Jump to content

Looking for opinions about this image


Recommended Posts

I’d be very grateful and interested about thoughts and opinions on the chances of this image and QC.

 

http://fotologica.co.uk/temp/loom1.jpg

 

Histogram of original unprocessed neutral RAW: http://fotologica.co.uk/temp/histo.jpg

 

Histogram of processed jpg: http://fotologica.co.uk/temp/histo1.jpg

 

The shot is one from a job I did for a trade rag a while ago. Lighting conditions were tricky, very small shed, two small windows and fluorescent overhead lights. It was shot at f5.6, 1\60th, ISO 800, old Nikkor 28-70f2.8@28mm on a D300. It has been reduced in size to just meet the Alamy minimum size requirement.

 

Normally I would not even think about uploading this image to Alamy. However, the purpose of this exercise is twofold. Firstly, it marks a transition in my PP from CNX2 and PS2/3 to ACR, PS CC and Nik plugins, and if it might be worth revisiting other archived images for submission. Secondly, if nothing else, I think it provides an interesting debating example that covers a few potential QC issues…….if you are having a slow day! :)

 

Cheers, Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Paul, but I got 404 errors (not found) on the files

Just erase the word Histogram from the end of the url and hit enter. The image will come up.

 

Couldn't get the histogrqm ones to come up though, even after removing the word The at the end of the url, but got the pic.

 

Jill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very many thanks for that, well spotted. I thought there was an ‘oddness’ about this shot but couldn’t put my finger on it. I didn’t think it was sharpened, but indeed it is. It seems that ACR sharpens RAW by default on import. When first playing with ACR I’d set the detail options to 0 and blindly thought it would remember, apparently not. I obviously need to learn a bit more about ACR and any default options.
 
Your comments prompted me to check the NEF in CNX2 and it turns out that the focal point is on his right elbow. Given the shooting angle the plane of focus and shallow(ish) depth of field runs through the shot at what is effectively a useless angle. I think the image would fall into the SOLD category if submitted because of this.
 
Looks like I’m going to have to train my eye better to spot the focal point in ACR as it won’t actually display this information that I’m used to seeing. Changing software and workflows is a bit of a pain!
 
Cheers, Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of others here with far more experience than me, but I'd say, yes, a bit noisy, esp. at bottom, bottom left particularly.  Personally, I would attend to that before submission.  Also, a little soft, so have to be careful with the noise reduction.  But, yes, I'd submit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't hesitate because of noise, but I'd definitely hesitate because of overall softness and lack of "meaningful" point of focus. A definite NO to submission if it was mine.

 

dd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very nice activity shot. However, I'd be very concerned about the noise and point of focus. Also, is there just a tiny hint of CA (reddish outline) on the guy's elbow and the background tools on the left side of the rack? Plus, to me the shadow detail on the jpeg histogram is clipped but I've never been entirely clear on how much 'blocking' at either end of the histogram is acceptable apart from Alamy's one example in their contributor's guidance. To be very frank, if this was acceptable to Alamy as it is, then I would revisiting a lot of my previously 'binned' images. Hope this doesn't sound too negative Paul:)

 

Cheers

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would submit. It looks like an available light shot and I think they come with a degree of leeway. The man's head is in acceptable focus, there's no shake, and the noise isn't too bad given the circumstances. Pity you can't see his face, but a saleable image I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
To be very frank, if this was acceptable to Alamy as it is, then I would revisiting a lot of my previously 'binned' images.

If it wasn't acceptable I'd be counting my blessings as I have dozens on sale nearer the line than this. Or my opinion of where the line is drawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just opened the shot in CC. The histogram is wrong in the OP, there's no clipping at either end. Noise is ok - reflects the old sensor technology.

 

It's fine for Alamy, really could be improved with a small use of ALCE or similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would submit.

 

This is an image from a set of 44 submitted, so I presume it or others very similar were checked by QC.

 

D4XM9J.jpg

 

I was very worried that they would fail when I submitted them but they all passed, and as you can see, there is more noise than the OPs image.

 

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a failed snapshot if you were looking to illustrate a dying craft. If however your subject is a man pottering in his shed, it's not that bad.

The even lighting reveals all the untidiness of the workplace; there is fill-in flash and bounced flash (flash diffuser or just because of the small space?) on top of a window to the left and probably one or more fluorescent lights overhead.
So you could have improved the situation with careful lighting and focus, but that would have left you with his awkward position; the fact that you cannot see the product nor any specific skill. And most important: we do not see his face. The good thing is the Harris Tweed sign. Just it's not playing a significant role in the image here.
 
OK having said that, it's not an easy subject.
Check Google images and Alamy for loom tweed and choose one you like. Try to choose in a blink of an eye. What is good about the one you like? What could be improved? Could you improve it?
Here's how someone with the same problem solved it: http://www.magee1866.com/blog/2013/05/hand-weaving-in-donegal/

The technical stuff is unimportant, but may worry you on a personal level ;-)
There's a hint of camera shake in the written All Tweeds sign. (At 1/60th of a second with a 28mm lens that could be worrying. Because you know how to use long lenses, it probably doesn't happen too often.)
There is some CA on the left edge that can be very easily (automatically even) repaired in ACR.

 

The sharpening has been done with reasonable care and QC will not object. The test is to apply a simple Photoshop sharpen over all and see if the image falls apart. Photoshop sharpen more will reveal all the sharpening that has been done to an image. That btw is the reason we are not supposed to use sharpening: there often will be an output sharpening happening at the client's side.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... It's interesting to see how opinions vary -- everything  from "fine" and "I wouldn't hesitate" to "soft and noisy" and "a definite NO."

 

Have we all been forced to become extreme pixel-peepers who can no longer agree on anything?

 

Just a rhetorical question BTW. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great assessment Wim, thank you. I chose this image in particular because I think it illustrated, at least to my eyes, numerous technical capture and processing issues that would probably cause QC to stick it in the reject pile. In terms of composition and construction I consider it to be, well, if I was being generous, lacking.

I think you are definitely right about the camera shake and you are also right about the flash (Single SB800 @ -1ev).

The shot is in fact one of the worse ‘left overs’ from the shoot but with many thanks to the concise observations and criticisms received I have a much better idea about other higher ISO images from this and other shoots that I can revisit and reprocess with confidence.

It’s very rare for me to upload anything to Alamy that isn’t shot at low ISO (usually always less than 400) because of the sort of issues such as noise that get introduced at higher ISO’s. It’s a bit academic now but I always considered the D300 to be quite noisy, and for the want of a better word a bit ‘soft’ for Alamy even when the exposure was good. The D800’s I use now are so much better but do come with other constraints. However, it’s no good trying to apportion blame to the tools, don’t be precious, learn and move on!

On Alamy, Harris Tweed Loom = 25, Hattersley Loom = 6 Harris Tweed Weaving = 33, so probably worth submitting some of those I have and perhaps nip across the loch to take a few under more controlled and less hurried conditions.

It would be great if more folks were willing to put up the odd full res image for comment, I think many would find it a useful and an enlightening experience. There was an image post the other week, the discussion of which was very useful and demonstrated that I shouldn't be overly paranoid about blue sky noise. It does pay to be very attentive about submissions but QC paranoia can become an unhealthy obsession!

The range of observations about this shot has been intriguing and is food for thought. Just to reiterate however, it’s not heading in Alamy’s direction because I personally think it would fail horribly and, apart from the early days, I don’t have any QC fails! This doesn't invalidate at all the opinions of those who think it's fine, it's just my personal opinion. Thanks to all who have taken the time out to comment.

Cheers, Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is 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.