Jump to content

Looking for opinions about this image


Recommended Posts

The slight fuzziness of the "All Tweeds" sign just looks to me like the softness you would expect to see at the edge of an image taken with a wide angle lens, not camera shake. Guess I really do need new glasses/specs. Having said that, I probably would have been too paranoid to submit this one to Alamy even though I don't think there is really much wrong with it when you consider how it might be used. 

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)

 

I love rhetorical questions :) , but I don't think it's at all important that we agree on anything in such cases: I make my own decisions, regardless of what others think, and I comfortably live with the consequences. That applies to what I shoot, how I shoot it, how I process it, and whether or not I submit it (or where I submit it in some cases). Although I will sometimes comment when asked, I don't need to agree with anyone else on what should be submitted, as long as I'm happy with my decisions, I'm not concerned at all if anyone agrees or disagrees, and so should we all be methinks. Sure, I sometimes use others' experience/opinions to help formulate my own, but then . . . I make my own decisions, then stand by them and their consequences. I try not to "blame" anyone else for my decisions, and I definitely "blame' no one else for the outcomes of those decisions . . . not even Alamy QC.

 

. . . but here's a thought . . . is there any difference between the QC record of those who said "submit" and the QC record of those few who said "definitely don't submit"? :-)

 

dd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The slight fuzziness of the "All Tweeds" sign just looks to me like the softness you would expect to see at the edge of an image taken with a wide angle lens, not camera shake. Guess I really do need new glasses/specs. Having said that, I probably would have been too paranoid to submit this one to Alamy even though I don't think there is really much wrong with it when you consider how it might be used. 

 

It's visible in more places. The sign is also not really on the edge. Someone mentioned it looked funny and most attribute that to the fact there has been some sharpening going on. That's only been done in certain area's though. The usual reason there is a difference in sharpness, is that flash has been used and there has been enough ambient light (with an exposure that's a sufficient amount of time). Before digital, that was the only way to achieve that. The things to look for are the parts that would not have been lit by the ambient without the flash going of. That's a bit difficult in small spaces. But all dark under cupboard areas are perfectly sharp, when in focus. Some areas near the ceiling and near the window have a slight blur. That can be oof blur or smear because of (zoom) lens defects. From the EXIF we learn that the exposure was 1/60 and the focal length 28mm. That's a combination that will not show shake very easily, but if it's there it will show on the edges first. The wider the angle the more pronounced this effect is. And it will show in the lighter parts because of the lighting. All parts that were lit by the flash alone look perfectly normal. All the parts that were lit by ambient and flash look slightly sharpened. While some parts are, it's not very pronounced. And while there has been some masking, I think, it has probably been done manually with a layer and a brush.

First rule when a cause for some failure or defect (in the broadest sense) cannot be found easily, is to look if there could have been more than one cause. In our case that's most visible in the wrenches on the wall left. There is both lateral and longitudinal CA present, but even that are not sufficient reasons while they look slightly weird. It could be smear because of bad optics, but I would expect that in the far corners. Or more precise: if there's smear that far into the image, the corners will look really badly smeared. The check is in the right hand lower corner: well lit, but no weird look. While there is a metal object there with almost the same color, texture and shape like the wrenches.

That's how I reached the conclusion it must have been a slight camera shake. It cannot have been a lot because of the 1/60 of a second. Having said all that, I have not seen the unedited image. Also I cannot determine the direction of the shake, which would be a strong argument against shake. I blame that on the short exposure for now.

 

wim

 

edit: typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . but here's a thought . . . is there any difference between the QC record of those who said "submit" and the QC record of those few who said "definitely don't submit"? :-)

 

dd

 

 

Just out of interest, then...

 

I basically said submit after some adjusting and with care (referring only to the OP question of technical quality).

 

I have just under 1600 images online via 301 submissions, so a relatively high check rate for my images at QC, I'd say (perhaps one or two images checked out of every five submitted).  Of those submissions, only one has failed.  That was a deliberate test submission of two upscaled photos to judge their acceptability.  Failed on SoLD, (August 2011), so I have never upscaled since and have not failed since.

 

My camera (EOS 40D) seems particularly susceptible to noise even at low ISOs and the sensor attracts dust bunnies like there's no tomorrow.  I thank the Lord for Lightroom per se, but particularly LR5 and its amazing dust spot visualiser and auto lens corrections (lens profiles and CA), which work wonders.  Careful application using the noise reduction tools can also decide on a picture being submitted one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . but here's a thought . . . is there any difference between the QC record of those who said "submit" and the QC record of those few who said "definitely don't submit"? :-)

 

 

 

:)

 

Last failure October 25th 2011 - Soft or lacking definition. Often submit very few images at the same time.

 

Not boasting, touch wood, knock on wood, etc. - hope Nemesis won't hit me, Suddenly one will make a mistake or misjudgement and a failure will occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question? What is the QC criteria for images exhibiting blown-out highlights? I am wondering this as most of the time is hard to cover clipping from small reflections or light sources (light bulbs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" . . . but here's a thought . . . is there any difference between the QC record of those who said 'submit' and the QC record of those few who said 'definitely don't submit'?  DD

 

I said "submit".  I have never had a QC failure - only fails for files getting corrupted somewhere on route and an admin issue yesars ago.  I am currently duping ancient slides using a dslr.  They go in late Sunday, ready *mid-morning* Monday.

 

Alamy QC is pretty soft in my opinion.  Key is to avoid anything that will show at max repro size, allowing for pre-press sharpening, if that is still done.  It's as simple as that.

 

RB 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Correction: not mid-morning but between 830 - 9.30 a.m.  If you have a good QC record, and you upload at the end of the day, they should be ready for you when you start work the next day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re failures, I had a few when I first started with Alamy in 2009 and, admittedly, went through a steep learning curve. Touch wood none since.

 

I inspect every image at 100%, and since moving from DSLR to NEX have had very little spotting to do. My 5Ds were dust magnets, perhaps the action of the mirror draws the stuff in, while, defying all logic that I can conceive,  the unprotected sensor on the little Sony seems relatively immune (and I use mainly fixed focal length lenses that are changed very frequently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question? What is the QC criteria for images exhibiting blown-out highlights? I am wondering this as most of the time is hard to cover clipping from small reflections or light sources (light bulbs).

 

Specular refections should be fine.  Clipping is a problem when large areas get wiped out - a huge chunk of the sky, for example with a nasty border or transition with visible sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 If you have a good QC record, and you upload at the end of the day, they should be ready for you when you start work the next day.

 

No eternal truth ....

 

I've never had anything quite that fast either.

24 hours recently, yes, but not 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a question? What is the QC criteria for images exhibiting blown-out highlights? I am wondering this as most of the time is hard to cover clipping from small reflections or light sources (light bulbs).

 

Specular refections should be fine.  Clipping is a problem when large areas get wiped out - a huge chunk of the sky, for example with a nasty border or transition with visible sky.

 

 

If the wiping out is deliberate, like with a lot of walls and windows in modern white office interiors, QC seems to be quite permissive.

 

wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 If you have a good QC record, and you upload at the end of the day, they should be ready for you when you start work the next day.

 

No eternal truth ....

 

I've never had anything quite that fast either.

24 hours recently, yes, but not 12.

 

 

Yesterday's had gone off after midnight, so took 9 hours.  Last week's 8 hours.

 

I'm beginning to worry now - perhaps they have stopped looking at them.  But might start again ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My definition of acceptable quality depends on the circumstances of the shoot. If this was a brightly lit beach scene, then this image with noise etc would be a personal QC fail.

 

This image of a craftsman in a dimly lit workshop would meet my QC standards, but I would reject it for other reasons.

 

If there had been a single contrasty light cutting across from the right on the craftsman only, then it would have emphasized the craftsman, given him some modeling, and thrown the clutter into shadow. The clutter is important for atmosphere, but it needs to be about 2 stops underexposed.

 

The angle on the head is a fail because it merges with the radio behind and we cannot see his face.

 

The loom is important, but gets lost in the clutter.

 

The depth of field is too great. Critical focus needs to be on the craftsman and loom only, with the clutter soft but still there.

 

If you had control of the situation, perhaps using a tripod so you could lower your ISO to eliminate noise, and turning off some of the ambient lights in order to give more light direction, would have resulted in an acceptable image for both QC and also sales. You could also have had a single flash on a lightstand located to the right, slaved to a very weak flash from the camera.

 

If I do not have control of the situation, I will always shoot a hand held, high ISO grab shot, but knowing in advance most grab shots will not meet my technical standards and will be edited out.

 

Do not submit the image because, if it passes QC it will come up in searches but not sell. This will put all of your images at the bottom of the search order. If this image passes QC it works against you.

 

Here is a grab shot that worked for me, however it has not sold. The subject is in focus, the ambient lighting is interesting, the people are soft enough that they are suggested, but do not compete with the main subject.

 

C1YHX3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Here is a grab shot that worked for me, however it has not sold.
C1YHX3.jpg

 

 

Maybe if you add the keyword stockimo .

It certainly has a phone image feel.

At one point it was the most searched for keyword in AoA.

 

wim

 

edit: I agree with Mihai that cropping could improve it: cut off the heads to improve on the iPhony aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always go through an "how could this image be improved" exercise with every one of my images, no matter how much I like them. Otherwise you stand still photographically.

 

I like the image but:

 

I should have moved the plate further onto the table so it does not look as if it is about to fall off the table. The plate is teetering on the edge

 

I should have placed some utensils to the right of the plate.

 

I should have removed the candleholder completely. Middle left beyond the water glass.

 

I do not like objects bisected by the edge of the image, so the person in the right distance bothers me.

 

Light draws the eye, so the bright distant background distracts from the foreground food.

 

I would not crop it above the glass, because I think the people give it a restaurant feel. I never crop in close because I want to give the client room to crop. If the client wants to crop in on the plate to give a square image, the client can do that easily. As a photo editor I saw a lot of tightly cropped images rejected, because they could not be cropped to fit within a preconceived layout.

 

I like the dark empty space above and below because it will show type well. The client can easily extend that dark blank area in photoshop to get extra type room.

 

I agree it has a natural Stockimo look and I like that. However it was shot on a canon5D11, zeiss 18mm lens, ISO 400, hand held, braced against my knee, mirror locked up, and the food is razor sharp without much noise or flare. My wife and I were having dinner. We preselected the table for it's pictorial location. When the food came, it took me all of 2 minutes to take the image while my wife rolled her eyes.

 

Phone image feel is popular these days, so a phone image feel with a very high QC should be a winner. This particular image was zoomed last month, but no sale yet.

 

If you want to compete with phone images, you have to work in the difference.

 

The difference being phone image feel, with higher QC.

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)

 

I love rhetorical questions :) , but I don't think it's at all important that we agree on anything in such cases: I make my own decisions, regardless of what others think, and I comfortably live with the consequences. That applies to what I shoot, how I shoot it, how I process it, and whether or not I submit it (or where I submit it in some cases). Although I will sometimes comment when asked, I don't need to agree with anyone else on what should be submitted, as long as I'm happy with my decisions, I'm not concerned at all if anyone agrees or disagrees, and so should we all be methinks. Sure, I sometimes use others' experience/opinions to help formulate my own, but then . . . I make my own decisions, then stand by them and their consequences. I try not to "blame" anyone else for my decisions, and I definitely "blame' no one else for the outcomes of those decisions . . . not even Alamy QC.

 

. . . but here's a thought . . . is there any difference between the QC record of those who said "submit" and the QC record of those few who said "definitely don't submit"? :-)

 

dd

 

The point of my "rhetorical question" was that in pre-digital days we wouldn't have been pulling images apart like this at the microscopic level, looking for the tiniest of technical flaws. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that can verge on OCD at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point of my "rhetorical question" was that in pre-digital days we wouldn't have been pulling images apart like this at the microscopic level, looking for the tiniest of technical flaws. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that can verge on OCD at times.

 

 

John, I agree with you 100% - but a friend made a comment to me a couple of months ago that made sense....and pointed me to this article with this paragraph....

 

http://leicaphilia.com/leica-photography-is-dead-leica-killed-it/

 

"But the point is this: back when HCB and Robert Frank carried a Leica rangefinder, nobody much cared if a 35mm negative was grainy or tack sharp. If it was good enough it made the cover of Life or Look Magazine. The average newspaper photo, rarely larger than 4×5, was printed by letterpress using a relatively coarse halftone screen on pulp paper, certainly not a situation requiring a super sharp lens. As for prints, HCB left the developing and printing to others, masters like my friend and mentor Georges Fèvre of PICTO/Paris, who could magically turn a mediocre negative into a stunning print in the darkroom.

 

50′s era films were grainy, another reason not to shoot a small negative. Enthusiasts used a 6×6 TLR if they needed 11×14 or larger prints. For a commercial product shot for a magazine spread the choice might be 6×6, 6×7, or 6×9. Many didn’t shoot less than 4×5. If you wanted as much detail as possible, then you would shoot sheet film: 4×5, 5×7 or 8×10."

 

 

He had a very good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bewitched by technology, digital photographers have fetishized sharpness and detail"

 

"Which leads me to note the confused and contradictory soap boxes current digital Leicaphiles too often find themselves standing on. Invariably, they drone on about the uncompromising standards of the optics, while simultaneously dumbing down their files post-production to give the look of an uncoated Summarit and Tri-X pushed to 1600 iso. Leica themselves seem to have fallen for the confusion as well. They’ve marketed the MM (Monochrom) as an unsurpassed tool to produce the subtle tonal gradations of the best B&W, but then bundle it with Silver Efex Pro software to encourage users to recreate the grainy, contrasty look of 35mm Tri-X. The current Leica - Leica GmbH – seems content to trade on Leica’s heritage while having turned its back on what made Leica famous: simplicity and ease of use. Instead, they now cynically produce and market status"

 

Alamy, at least, is now getting the message (Stockimo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The point of my "rhetorical question" was that in pre-digital days we wouldn't have been pulling images apart like this at the microscopic level, looking for the tiniest of technical flaws. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that can verge on OCD at times.

 

 

John, I agree with you 100% - but a friend made a comment to me a couple of months ago that made sense....and pointed me to this article with this paragraph....

 

http://leicaphilia.com/leica-photography-is-dead-leica-killed-it/

 

"But the point is this: back when HCB and Robert Frank carried a Leica rangefinder, nobody much cared if a 35mm negative was grainy or tack sharp. If it was good enough it made the cover of Life or Look Magazine. The average newspaper photo, rarely larger than 4×5, was printed by letterpress using a relatively coarse halftone screen on pulp paper, certainly not a situation requiring a super sharp lens. As for prints, HCB left the developing and printing to others, masters like my friend and mentor Georges Fèvre of PICTO/Paris, who could magically turn a mediocre negative into a stunning print in the darkroom.

 

50′s era films were grainy, another reason not to shoot a small negative. Enthusiasts used a 6×6 TLR if they needed 11×14 or larger prints. For a commercial product shot for a magazine spread the choice might be 6×6, 6×7, or 6×9. Many didn’t shoot less than 4×5. If you wanted as much detail as possible, then you would shoot sheet film: 4×5, 5×7 or 8×10."

 

 

He had a very good point.

 

 

Thanks for the link. Greatly enjoyed the article -- "bewitched by technology," I especially liked that phrase. Now where did I put that bloody magnifying glass?

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.