3120 x 2080 px | 26.4 x 17.6 cm | 10.4 x 6.9 inches | 300dpi
File size: 75.4 MB (2.2 MB Compressed download)
Dimensions: 6305 x 4181 px | 53.4 x 35.4 cm | 21 x 13.9 inches | 300dpi

some in this thread call OP image soft;

are some of the (142) via link above soft?

if Dhw = DR, does OP image camera evidence camera used to make (142)?

[Brian Yarvin]

Very good questions Jeff! Perhaps we'll get an answer soon.

[David Rosenthal]

On 04/03/2024 at 13:07, David Rosenthal said:

Please could someone explain why this apparently sharp and vibrant image failed QC for being soft and lacking definition. Thanks

 

 

 

 

[David Rosenthal]

Many thanks for all the feedback.

 

I use a Fujifilm X100V which I know is an excellent piece of equipment, though I haven't had it long and might not be maximising its potential.

 

I always use Photshop to check images at 100 and if required to do some editing.

 

This was taken in Great Malvern last April and, yes it was late in the day, say within an hour before sunset and slightly overcast.

 

Can't remember ISO, but grateful for all your comments

 

[Gervais Montacute]

Yes the Fuji X100V is a really good camera. Looks like as said, you pushed the ISO but didn't get rid of the excess noise in post editing software. I go up to around 12500 ISO on a Leica Q3 sometimes but it's never a problem in either DXO or Lightroom noise reduction for example.