Jump to content

Recommended Posts

hi,

 

please look at my failed image here:

 

http://www.buyimage.co.uk/x/x.jpg   650d 24-105 L lens no manipulation output through lightroom

 

reason for failure : interpolation artifacts

 

do you agree there is a problem or not?  I certainly don't and haven't a clue why this and several others have been failed!

 

thx for your help

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the image with "interpolation artefacts" against it ? It's just you say this and several others have been failed. Only one will probably have failed the others are then rejected with the whole batch.

 

John

Edited by John Crellin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes this is the image with "interpolation artifacts" and as far as i can tell...i cannot see them, can you? This image has not been upsized ( no need) nor worked upon in any way just exported from the raw file through LR5. For the life of me i just cannot c any problem at all ??!! 

 

All of my new images are destined to be uploaded here from now on http://www.buyimage.co.uk Increased commission again and again and alamy income dropping by 90% in the last 6 years.Where was the promised increase it sales?  rant over sorry....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you taken a close look at the sky, at 200% maybe. I had a similar one fail some time ago because of "artifacts" in the sky, and they were not easy to find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Colin,

Firstly I agree that this image should not have been rejected.

However, if you look at areas of the sky at 100% and scroll around you can see patches that appear to have artifacts. To my eyes it looks like marks on the sensor that are on all sensors and impossible to remove without doing some noise removal. Should you slide up NR whilst looking at the sky you will see that these marks will fade away.

The top right area of the image shows up more.

 

I'm with Phillipe on this one though, somebody is having a bad day.

 

Andy

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx andy that's helpful....but that's still the last image i upload.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Colin,

Firstly I agree that this image should not have been rejected.

However, if you look at areas of the sky at 100% and scroll around you can see patches that appear to have artifacts. To my eyes it looks like marks on the sensor that are on all sensors and impossible to remove without doing some noise removal. Should you slide up NR whilst looking at the sky you will see that these marks will fade away.

The top right area of the image shows up more.

 

I'm with Phillipe on this one though, somebody is having a bad day.

 

Andy

 

Agreed - extremely difficult to see, and I must confess that I didn't spot the problem until you pointed it out, but they are there.

 

Enough to justify a fail, though?  I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not an expert, but I can't see anything. Only something that I would call noise in the sky at 200%. Images should be checked at 100% anyway, so defenitley should have passed QT

 

Perry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you absolutely sure that is the rejected image, and not another in the batch? Is there another borderline one?

The sky is a bit mealy and those bricks have a texture which draws the eye and might look artifacty.

thx andy that's helpful....but that's still the last image i upload.....

Not the right conclusion. Try a chroma NR and resubmit, subject to the above.

I had one rejected for SoLD which was actually heat haze but Alamy makes the rules so I binned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just taken a close look (100%) and must admit it looks OK to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes def this is the right image that was rejected! 

 

The point I'm making is, I'm not about to start correcting so called defects ( and maybe introducing others) that none of us would be concerned with if this was a private sale in the real world.

 

6/7 years ago there was proper reward for the time invested in submitting images here but with the billions of images out there a time comes when its not worth the effort anymore especially in the case of this thread.

 

Its not alamy's fault there are doing their best in an ever more competitive market and as a footnote THANKS to alamy for my $100,000 sales over the last 10 years.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the image at 100% the sky is very noisy and looks like it has been sharpened - is this an in-camera jpeg with sharpening applied automatically or has it had some sharpening applied in the raw conversion? The sky is definitely very noisy for an ISO 200 image (I'm a Nikon user so not familiar with the Canons but you wouldn't see a sky as noisy as this at 200 on an unsharpened image from a Nikon D700 or D800). It's clearly not interpolation artifacts though.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely down to the sky. However, I am surprised it failed based on just looking at the building and car. 100% was what I thought was the viewing norm and anything beyond that didn't really count. That said, I do look at my skies at 200% sometimes. Just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

please look at my failed image here:

 

http://www.buyimage.co.uk/x/x.jpg   650d 24-105 L lens no manipulation output through lightroom

 

reason for failure : interpolation artifacts

 

do you agree there is a problem or not?  I certainly don't and haven't a clue why this and several others have been failed!

 

thx for your help

 

Had a look and agree with others the sky looks noisy and could be mistaken for artifacts.

 

Have you asked member services to point out where the artifacts are in the image?

 

One of my images was rejected some time ago, can't remember what for and I could not see the problem myself at the time so asked MS and they sent an email with the image pointing out where the fault lay. I had to agree with them that QC was correct and did not know how I had missed it.

 

Allan

Edited by Allan Bell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

please look at my failed image here:

 

http://www.buyimage.co.uk/x/x.jpg   650d 24-105 L lens no manipulation output through lightroom

 

reason for failure : interpolation artifacts

 

do you agree there is a problem or not?  I certainly don't and haven't a clue why this and several others have been failed!

 

thx for your help

I cannot find a fault. I had one image failed for interpolation artefact some time ago and could find the problem then either. If shot in raw I would re-export as jpeg and re-submit with another batch. I wouldn't fret over it

Kind  Regards

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that my intense blue skies don't look as noisy as that.

Sometimes a failure reason is a matter of opinion. I once  had an 'interpolation artifacts' failure which certainly wasn't- it was a distant tent edge which looked jaggy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder if Alamy's recent tightening of QC is in response to client feedback?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I can see is that you can read the license plate on the car. And I don't think that was your rejection. I have a batch not cleared QC and I am wondering if there is a failure there. 

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alamy have reassessed at my request and this image is now passed QC qualified by "Your image does display signs of interpolation artifacts, which when sharpening is applied makes it borderline" Maybe QC is more onerous than it used to be...  "effort vs reward" still plays on my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that several forum members here have accused Alamy QC of making decisions based on a 200% look at images. I've never hear Alamy say they do that. They say they make their decision based on a 100% view.

 

Regarding the image from the OP: The sky is suspect; it looks wrong to me, too dark, and not a real or natural blue . . . and that would have caused me to take a closer look and then found the artifacts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that several forum members here have accused Alamy QC of making decisions based on a 200% look at images. I've never hear Alamy say they do that. They say they make their decision based on a 100% view.

 

Regarding the image from the OP: The sky is suspect; it looks wrong to me, too dark, and not a real or natural blue . . . and that would have caused me to take a closer look and then found the artifacts. 

 

Ed, I never accused Alamy of viewing at 200%, I was only suggesting taking a look at 200% to be on the safe side. I also believe that QC views at max. 100%. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I mention anyone's name, David? And I was not just talking about this particular thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an uninterpolated image fail for "interpolation artifacts" last year. I e-mailed member services about it, and they got back to me right away with 100% crops, saying that the image was soft and consequently looked as if it had interpolation artifacts. I really appreciated their promptness and help, but I still didn't entirely agree with them. Now I've just come to accept that I have a fuzzier world view than some. I figure it's best to just to go with the flow and move on. Having said that, I have a small batch that has been awaiting the inevitable for almost a month now. I've rechecked the images several times and have no idea what might have gone wrong. The verdict is always a big surprise for me.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had to do everything at 200% I think we would in a lot of trouble.   :o

200% of some of the prices being paid would be good ;)

 

Phil

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.