Jump to content

How much PP is too much?


Recommended Posts

That link worked. But now, unfortunately, the duck has an unsharp eye like the gull. You got away with that one, but maybe you shouldn't have.  (I'm speaking to you from the sin bin remember.) Ed in Denver really turned that robin shot around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Pete:

 

There is an unfortunate halo around the top of the birds head that is probably natural, but looks like over manipulation. I always try to correct this kind of stuff even if it is natural. Another example would be distant flying birds that occur naturally in a sky. I clone them out if they look like black blobs, even though they are natural.

 

The out of focus red feathers below the bill do not look real, and therefore have a manipulated look to them. They look like the effect you get when you try to sharpen out of focus areas. They have sharp edges but have no detail inside the edges.

 

As to the photography I would classify it as a great "almost" shot because the eye and bill area is out of focus. If you do not have enough depth of field then focus on the eye and the front part of the subject. I try to select an aperture that will keep the subject mostly in focus, and still keep the background simple. I increase ISO to get shutter speed if necessary, and do not worry too much about excessive noise. Focus first, noise second.

 

We all get a lot of "almost" shots, so don't let it worry you.

 

Bill, while we're on this topic, I would appreciate your expert opinion on this image (100% crop, unsharpened). In your opinion, is the seagull's head and eye adequately in focus? Or is this an "almost" shot?

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000rGlOyO_rUh8/s/860/860/Segull1.jpg

 

Thanks/John

 

 

John you flatter me in using the word expert.

 

I would say that the seagull's eye could be slightly sharper, but is within my sharpness tolerances as it is an image that a client could bring even sharper using a subtle amount of sharpening that would not degrade other parts of the image in any way.

 

A client could use the sharpness brush in photoshop on the eye area only.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That link worked. But now, unfortunately, the duck has an unsharp eye like the gull. You got away with that one, but maybe you shouldn't have.  (I'm speaking to you from the sin bin remember.) Ed in Denver really turned that robin shot around.

 

Thanks for looking, Ed.

 

As mentioned, the duck image has leased, so I don't feel at all guilty. Both Alamy and I have made some money from it. Also, the end-user probably added a touch of sharpening and/or used the image at a much smaller size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi Pete:

 

There is an unfortunate halo around the top of the birds head that is probably natural, but looks like over manipulation. I always try to correct this kind of stuff even if it is natural. Another example would be distant flying birds that occur naturally in a sky. I clone them out if they look like black blobs, even though they are natural.

 

The out of focus red feathers below the bill do not look real, and therefore have a manipulated look to them. They look like the effect you get when you try to sharpen out of focus areas. They have sharp edges but have no detail inside the edges.

 

As to the photography I would classify it as a great "almost" shot because the eye and bill area is out of focus. If you do not have enough depth of field then focus on the eye and the front part of the subject. I try to select an aperture that will keep the subject mostly in focus, and still keep the background simple. I increase ISO to get shutter speed if necessary, and do not worry too much about excessive noise. Focus first, noise second.

 

We all get a lot of "almost" shots, so don't let it worry you.

 

Bill, while we're on this topic, I would appreciate your expert opinion on this image (100% crop, unsharpened). In your opinion, is the seagull's head and eye adequately in focus? Or is this an "almost" shot?

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000rGlOyO_rUh8/s/860/860/Segull1.jpg

 

Thanks/John

 

 

John you flatter me in using the word expert.

 

I would say that the seagull's eye could be slightly sharper, but is within my sharpness tolerances as it is an image that a client could bring even sharper using a subtle amount of sharpening that would not degrade other parts of the image in any way.

 

A client could use the sharpness brush in photoshop on the eye area only.

 

Bill

 

 

I agree, Bill. Thanks for the feedback. No doubt you're more of an expert than I am.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I submitted a Kingfisher image very similar to the noise you have in your original pic a few months ago and it was rejected for excessive noise. I ran a surface blur on the BG and masked out the subject, re-submitted and it went ok. Strange one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I submitted a Kingfisher image very similar to the noise you have in your original pic a few months ago and it was rejected for excessive noise. I ran a surface blur on the BG and masked out the subject, re-submitted and it went ok. Strange one. 

 

An excessive noise rejection, eh? Look at the noise on today's Homepage alphabet soup image. It's very noisy. I would not have submitted that image. Since that image is a controlled setup, there really isn't a good reason for it to be that noisy.  

 

Too often on the forum we see that an anecdote about a noisy shot is being sold as the way to go, to be taken as a new path forward. We've all read accounts like "anything will sell--I took a picture of dog poop and it sold three times." That is an anecdote (and possibly secondhand), not a philosophy.  In fact it's faulty logic and certainly not a reason to make dog poop images our new direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is worried about submitting an image with noise just look at todays front page picture (yummy) on Alamy.

 

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I submitted a Kingfisher image very similar to the noise you have in your original pic a few months ago and it was rejected for excessive noise. I ran a surface blur on the BG and masked out the subject, re-submitted and it went ok. Strange one.

An excessive noise rejection, eh? Look at the noise on today's Homepage alphabet soup image. It's very noisy. I would not have submitted that image. Since that image is a controlled setup, there really isn't a good reason for it to be that noisy.

The alphabet soup is Stockimo. So all rules go overboard.

Which may be a very good thing if Stockimo images are selling well.

Until now there have been very little reports about Stockimo sales.

 

I would be very much in favour of a free pass for those images that are really appealing, but somehow don't make the technical requirements. Maybe send those to the Stockimo Jury for vetting?

 

wim

 

edit: typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't compare to other sites not taking non-sharpening seriously.

 

Alamy wants no sharpening - only hte images to be totally in focus.

 

It is necessary for the end user to be able to sharpen the image without getting any sharpening artifacts at all...

 

When that is said it depends very much on your work procedure. If you shoot jpegs you don't have the possibility to add a very tiny bit of presharpening in the raw mode, which some people allow themselves to do. But it should be next to none in this early stage of the proces. But distinguish between sharpness and focus. The focus is the one and only important thing in this matter.Customers may return your images if they are not able to make the necessary alterations and sharpening without getting artifacts. The QC people can see through an unsharp image as long as the focus is okay.

 

When I have produced the jpg image for upload and saved it, I sometimes check by adding sharpness to see whether it works satisfactorily, but I never save the sharpened image, just an extra check.

 

When it comes to how QC actually works, Niels, I think you've hit the nail on the head. What really matters is whether or not the image is in focus, not how "sharp" it is. I really like your line, "The QC people can see through an unsharp image as long as the focus is okay." It sums things up really well IMO. Getting back to Pete's robin image, it's interesting to note that it failed due to "over manipulation," not for being "soft and lacking definition."

 

Having said this, I think that QC has changed over the past year or so. There now seems to be more emphasis on overall "sharpness" as well as focus. However, Alamy clearly still does not want any sharpening applied to images, and consequently doing so still falls into the "too much PP" category. Catch 22? Perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete, your keywords are too sparce.  I really like your 4 images, though.  The kiwi should have fruit,fruits,fresh,fresh fruit,food,foods,slice,sliced,snack,snacks,juicy,healthy,seed,seeds,closeup.

The bird:  robin,robins,bird,birds, (scientific name) avian,wildlife,nature,outdoors,snow,winter,closeup,day.

The dog?  puppy,puppies,dog,dogs,pet,pets,animal,animals,canine,canines,pet dog,looking up,white background,indoors,profile.  These aren't complete, but don't forget to use plurals. And whether indoors or outdoors.

If a bird is in a tree, then include perch,perching,perched,tree,trees,oak tree, (if you know),branch,branches,limb,limbs, - besides other suggested words above, give the name/scientific name of the bird as you did.

Hope this helps.

If you have come from microstock, the way they keyword is a whole other ballgame from what works here. And be sure not to put anything on Alamy that you have already listed on microstock. 

 

Betty

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.