Jump to content
Betty LaRue

Your opinion, please, would this pass QC?

Recommended Posts

I'm on the fence about this one.  I have reduced the size, and the woman with her back to the camera is sharp.  The woman facing the camera is slightly OOF. 

 

I know I have seen shots where a main person was OOF and it was effective, but don't know if this one falls in that category.  What do you all think?

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58264026/_BAL4424.jpg

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/br3ip0zoq1ddau2/AABDSny_TV4S1S5HYcqhi3I_a/_BAL4424.jpg?dl=0

 

does the 2nd one work?

 

 

 

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betty, dropbox requests a signin for the pic

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Betty,

 

Wrong link, that will take anyone, like me, to their own dropbox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betty, dropbox requests a signin for the pic

 

Jill

 

See if the 2nd one works, Jill.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put the file in a public folder, then followed instructions, so I don't know what else to do!!  Tell me if the 2nd link works or NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd link works. I'm not tremendously expert but my only two failures in years have been of two animals with only one having proper focus. They were bear cubs so I personally didn't mind if they looked "soft" but I also couldn't argue with the failures. I agree with whoever said kittens shouldn't look like steel wool but, of course, soft focus is soft focus.

 

Paulette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With sharpness you are directing attention.

 

So if your subject is the back of the woman or the woman with her back to us, then, yes it will work.

But only if the viewer can construct a story in which that is true.

The eye is a conservative organ. A face is the very first and most important feature in the world we (learn to) see and recognize.

If there's a face in the image and it's not in focus, you have something to explain. There must be a strong reason for it.

 

If it's highly unlikely that the person or the detail in focus is the subject, then don't use the image.

 

wim

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all above. It says to me that both women should be in focus for this particular shot.

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With sharpness you are directing attention.

 

So if your subject is the back of the woman or the woman with her back to us, then, yes it will work.

But only if the viewer can construct a story in which that is true.

The eye is a conservative organ. A face is the very first and most important feature in the world we (learn to) see and recognize.

If there's a face in the image and it's not in focus, you have something to explain. There must be a strong reason for it.

 

If it's highly unlikely that the person or the detail in focus is the subject, then don't use the image.

 

wim

That's a great post. I completely agree that faces should always be in focus, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. This especially true for faces which are large in the frame, and fairly central.

 

That being said, I am new to this, have uploaded very few images, and have not yet had any failures.

 

If, like me, you are fairly conservative in these matters, you won't upload it. But if you are braver, you could give it a go - maybe on its own.

 

I wish you good luck with it, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the second image at 100% (I downloaded it) I wouldn't submit it.

 

The point of focus is the back of the woman on the left's dress and this looks nicely sharp. However, the woman's face on the right, which is facing the camera and is further away, is noticeably soft in comparison. The sharpness of the woman's dress on the left just emphasizes that the point of focus is not on the main subject and the depth of focus is very limited.

 

You might have got away with it if you'd increased the ISO and gone for a smaller aperture. F5.6 at 400mm doesn't give much depth of focus making focus really critical

 

I can't access the 1st image.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel you all are right or I wouldn't have felt "iffy" about it.  How about the same image, treated with an effect that I saw used on other Alamy images.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58264026/_BAL4424a.jpg

 

Not sure if the link will work. It doesn't look like the one that worked.

Edited by Betty LaRue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel you all are right or I wouldn't have felt "iffy" about it.  How about the same image, treated with an effect that I saw used on other Alamy images.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58264026/_BAL4424a.jpg

 

Not sure if the link will work. It doesn't look like the one that worked.

 

This one might be OK in my un-expert opinion. I quite like the effect and can see where it could be of interest to certain buyers.

 

Personally, I wouldn't submit the earlier version(s) to Alamy, but then I'm in the paranoia camp when it comes to where the centre of focus "should" be. I find it all very subjective.

 

Bonne chance, as they say in Québec.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With sharpness you are directing attention.

 

So if your subject is the back of the woman or the woman with her back to us, then, yes it will work.

But only if the viewer can construct a story in which that is true.

The eye is a conservative organ. A face is the very first and most important feature in the world we (learn to) see and recognize.

If there's a face in the image and it's not in focus, you have something to explain. There must be a strong reason for it.

 

If it's highly unlikely that the person or the detail in focus is the subject, then don't use the image.

 

wim

Win, I wanted them both to be the subject, but I failed with that. What do you think about the last one? I spent a lot of time looking at images on Alamy , and found one with this effect. I liked it, but then again, that is a subjective opinion.

 

I like images that separate themselves from the pack, but that may be my artistic influence speaking, which doesn't necessarily transmit to stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The image has a sharp area so I think QC would pass it. QC does not make judgements about style and content.

 

The woman back to the camera looks tense. The woman facing the camera looks like she disapproves of what she is hearing. What are the women talking about? There is an air of mystery to this image.

 

I would not send this image into anyone unless I had model releases. An editor could misuse this image of two women innocently talking on a beach, to illustrate stories on how to tell your mother that you have Aids, cancer, or are getting a divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betty,

I'm trying to understand the image, and I don't quite get it yet. You are shooting this with a 400mm at a distance of around 80ft or 25m. That number may be off: distance is so unreliable that Adobe left it out of Camera Data in CS6. Now that means there's about 1.5m or 5 ft of DOF at 5.6. OK it's a D800, which is quite unforgiving, so maybe there's 4ft left. The AF picked the easiest spot it could find, which was the printed pattern on the dress. That would leave us with around 2.5 ft behind the point of focus. OK that would place the face just on the outer edge of that. Now on the larger file (at 4500x3000 not 100%) the face looks not all that bad. The dress however looks blurred in some places. It cannot be wind: some strands of hair are sharp, while they are definetely blowing about. 1/50 however is a bit long for such a long lens, however good the VR is. You will be working in the just there zone. You may have used a tripod though. Probably a monopod.
Her knees already look a bit OOF however, that could be the filter though.

Would it work as stock?
Everything can sell, or so the mantra here goes. And usually there's an image of a filled ashtray or a piece of raw meat to corroborate that.
I think with stock a possible story is even more important. Imagine the woman in the background positioned to the right of the women talking. Now all of a sudden they're talking about her, behind her back. And you have a great line in your keywords.
girls; women; girlfriends; talking; behind; her; friend; friend's; back.
;-)

Artistic influence is fine of course. From time to time I happen to suffer from it a lot ;-)

In my newspaper today there was an interview with a former pro soccer player. He now runs a furniture factory. Mainly settees he designs himself. At first he tells the reporter he made beautiful settees, just as he liked them. Later on he learned what the customers wanted and he actually started to sell.
Now I'm quite sure it's the combination of the two: having your own style and understanding what the clients want.

(Teacher Mode)

Style is the sum of all decisions we take as a photographer.
The sum of all solutions we choose, be them visual (artistic) or technical.

(/teacher mode)

wim

edit typo

Edited by wiskerke
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betty,

I'm trying to understand the image, and I don't quite get it yet. You are shooting this with a 400mm at a distance of around 80ft or 25m. That number may be off: distance is so unreliable that Adobe left it out of Camera Data in CS6. Now that means there's about 1.5m or 5 ft of DOF at 5.6. OK it's a D800, which is quite unforgiving, so maybe there's 4ft left. The AF picked the easiest spot it could find, which was the printed pattern on the dress. That would leave us with around 2.5 ft behind the point of focus. OK that would place the face just on the outer edge of that. Now on the larger file (at 4500x3000 not 100%) the face looks not all that bad. The dress however looks blurred in some places. It cannot be wind: some strands of hair are sharp, while they are definetely blowing about. 1/50 however is a bit long for such a long lens, however good the VR is. You will be working in the just there zone. You may have used a tripod though. Probably a monopod.

Her knees already look a bit OOF however, that could be the filter though.

Would it work as stock?

Everything can sell, or so the mantra here goes. And usually there's an image of a filled ashtray or a piece of raw meat to corroborate that.

I think with stock a possible story is even more important. Imagine the woman in the background positioned to the right of the women talking. Now all of a sudden they're talking about here, behind her back. And you have a great line in your keywords.

girls; women; girlfriends; talking; behind; her; friend; friend's; back.

;-)

Artistic influence is fine of course. From time to time I happen to suffer from it a lot ;-)

In my newspaper today there was an interview with a former pro soccer player. He now runs a furniture factory. Mainly settees he designs himself. At first he tells the reporter he made beautiful settees, just as he liked them. Later on he learned what the customers wanted and he actually started to sell.

Now I'm quite sure it's the combination of the two: having your own style and understanding what the clients want.

(Teacher Mode)

Style is the sum of all decisions we take as a photographer.

The sum of all solutions we choose, be them visual (artistic) or technical.

(/teacher mode)

wim

edit typo

Win, I like your dissertations, so keep them coming. This old dog ( I won't use the term for a female dog since it sounds rude) can learn new tricks.

I "get" everything you said.

Thanks for the keyword suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll voice no opinion and no philosophy, just a short piece of advice: don't offer this image to Alamy QC. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Bill makes a good point about possibly needing model releases for this type of image. This is something I never thought about much in the past, but I'm giving it more consideration lately. It's so easy to offend people if candid images are used to illustrate controversial themes, etc. Then there is the thorny ethical question of what constitutes an invasion of privacy. I recently took some candid people shots that I've decided to discard even though I like them -- they are just too personal and the subjects too recognizable. After all, I wouldn't want someone spying on me with a long zoom.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

IMO, no to both original and the 'treatment'. The original is not sharp enough where it needs to be, also for me, the area around the hair is too light and has caused almost a cutout effect (picture would need noise added/grained). The 'treatment' masking is not done well enough, the hair of the woman with her back to the viewer shows issues.

 

Although not what was asked, I don't see the value in spending time either worrying or working on a low value image - without releases it's got much less appeal. If you were working with models and not a candid, you would have much greater scope for getting 'the shot' from the intended 'set up'.

 

Sorry B.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel you all are right or I wouldn't have felt "iffy" about it.  How about the same image, treated with an effect that I saw used on other Alamy images.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58264026/_BAL4424a.jpg

 

Not sure if the link will work. It doesn't look like the one that worked.

 

Interesting idea, but in my opinion this risks a QC fail for "Noticeable retouching", especially noticeable in the women on the left's hair. Also, even with the attention focussed on the left hand woman, the depth of focus is still not sufficient. It looks as if the point of sharpest focus my lie nearer to the camera than the women on the left. Slight "front focussing" perhaps?

 

It's one of the reasons I gave up on phase based AF. I had a Canon 550D with long lens, but the AF focus just wasn't reliable enough. I've now swapped to a Lumix G5 with fast, contrast based AF and get far, far more consistent results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, no to both original and the 'treatment'. The original is not sharp enough where it needs to be, also for me, the area around the hair is too light and has caused almost a cutout effect (picture would need noise added/grained). The 'treatment' masking is not done well enough, the hair of the woman with her back to the viewer shows issues.

 

Although not what was asked, I don't see the value in spending time either worrying or working on a low value image - without releases it's got much less appeal. If you were working with models and not a candid, you would have much greater scope for getting 'the shot' from the intended 'set up'.

 

Sorry B.

 

Thanks, Geoff and Mark.  You probably just saved me from the sin bin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMO, no to both original and the 'treatment'. The original is not sharp enough where it needs to be, also for me, the area around the hair is too light and has caused almost a cutout effect (picture would need noise added/grained). The 'treatment' masking is not done well enough, the hair of the woman with her back to the viewer shows issues.

 

Although not what was asked, I don't see the value in spending time either worrying or working on a low value image - without releases it's got much less appeal. If you were working with models and not a candid, you would have much greater scope for getting 'the shot' from the intended 'set up'.

 

Sorry B.

 

Thanks, Geoff and Mark.  You probably just saved me from the sin bin.

 

 

Don't worry. Your cell has probably been given to someone else by now. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gathering up my toothbrush and 28 days of supplies right now. 

 

Most of the comments in this post are pertinent and interesting, but I find "the should I risk" threads generally unhelpful. It's like asking a soldier standing next to you in a combat zone if and when you should duck. 

Edited by Ed Rooney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gathering up my toothbrush and 28 days of supplies right now. 

 

Most of the comments in this post are pertinent and interesting, but I find "the should I risk" treads generally unhelpful. It's like asking a soldier standing next to you in a combat zone if and when you should duck. 

 

Good analogy. In the end, every soldier has to decide whether to duck or go over the top. Still, it is sometimes possible to get helpful advice from those who have managed to sneak across enemy lines and come back to tell the tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.