First ever QC failure in nearly 6 years.

[Brizbee]

Hi,

 

Just got my first QC failure in nearly 6 years on Alamy and after 210 successful submissions. Usual explanation - SoLD, soft or lacking definition.

Had another look at it myself but can't see the problem. Need a fresh set of eyes to have a look.

Posted it to an image sharing site and, not having done this before, I've posted this link to it. Hopefully it's the right one at 100%.

 

https://ibb.co/xH7LzT9

 

Picture was taken with a Sony A68, Sony 24-70mm lens at 50mm, 1/50 at f/11, image stabilisation on. After processing it was downsized to 4500x3000px.

 

If you could take a look and let me know what you think I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks, Brian.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

bright background thru tree branches...

did you apply defringing, especially green?

I'm not an authority, but I apply +2 defringing,

purple AND green to ALL my images...

[Gervais Montacute]

It looks blurred.

[Michael Ventura]

It does not look sharp to me, especially where it seems it should be.

[Steve F]

Sorry that happened. On my phone, does look soft. Would presumably look worse on a larger screen...

[Steve F]

Just checked on my main screen. Not so much soft as maybe over processed.

Edited April 25 by Steve F

[Mr Standfast]

Sorry you got a fail Brian.

 

I downloaded and looked at in PS. There's a "plasticy" look to the green surfaces which makes the surfaces look soft. Some of the splinters have the appearance of sharpness

but I think the problem lies in ISO1600 processing leading to softness more than noise.

 

2R1TG73 made me smile!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[M.Chapman]

Something's not right with it. Not sure what NR processing was applied but it's got a s light water-colour look to the detail and still has noise left. Looks just about OK if downsized to 3000 x 2000. But certainly not OK at full-size.

 

Mark

Edited April 24 by M.Chapman

[IKuzmin]

Definitely not soft. I never have such crisp images. But, to me this is a severe oversharp, where the fine natural structure is replaced overwhelmingly with all the sharp lines and corners. Perhaps you used something like Topaz Sharpen AI or Photo AI. As was discussed here earlier, some of us use such applications but on a Photoshop layer, filtering to the background through layer masks of variable density. That helps to make a balance of the natural detail and artificial sharpness. Just my 2 cents if may be helpful, I am clearly not an expert and just a rare visitor here nowadays.

[Betty LaRue]

If any consultation, I would have uploaded it myself. And I have in the past and passed. 

[John Mitchell]

I too probably would have uploaded it, although I prefer to use lower ISO's. Perhaps QC thought that there isn't a clearly identifiable plane or point of focus in your image. Also, as Jeff mentioned, fringing might have been an issue. That said, the PP experts here always see things that I don't.

[M.Chapman]

Just checking....

Are those who are saying this image is OK actually downloading and looking at the full size version at 100% ??

 

Open the OP's link https://ibb.co/xH7LzT9 to see a low res version on screen.

Then click on the "Load Full Resolution 15MB" link (this will load the full image, but the image may not display at 100% size - depending on browser, screen size etc.)

Then Right click on the image and "Save as..." to save the full size file called Fallen-Pine-Tree-1-4-2-24.jpeg  (which is 4500 x 3000 pixels). 

Now open the downloaded file in Photoshop (or similar) and inspect at 100% (or at 200% on a retina display)

 

When I do this, what I see resulted in my earlier comment "Something's not right with it. Not sure what NR processing was applied but it's got a s light water-colour look to the detail and still has noise left. Looks just about OK if downsized to 3000 x 2000. But certainly not OK at full-size".

 

Mark

 

Edited April 25 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

The metadata in the file shows quite a lot of processing in Photoshop. Looks like an ISO 1600 image taken in poor light has had extra NR and sharpening applied causing a "water-colour painting effect" resulting in loss of real detail in the bark. The new Adobe Denoise AI would probably be useful here.

 

Mark

Edited April 25 by M.Chapman

[spacecadet]

+1, what I mainly see is too much NR. I recall it from some ongoing problems I had somewhile ago. I think of it as a mosaic with too-big tesserae.

I downsize high-ISO images routinely- 1600 is usually OK though.

I see the A68 is quite similar to my 55.

Edited April 25 by spacecadet

[Sultanpepa]

4 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

Just checking....

Are those who are saying this image is OK actually downloading and looking at the full size version at 100% ??

 

Open the OP's link https://ibb.co/xH7LzT9 to see a low res version on screen.

Then click on the "Load Full Resolution 15MB" link (this will load the full image, but the ibb website isn't displaying it at 100% size)

Then Right click on the image and "Save as..." to save the full size file called Fallen-Pine-Tree-1-4-2-24.jpeg  (which is 4500 x 3000 pixels). 

Now open the downloaded file in Photoshop (or similar) and inspect at 100%

 

When I do this, what I see resulted in my earlier comment "Something's not right with it. Not sure what NR processing was applied but it's got a s light water-colour look to the detail and still has noise left. Looks just about OK if downsized to 3000 x 2000. But certainly not OK at full-size".

 

Mark

 

 

I didn't go though all that to view it but I see the same. If it had been my image and my processing I'd say I'd had to over do noise removal and sharpening giving that plasticy look. I don't think it's severe, I think you've been unlucky.

[Phil]

1st thing I noticed is to my eyes the splintered bare wood seems soft.

[spacecadet]

One thought which applied to me- I don't know if it could be a factor.

Getting some new specs helped.

Edited April 25 by spacecadet

[Brizbee]

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to look and reply. Much appreciated.

 

From what I'm reading it seems to be mostly the processing of the picture that is at fault, especially the amount of NR making it look plasticky. The amount I use is my standard setting for pictures shot at ISO 1600 but it seems to have been overkill for this one. I'll try reprocessing it with less and see what that does to the look of it.

 

I was focusing on the splintered wood of the tree as I felt that was where the interest lay, so the foreground bark came out where it did. I do like the image so I would still like to upload it.

It was a really, really dull day but it was my day off and I found the tree while taking the dog (and the camera) for a walk. A week later, in much better conditions, the tree had been cleared away, so it was a case of shoot it then or lose it.

 

I will definitely try again because I feel there is potential there. Once I get it done I'll post it to the same site and I hope you'll be able to offer your opinions on it before I upload.

 

Thanks again for your time and wise words.

 

Brian

[Brizbee]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

One thought which applied to me- I don't know if it could be a factor.

Getting some new specs helped.

 

Got new specs a couple of months ago, special ones just for the computer.

Maybe I need ones for using the camera. 😁

[Brizbee]

21 hours ago, Mr Standfast said:

 

2R1TG73 made me smile!

 

 

Tickled me when I saw it too.

[Brizbee]

12 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

The metadata in the file shows quite a lot of processing in Photoshop. Looks like an ISO 1600 image taken in poor light has had extra NR and sharpening applied causing a "water-colour painting effect" resulting in loss of real detail in the bark. The new Adobe Denoise AI would probably be useful here.

 

Mark

 

Still using Elements 9, if you can believe that. Does the basic things I really need it to do for my pictures

[M.Chapman]

55 minutes ago, Brizbee said:

Still using Elements 9, if you can believe that. Does the basic things I really need it to do for my pictures

 

Yes - I noticed that in the meta-data. Newer tools have MUCH better noise reduction capabilities, which could have avoided this QC problem altogether. If you still have the RAW file, then try Adobe's new Denoise AI. Alternatively, if you want to post the RAW file somewhere I'll happily run it through Adobe Denoise AI and return the denoised DNG to you for your further processing.

 

This gives an insight into what is now possible https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified

 

I also wondered if, (although you said the image was downsized to 4500 x 3000), whether it was actually cropped first as it just doesn't feel like a 50mm focal length shot to me. If so, that won't have helped either.

 

Mark

Edited April 25 by M.Chapman

[Jill Morgan]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

1st thing I noticed is to my eyes the splintered bare wood seems soft.

 

That's the first thing I noticed. No definition at all.

 

Jill

[IKuzmin]

13 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

20 hours ago, Phil said:

1st thing I noticed is to my eyes the splintered bare wood seems soft.

 

That's the first thing I noticed. No definition at all.

This puzzles me.

How many charts you see in this page? I barely see #253 and do not see #254, but I do see structure of the splintered wood in the subject photograph. Or I do not know what is "soft".

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, IKuzmin said:

This puzzles me.

How many charts you see in this page? I barely see #253 and do not see #254, but I do see structure of the splintered wood in the subject photograph. Or I do not know what is "soft".

I wonder if some folks are just looking at the low res blurry preview....

Anyone making comments should download the full res image 4,500 x 3,000 pixel image and then inspect at 100% (or 200% on a retina screen) before making a judgement. 

I can see #253 and #254 but very, very faintly.

IMO It's the texture of the bark in the photo in particular that has lost detail (NR has obliterated it). The splintered wood on the other hand still looks sharpish because the higher contrast linear features it contains have been enhanced by the sharpening, but the more subtle texture has gone.

 

Mark

Edited April 26 by M.Chapman

[IKuzmin]

12 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

IMO It's the texture of the bark in the photo in particular that has lost detail (NR has obliterated it). The splintered wood on the other hand still looks sharpish because the higher contrast linear features it contains have been enhanced by the sharpening, but the more subtle texture has gone.

Yes, that was my assessment as well, I mentioned above.