Soft or lacking definition - really?

[tdphotography]

This is my first foray into regular stock on Alamy. I've been a LiveNews contributor for about 6 months (and have contributed to other agencies for a few years). I got kicked back from QC due to softness on this image. Are they talking about the softness in the beautiful bokeh in the background that nicely isolates the subject?

 

I read in another post that my first 3 submissions to QC should be "simple" and not shallow depth of field. That seems like strange criteria to me.

 

Link to rejected photo

[M.Chapman]

SoLD? Yes IMO. The link takes me to an image that is 2192 x 2740 (so just above Alamy's 17MB minimum size) which I downloaded and inspected in PS. Some parts of the image that are supposed to be sharp image look over-processed. The eyes look OK but the fur close to them looks a bit strange (not natural). It looks as if this image has been downsized and locally sharpened (possibly with AI?) to give it the best chance with Alamy QC, but unfortunately it hasn't worked.

 

Some great pictures on your website BTW.

 

Mark

Edited September 10 by M.Chapman

[StokeCreative]

I agree, I would say its the oversharpening. AI sharpening seems to struggle with fur and feathers in my experience, and I usually end up ditching them. The usual advice with the first three submitted images is to shoot almost anything, but well exposed and sharp, just to clear the first bar. But you're in now, so that's history!

good luck!

[Martin L]

SoLD for over sharpened?

They need another category

[Inchiquin]

On 06/09/2024 at 20:31, tdphotography said:

 

I read in another post that my first 3 submissions to QC should be "simple" and not shallow depth of field. That seems like strange criteria to me.

 

 

They're not criteria. They're advice from members of this forum about the best way to ensure your first batch gets accepted.

 

People who know better are always welcome to ignore advice.

 

Alan

[sooth]

Don't know about the image, but the deer looks so soft, and pettable

[eclectic]

I think I can see a feint vertical greenish stripe at the base of the neck extending to just above it?

[M.Chapman]

1 minute ago, eclectic said:

I think I can see a feint vertical greenish stripe at the base of the neck extending to just above it?

Yes, it's possibly an out of focus grass stem much closer to the camera. Not an ideal choice of image for initial QC submission.

 

Mark

[tdphotography]

I appreciate all of the input. I'll give it another try with some different images.

 

The faint greenish stripe is indeed an out of focus grass stem in front of the subject. I suppose it's possible that's the source of the rejection, but it's (SoLD) not a great explanation. There were a couple other stems that were cloned out.

 

As for over sharpened? Maybe (but good the good old-fashioned human method). Or Maybe the deer has bad skin. What can I say?

 

It's definitely not upscaled/downscaled. It's an original (hefty) crop from a 42Mp image.

 

@M.Chapman Thanks for looking at my website!

 

 

Edited September 12 by tdphotography

[Kent Johnson]

Keep it very simple. Sharp in the center of the image and no softness on the edges - so choose shots made with your best lenses! I fought back over an edge softness issue once, in my early days here on Alamy and won; but that was NOT on my first QC, which is like a job application. Don't show off, just good quality to the verge of boring. PS - the deer looks over processed to me too. 'Softness' may be the only choice the person had, or thought of.

[Kent Johnson]

PSS - I'm looking at your landscapes on your website and think I'm seeing unusual demosaicing artifacts - are you shooting Fuji X series and processing RAW files in Non-Fuji X software? Worth looking at that too if my hunch is right. 

[tdphotography]

@Kent JohnsonNope. Shooting Sony and processing in CaptureOne. Can you point me to one of my files you say displays demosaicing artifacts?

FWIW, I've submitted three more standard looking shots taking into account the advice herein (thanks agin BTW).

 

[Kent Johnson]

14 hours ago, tdphotography said:

@Kent JohnsonNope. Shooting Sony and processing in CaptureOne. Can you point me to one of my files you say displays demosaicing artifacts?

FWIW, I've submitted three more standard looking shots taking into account the advice herein (thanks agin BTW).

 

 

The iron balustrade https://www.tdphotography.us/Travel-Near-and-Far/i-FZ9C8rv/A

 

Foreground right - lichen and rocks https://www.tdphotography.us/Travel-Near-and-Far/i-77KxzXS/A

 

I sometimes find myself scratching my head over my fujifilm X series files of similar subject matter. Have only raw converted one Sony file - using the Sony RAW converter quite recently. Not mine, client sent, for me to match my own Nikon files). Preferred my Nikon files - and one frame, from one photographer hardly counts, but I did get an idea of the Sony RAW file.

[tdphotography]

Probably both the result of (selective) over-sharpening, though there was a sign I cloned out on the bridge that may have contributed to what you saw. It's a good lesson to go back and pixel peep a little to see the effects of (especially) sharpening edits.

 

Thanks for the look and the feedback!

[Mr Standfast]

I've always liked Edo's advice about your first 3 pictures and sharpness.

 

"tin of soup, tripod and f8"

 

I'm sure it's not meant to be a literal instruction but it is pragmatic advice from a seasoned pro. If you know what you're doing you'll appreciate where he's coming from.

 

Good luck.

 

 

[tdphotography]

Update: my latest submission passed QC. I'm off! I appreciate all the advice.

[Betty LaRue]

On 12/09/2024 at 19:25, Kent Johnson said:

PSS - I'm looking at your landscapes on your website and think I'm seeing unusual demosaicing artifacts - are you shooting Fuji X series and processing RAW files in Non-Fuji X software? Worth looking at that too if my hunch is right. 

BTW, I shoot Fuji. Have done since the X-T1 came out. Now the X-T4. I process in LR & PS and my images pass every time. Never used the Fuji software. Exception: I may have had a failure in the beginning on a landscape back when foliage sometimes looked like worms. I can’t remember. Adobe has come a long way in improving that.

[Harry Harrison]

On 14/09/2024 at 11:45, tdphotography said:

Probably both the result of (selective) over-sharpening

I hope that you weren't doing that because this thread was making you paranoid! I guess you're using a 42MP Sony A7R2 or A7R3, I can't see that the sensor or for that matter the Sony RAW files would ever cause you any problems.

[Betty LaRue]

On second look at the deer, in my opinion, right or wrong, it’s the OOF blade of grass that caused the failure. It’s not discernible that it is grass to me, it looks like a corrupted file if I didn’t know it was grass. And whoever in QC evaluated the image wasn’t told it was grass, & even if they knew, most likely would have failed it because the public wouldn’t be able to tell it was a blade of grass, either. I think it would have passed otherwise.

 

But take my opinion with a grain of salt. I’m not as wise as the other people who have given their opinion. I just work off my gut a lot of the time.

[tdphotography]

On 16/09/2024 at 08:59, Harry Harrison said:

I hope that you weren't doing that because this thread was making you paranoid! I guess you're using a 42MP Sony A7R2 or A7R3, I can't see that the sensor or for that matter the Sony RAW files would ever cause you any problems.

Nah. Those were processed long before I started this thread. A7R3.

[tdphotography]

23 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

On second look at the deer, in my opinion, right or wrong, it’s the OOF blade of grass that caused the failure. It’s not discernible that it is grass to me, it looks like a corrupted file if I didn’t know it was grass. And whoever in QC evaluated the image wasn’t told it was grass, & even if they knew, most likely would have failed it because the public wouldn’t be able to tell it was a blade of grass, either. I think it would have passed otherwise.

 

But take my opinion with a grain of salt. I’m not as wise as the other people who have given their opinion. I just work off my gut a lot of the time.

That makes sense.