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.

[Phil]

I loaded the website's hires version and punched in on the web image as much as it would allow.

 

The splintered wood looks better.

 

While the large broken tree is the main subject I wonder if the apparently blown-out whitish background  (or cloudiness/fog/mist?)  with the smaller trees in the upper and also left of image which look soft are the QC culprit?  

 

Due to the background and soft appearing area mentioned above personally I would not have submitted it.

 

 

 

Edited April 26 by Phil
typo

[John Mitchell]

It's kinda too bad that QC doesn't include a comment on why an image like this has failed. Even a few words would be very helpful. I've always felt that "soft and lacking definition" is too vague. Just sayin'... ☺️

 

P.S. Have you emailed Alamy, Brian? I've done that in the past about iffy (IMO) failures and have gotten explanations.

[M.Chapman]

4 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I've done that in the past about iffy (IMO) failures and have gotten explanations.

I'm curious, IMO this image is more than an "iffy" failure... Have you downloaded the actual 4,500 x 3,000 pixel image and inspected at 100%? (200% on a Retina display)

 

Mark

Edited April 26 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

3 hours ago, Phil said:

I loaded the website's hires version and punched in on the web image as much as it would allow.

On my Retina display the IBB website refuses to enlarge (zoom into) the image beyond 100% (1 screen pixel / image pixel) , so I had to download and open in PS and view at 200% to make a fair inspection. What display are you using?

 

Mark

[Phil]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

On my Retina display the IBB website refuses to enlarge (zoom into) the image beyond 100% (1 screen pixel / image pixel) , so I had to download and open in PS and view at 200% to make a fair inspection. What display are you using?

 

Mark

After I loaded the full res 15mb image there is a small + zoom button on web site's screen - but it only gave me 1 click zoom-in - guessing maybe 5-10% max - but enough that the splintered wood does look better.

 

Using a ViewSonic 1080 HD RGB display.

 

Edited April 26 by Phil

[John Mitchell]

2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I'm curious, IMO this image is more than an "iffy" failure... Have you downloaded the actual 4,500 x 3,000 pixel image and inspected at 100%? (200% on a Retina display)

 

Mark

 

How do I download it?

 

UPDATE: OK I just figured out how to download the high-res image. It looks over-processed and plastic to my inexpert eyes, but not really soft and lacking. Still not sure that it deserved a fail. However, there's a reason I'm not a QC inspector. 🙃

 

 

Edited April 26 by John Mitchell

[Brizbee]

Ok, I've had a go at reprocessing the picture with less NR. Here are the results.

 

Original failed image - https://ibb.co/xH7LzT9

 

Reprocessed image at 4500x3000px - https://ibb.co/LhTv26K

 

Reprocessed image at 3000x2000px - https://ibb.co/BGzBDCn

 

Are either of them worthy of uploading? Or do I chalk this up to experience and move on?

 

Thanks, Brian

[Sultanpepa]

45 minutes ago, Brizbee said:

Ok, I've had a go at reprocessing the picture with less NR. Here are the results.

 

Original failed image - https://ibb.co/xH7LzT9

 

Reprocessed image at 4500x3000px - https://ibb.co/LhTv26K

 

Reprocessed image at 3000x2000px - https://ibb.co/BGzBDCn

 

Are either of them worthy of uploading? Or do I chalk this up to experience and move on?

 

Thanks, Brian

I'd move on. Maybe revisit it if possible. I'm struggling to think what it would be licensed for though to be honest. I have a few images that I should apply that question to as well.

[IKuzmin]

the new 4500x3000 looks better but has lots of uniform noise (reminding a sort of reticulation in old film days) but the 3000x2000 looks way better, it should pass the QC thinks me.

However, as others, I do not see anything good/reasonable/saleable in this image even if technically it would be ideal. Just my opinion though.

Edited April 28 by IKuzmin

[M.Chapman]

14 hours ago, Brizbee said:

Ok, I've had a go at reprocessing the picture with less NR. Here are the results.

 

Original failed image - https://ibb.co/xH7LzT9

Reprocessed image at 4500x3000px - https://ibb.co/LhTv26K

 

Reprocessed image at 3000x2000px - https://ibb.co/BGzBDCn

 

Are either of them worthy of uploading? Or do I chalk this up to experience and move on?

 

Thanks, Brian

 

The 3000 x 2000 looks just about OK to me.

 

If you've still got the RAW file and a reasonably powerful computer, you could try downloading a free trial of DXO Prime RAW https://www.dxo.com/technology/deepprime-pureraw/  

I don't suggest trying DXO just to rescue this image (it's probably not worth the effort), but more to illustrate how NR technology has moved on since PS Elements 9.

If you do try DXO then I recommend using the Advanced settings to reduce the sharpening (select Lens Softness = Soft) and reduce the NR to perhaps 25, as IMO the default settings in DXO will overdo it. Alternatively you could try Adobe Denoise or, if you post the RAW file somewhere, I'll process it for you and return the result.

 

Mark 

 

 

Edited April 29 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

The noise in the new version is bad. There is flare as well from the bright background which is also affecting definition. You could take up Mark's offer to Denoise it which might well be ok. If it was mine, I would move on. Do you want to risk a near-perfect QC record for a picture that is most likely not going to sell?

 

 

 

 

[Brizbee]

Thanks to all of you who have taken the time to look and comment on my picture. It's much appreciated.

 

I re-uploaded the other pictures from the submission at the weekend and got the email telling me they had passed QC today. I think I just got a bit optimistic about this one picture, letting my heart over-rule my head. I'm usually good at ditching pictures that I personally like but which I know are possibly not going to pass QC.

 

As for all the advances in photo processing software I keep abreast of most of it. Unfortunately the money is just not available to upgrade my 15 year old PC. Frankly I'm surprised I do as well as I do with my equipment.

 

I shall consign this picture to my 'possibles' folder and maybe come back to it and all the others in there when I do upgrade my tech and software.

 

For now, thanks again for all your comments and onto the next submission.

 

Brian.