lacking defenition

[Allan Bell]

 

 

What do you all think about the Baltimore Water Taxi?

Is that slight blur in the corner (Canon L 70-200 IS at 1/640 - f/9 - 200mm ) a problem? Anything else?

Pity it's already in the rejected gallery, so you know it's been rejected all right.

 

wim

 

 

 

I think some slight blur in the corners is acceptable but not if it encroaches on the main subject of the image.

 

Allan

[wiskerke]

 

 

Not a bad idea.

Let's see if this works: Here is my rejected gallery on Google+:

https://plus.google.com/photos/103522848714965116139/albums/6071323254338008017

 

You have to click on an image; then click on the zoom tool and use the slider in the pop-up window. Because these are the original full size jpg 12 images, it may take a while before you will get the slider to 100%.

 

wim

 

 

I love your port - the standard is something for me to aspire to.

 

Secondly, I don't feel qualified to critique anyone's work - I struggle to critique my own, but I will tell you what I can see.

 

The starfish is grainy / noisy at it centre.

 

The terrace one has noise in the dark clothing, particularly on the dark shirt and black vest top of the couple centre left near the railings.

 

Single tree has greenish noisy bits on lower branches, on the right hand side branches there are a couple of circular blobs of noise that could be taken for dust spots, but I think it is just noise on the light coming through the foliage.

 

The group of trees image has a lot of noise in the foreground, particularly the plant at bottom left corner.

 

Boat - possible cyan CA on the top rear of the boat - I know this is probably the different colour on the sides of the boat, but it is showing as a blue line which could be taken for CA.  There are parts of the image on the left which have noise on the water, the graininess is darker in laces, which gives the effects of dark stripes through the noisy area.

 

Oh, I am chewing my knuckles posting this, but it's encouraging that you are prepared to post the images and I can see it's not just me who has some noisy images to sort through. Thanks for sharing them.

 

 

Your absolutely correct on the CA at the top of the boat.  And if anything even looks like it could be the photographer's fault, I tend to take it out. So blotches that are not dust bunnies, but could be mistaken for those, out they go.

 

Don't worry about giving critique. You will see that the trick is to offer your own work up for it.

And to have the same standards for the work of others as for your own. Now usually it is harder to critique your own work than it is to judge someone else's. If it's the other way around you may have to worry. Oh no that's of course the opposite of what I should have said, because the worrying is what makes it harder. Ok get an honest teacher/coach then ;-)

Sales help too. (Because it means approval without ulterior motives. No sales however does not mean disapproval.)

 

The noise is typically a problem of the small sensor and the lifting of shadows. But afaik QC simply calls that noise, not SoLD.

The terrace is awfully noisy in the shades. I really should have done it again. the verdict here was: Soft or lacking definition. And: Noise.

Yes it's true: if it looks photographer's fault, it simply is my fault.

 

wim

[wiskerke]

 

 

 

What do you all think about the Baltimore Water Taxi?

Is that slight blur in the corner (Canon L 70-200 IS at 1/640 - f/9 - 200mm ) a problem? Anything else?

Pity it's already in the rejected gallery, so you know it's been rejected all right.

 

wim

 

 

 

I think some slight blur in the corners is acceptable but not if it encroaches on the main subject of the image.

 

Allan

 

 

Good point.

 

wim

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

 

What do you all think about the Baltimore Water Taxi?

Is that slight blur in the corner (Canon L 70-200 IS at 1/640 - f/9 - 200mm ) a problem? Anything else?

Pity it's already in the rejected gallery, so you know it's been rejected all right.

 

wim

 

 

 

I think some slight blur in the corners is acceptable but not if it encroaches on the main subject of the image.

 

Allan

 

 

Good point.

 

wim

 

 

But why might a buyer be unhappy with this image? Most of the water taxi looks sharp. Don't see a problem myself. The slight blurriness of the couple at the front of the boat actually gives the impression of forward motion, which is important to the intent of the image IMO.

[Sultanpepa]

I'm compelled to ask what size and quality of monitor some people are using to view these. Each image that I've looked at has noise, the starfish and terrace especially so. The terrace is perfectly sharp but very noisy. The ferry boat image is the least affected but again surprisingly given the bright conditions, it still has a little noise. Not that it isn't sharp, it is, but clarity just isn't there as it should be. Nothing wrong with the photographers eye, all great images if viewed at a smaller size. It's like they've all been shot at very high ISO or been corrected from under exposed images. I've broken a self imposed rule never to critic others work by writing this. I very much hope not to offend but to help in finding a solution to the problem.

[John Mitchell]

I'm compelled to ask what size and quality of monitor some people are using to view these. Each image that I've looked at has noise, the starfish and terrace especially so. The terrace is perfectly sharp but very noisy. The ferry boat image is the least affected but again surprisingly given the bright conditions, it still has a little noise. Not that it isn't sharp, it is, but clarity just isn't there as it should be. Nothing wrong with the photographers eye, all great images if viewed at a smaller size. It's like they've all been shot at very high ISO or been corrected from under exposed images. I've broken a self imposed rule never to critic others work by writing this. I very much hope not to offend but to help in finding a solution to the problem.

 

I'm not using a high-quality monitor, but I believe -- Wim will correct me if I'm wrong -- that these images were rejected for softness, not noise.

 

Edit: I just had another look at the three images (using the navigator box zoom) that you mentioned, and there is quite a bit of noise. However, it's difficult to know what a 100% view is.

[Sultanpepa]

 

I'm compelled to ask what size and quality of monitor some people are using to view these. Each image that I've looked at has noise, the starfish and terrace especially so. The terrace is perfectly sharp but very noisy. The ferry boat image is the least affected but again surprisingly given the bright conditions, it still has a little noise. Not that it isn't sharp, it is, but clarity just isn't there as it should be. Nothing wrong with the photographers eye, all great images if viewed at a smaller size. It's like they've all been shot at very high ISO or been corrected from under exposed images. I've broken a self imposed rule never to critic others work by writing this. I very much hope not to offend but to help in finding a solution to the problem.

 

I'm not using a high-quality monitor, but I believe -- Wim will correct me if I'm wrong -- that these images were rejected for softness, not noise.

 

I understand that John. Just saying what I see. Image degradation partly due to noise maybe induced from over manipulation. The softest of the images is the sun through the tree. The grass in the foreground is very soft . Very black blacks are missing suggesting the shadows have been lifted considerably. I'm sure Wim will give us some more detail. 

[Lastrega]

But afaik QC simply calls that noise, not SoLD.

 

yes, but I think some of the 'soft' areas only look soft because of the noise.  That's the effect it has to my eyes.  I don't always see noise on my own images unless it looks soft and I do another check for noise and other times I find the noise and realise that's what it giving them a soft look.  Not very scientific and perhaps not very well put, but my eyes are such that I have to cross check these things.

 

Very happy to receive your advice too, thank you.

[Sultanpepa]

 

I'm compelled to ask what size and quality of monitor some people are using to view these. Each image that I've looked at has noise, the starfish and terrace especially so. The terrace is perfectly sharp but very noisy. The ferry boat image is the least affected but again surprisingly given the bright conditions, it still has a little noise. Not that it isn't sharp, it is, but clarity just isn't there as it should be. Nothing wrong with the photographers eye, all great images if viewed at a smaller size. It's like they've all been shot at very high ISO or been corrected from under exposed images. I've broken a self imposed rule never to critic others work by writing this. I very much hope not to offend but to help in finding a solution to the problem.

 

I'm not using a high-quality monitor, but I believe -- Wim will correct me if I'm wrong -- that these images were rejected for softness, not noise.

 

Edit: I just had another look at the three images (using the navigator box zoom) that you mentioned, and there is quite a bit of noise. However, it's difficult to know what a 100% view is.

 

Just caught your edit. I agree. What is 100%. That could make a big difference. I suspect zooming till you can zoom no more?

[Betty LaRue]

I'll be in QC Captivity for my birthday on Nov 10, so if you're not out yet, Betty, Allan, Peter and others, perhaps we might have a small celebration? Maybe one symbolic candle on a nice pie? (We couldn't fit all my candles on a normal sized pie.) 

 

FOOC, eh? Hmm. How about The Slammer? Maybe not. No offense to any of the helpful people here in the Forum, but the day I need assistance in judging the quality of an image is the day I hang up my cameras. Studio photography can sometimes be a group effort, but with street shooting, and PP, basically it's me and Alamy QC. And sometimes we disagree. 

 

I will accept my latest QC fail as a righteous call. The image that failed, and I'm sure which image it is, was, as I saw it, in a gray/grey area. It got a thumbs down. 

 

Betty, you asked me on my last QC fail in August if my newest camera, the RX10, was at fault. I think the (rather late) answer to that question is . . . not the camera as such, but maybe it contributed to the problem . . . because (even now) there are things about the RX10 that I'm not totally used to or comfortable with.

 

But QC fails are not about shooting problems--they are entirely about the decision we make deciding to submit or not submit an image after doing our 100% look-see. Last weekend I went out at night to try the Hand held Twilight scene mode on the RX10. I had used this mode successfully before for shooting in low-light in supermarkets and restaurants, but I had not done a night shoot in the street. I deleted lots of stuff from that shoot, but I submitted two images I should not have.

 

The rule should be this: if you have any misgivings about an image, don't submit it. No need for a second opinion.   

If I remember right, Ed, you like apple.  I make a mean one.  Candle in the middle of it, which will keep the pie warm.  

[M.Chapman]

 

Not a bad idea.

Let's see if this works: Here is my rejected gallery on Google+:

https://plus.google.com/photos/103522848714965116139/albums/6071323254338008017

 

You have to click on an image; then click on the zoom tool and use the slider in the pop-up window. Because these are the original full size jpg 12 images, it may take a while before you will get the slider to 100%.

 

wim

 

 

Wim, A greenie for you for posting 100% resolution QC fails. It's really interesting to see the comments whilst looking at 100% views.

 

Relative to the standards I try to maintain, I wouldn't have submitted any of the RX100 images (starfish, trees and terrace) without downsizing to 24MP or even 17MP. Either the relatively small Sony sensor with so many pixels or the NR/PP looks like it's really struggling in the Sony images. Some edges are sharp, other areas are just noisy and mushy. Fine detail especially in the foliage has just been lost in a sea of noise and mush. Downsized to 24MP they look just about OK to my eyes.

 

The ferry is loads better (full frame sensor shows its merits). It's just a shame that the prow of the main subject (ferry) is close to the corner of the frame and has lost some sharpness (or is it motion blur), but it's a wonderful composition. Downsized to 24MP it looks fine to me.

 

Maybe I set my standards higher than I need to? I'm paranoid about getting a QC fail since, once the spotlight's on you, it seems harder to "stay out of jail". I haven't had a fail for almost 200 submissions now, but there's always that nagging doubt.

 

Folks make a good point about which monitor quality. The size of the pixels on the monitor makes quite a difference. Monitors with smaller pixels will look sharper because a 100% view is smaller...

 

I also suspect some folks may not be looking at your images at 100%. I downloaded them and loaded into PS to be sure, (and to make it easier to compare against the levels I usually submit).

 

Thanks again for your posting.

[wiskerke]

100% is 100%. When in doubt: just download and open in your own Photoshop. It's all jpg@12 exactly the ones that have gone to QC.

I just noticed Google can be slow; it can be necessary to reload the page, for the small window, with the slider that appears when you use the zoom tool, to update to the full size.

My monitors are Dell 2410, with the same panels that the iMac 24 had before Retina, just not shiny. 99.6% or something AdobeRGB and fully color managed. So with that out of the way: I do have to put my glasses off sometimes to look at CA, because glasses cause their own CA, but can also in some cases "filter away" existing CA. Some corrections are being done at 100% some at 500%. Only very global corrections like color temp or overall contrast are being done at full screen. The rest at 100% or greater.
 
So the faults are all mine, not my equipment's.
 
The noise in the boat is because it's ISO 640. The 1DX would probably handle this a lot better than my ageing 1Ds3.
The noise in the RX100 images is clearly very difficult to control.

Otoh I am fairly conservative with my noise settings: usually I rather have noise with detail than too polished images with detail missing. I may have been walking too close the edge here for a long time and now starting to slip.

 

A lot of the noise probably does come from lifting the shadows. Not a problem with a Nikon D810, but not a good idea with any Canon. Without a lot of pp, I mean. More so with the Sony RX100. They can be terribly noisy and not a very attractive noise either.

The terrace is clearly too noisy in the shadows and it would have been possible to remedy that. It now looks like a 5 minute post job, while in fact it has taken a whole day.

OK I posted the RAW Sony file for you all to have a go at ;-)

It is next to the failed one, so going back and forth with the arrow will alternate between them. Really interesting to see this in hindsight ;-)

 

With the image of the terrace and  the trees I more or less have to agree with QC. The starfish I thought was borderline: it should have failed for different reasons: bad manipulation visible along the lower edges of the blue background and the tentacles. Caused by having to pull the two light sources, inside and outside, together.

 

With the water taxi it's a different matter. Of course I noticed the softness of the corner. My guess is that there are 3 reasons: shot through glass and in the corner that is the softest the very thick greenish window pane is the furthest from the front lens, so the effect will be the most pronounced. Secondly it is a moving boat, going at a certain speed and bobbing up and down, and the part that is furthest from the middle may show some movement even with 1/640. Thirdly I suspect my lens had a soft corner: more images from the same weeks have some softness in that corner. I suspect the IS. The lens has been serviced since and I have very uncharacteristically not done any testing, neither before nor after. (Hang head in shame.) That said it is my error. So the question is: is it acceptable. Is the softness the last drop? Would it have been ok if there had been no noise? Or at least no chroma noise? Allan is right: it should not get into your main subject. Or at least not too much.

I will try to redevelop.

In the end Ed is absolutely right: when in doubt do not submit.

(repeat: do...not...)

 

wim

[John Richmond]

Thanks for your generosity in submitting your failures so that others might learn.  It's been very instructive.

[Bill Brooks]

 

 

 I do have to put my glasses off sometimes to look at CA, because glasses cause their own CA, but can also in some cases "filter away" existing CA.

Wim:

 

Recently I noticed the cheap pharmacy glasses I use for computer work were reducing apparent image contrast and shifting everything slightly to the warm side.

 

I now adjust colour balance and contrast without the glasses.

[wiskerke]

Thanks for the praise; the comments and the greenies!

 

This is also a test to see if and how some sort of discussion place could work for not yet uploaded images.

 

First observation: there must be a possibility to add comments or discuss an image immediately underneath or next to that image.

This could actually work with Google+.

Flickr is good at that too. But would contributors here go to Flickr for that?

Google+ is open to everyone, but it can probably be set up so that only invited people have access. At least that is how it works with Google Maps.

As you can tell, I'm a Google+ newbie.

 

wim

[Lastrega]

+ 1 Wim

 

even if you are not submitting the image for stock, it would be good to have a less public place where a person could ask for opinion /peer review.

 

I don't think people want to post potential Alamy failures on the Alamy forum as it is like asking for the QC people to watch out for that image.... Imagine if someone posted a photo, everyone said it was dodgy and then it slipped through QC?

 

I see people are very interested in what fails QC and I think seeing what not to do is important. However, it is usually that people post images looking for opinions on why the image failed QC, or whether it should have failed QC.

It would be good to have library of images, easily to look up in one place rather than multiple threads, of failed images.

 

Is there not also room for images to be posted where no opinion is sought, just given as an example for reference for others? I had a fail that I have no argument with, I don't want to change it or re-submit it, but other people might find it useful to see by what margin that one failed, especially if I give the fail reason. It would seem daft for me to just stick my failure in a new thread here and say it was just for info.

 

It could be the 'Confession Box'.

 

edit: added a bit in.

[Lastrega]

Here's my fail.  It was for SoLD, but now that I have a bit more experience of looking for flaws I can see that it has purple fringing and there is some sort of odd pinkiness going on with the white fence. Posting as an example of what you can't pass with.

 

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b624/lastregapix/Alamy/DSC_0717tcockenzieFAILED_zps15a4f409.jpg

[Sultanpepa]

Here's my fail.  It was for SoLD, but now that I have a bit more experience of looking for flaws I can see that it has purple fringing and there is some sort of odd pinkiness going on with the white fence. Posting as an example of what you can't pass with.

 

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b624/lastregapix/Alamy/DSC_0717tcockenzieFAILED_zps15a4f409.jpg

 I can't see why that failed to be honest.

 

(I tried to have another look but can't get the image at %100 now)

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

 I do have to put my glasses off sometimes to look at CA, because glasses cause their own CA, but can also in some cases "filter away" existing CA.

Wim:

 

Recently I noticed the cheap pharmacy glasses I use for computer work were reducing apparent image contrast and shifting everything slightly to the warm side.

 

I now adjust colour balance and contrast without the glasses.

 

 

I almost bought a pair of those inexpensive "computer" reading glasses and then noticed their slight orange-ish tint, so I'm sticking to my cheap but powerful, non-tinted "Alamy glasses" (definitely not rose-coloured at this point). Unfortunately, without glasses the screen is just a blur for me.

[dustydingo]

No offense to any of the helpful people here in the Forum, but the day I need assistance in judging the quality of an image is the day I hang up my cameras   

 

The more examples I see of disagreement on whether or not an image "should" pass, the more entrenched a supporter of Ed's philosophy I become.

 

I can judge the technical quality of an image no problem--I've been doing this long enough so I should be able to fgs (and so too can most here, I have no doubt). However, my images do not pass because of my ability to hit "perfect" images every time (I can't). Nor do they pass dependent on what camera I use or what noise-reduction I don't use, or what RAW converter I use, or what post-capture software I use. And they especially don't pass because Alamy should take account of the difficulties I overcame to take them. My images pass because of the decisions I make at the time of sorting for submission. I have a standard I apply, and it works very effectively.

 

And again, paraphrasing Ed (and many others): if it's a tad doubtful, no matter how much I like it and how much I think some buyer somewhere would love it, I don't submit it.

 

dd

[Lastrega]

 

 I can't see why that failed to be honest.

 

(I tried to have another look but can't get the image at %100 now)

 

 

I just tried looking on photobucket and I could enlarge full size when I clicked the + icon, but then a banner appeared across the top of the screen to say they are doing maintenance and there may be issues.

 

Like so many people have said - I was slightly iffy about this and should just not have submitted it. I won't re-work and re-submit - it's somewhere I visit quite a lot, so I will just start fresh and have another go.  I can pick holes in the pic myself now and the rejection gave me a kick up the bum to be more diligent, so something positive from it. 

[wiskerke]

At the resolution on Photobucket it looks not that bad. There's some CA and the roof tiles look a bit funny. When I download it, it's much bigger at 4000x6000 and it looks pretty unsharp. At first sight I would blame the lens. Ca everywhere; blur throughout the image. Could be a really bad filter on a mediocre lens as well. It's not motion blur. It's not heat shimmer either, because all straight lines are straight. My guess is that the focus lies on the pipe in the middle somewhere, but the image is so soft that it's hard to determine.

You do have your capture sharpening in your RAW developer at it's default have you? The no sharpening rule of Alamy only means no sharpening after the -default- sharpening of the RAW processing stage. Default would probably be at 25 if you are using ACR. And you do have your lens profile loaded and checked in your RAW developer?

The CA is manageable with a good profile. It is a bad sign though, that it is visible not just at the corners but throughout the image. I would try to compare your lens with a couple of other ones.

 

wim

 

edit: oops the whole quote has gone: it's an answer to Lastrega

[wiskerke]

 

No offense to any of the helpful people here in the Forum, but the day I need assistance in judging the quality of an image is the day I hang up my cameras   

 

The more examples I see of disagreement on whether or not an image "should" pass, the more entrenched a supporter of Ed's philosophy I become.

 

I can judge the technical quality of an image no problem--I've been doing this long enough so I should be able to fgs (and so too can most here, I have no doubt). However, my images do not pass because of my ability to hit "perfect" images every time (I can't). Nor do they pass dependent on what camera I use or what noise-reduction I don't use, or what RAW converter I use, or what post-capture software I use. And they especially don't pass because Alamy should take account of the difficulties I overcame to take them. My images pass because of the decisions I make at the time of sorting for submission. I have a standard I apply, and it works very effectively.

 

And again, paraphrasing Ed (and many others): if it's a tad doubtful, no matter how much I like it and how much I think some buyer somewhere would love it, I don't submit it.

 

dd

 

 

I agree. It's my fault and my problem entirely.

The last time I had failed QC before the starfish in May 2014, was October 2008 due to size (it was a stitched image: I did not agree there). After that I had many failed batches because of transmission or image processing problems, but no QC fails. So I may have become complacent; overconfident. Often an issue with teachers ;-)

 

wim

[Lastrega]

At the resolution on Photobucket it looks not that bad. There's some CA and the roof tiles look a bit funny. When I download it, it's much bigger at 4000x6000 and it looks pretty unsharp. At first sight I would blame the lens. Ca everywhere; blur throughout the image. Could be a really bad filter on a mediocre lens as well. It's not motion blur. It's not heat shimmer either, because all straight lines are straight. My guess is that the focus lies on the pipe in the middle somewhere, but the image is so soft that it's hard to determine.

You do have your capture sharpening in your RAW developer at it's default have you? The no sharpening rule of Alamy only means no sharpening after the -default- sharpening of the RAW processing stage. Default would probably be at 25 if you are using ACR. And you do have your lens profile loaded and checked in your RAW developer?

The CA is manageable with a good profile. It is a bad sign though, that it is visible not just at the corners but throughout the image. I would try to compare your lens with a couple of other ones.

 

wim

 

edit: oops the whole quote has gone: it's an answer to Lastrega

 

Thanks for this - very helpful

 

Not that it makes any difference, but if I remember correctly that was one of the first shots I tried with that lens on a new camera. I took other pictures that day (with the same kit) which were sharp, so I think it was just down to me on the lack of focus. At the time I didn't know to tick the box to correct chroma on import into PS either, but I do that now.

 

I will definitely check all the things you mention - I want to improve on both taking the picture and my post processing. It's a bit slow as I have realised that I have a lot more to learn than I thought I did. I do really think that making errors and mistakes are a learning opportunity and I believe that if you make enough effort you can always improve in what you want to do. 

 

Thanks very much for all your suggestions, much appreciated.

[woody]

 

No offense to any of the helpful people here in the Forum, but the day I need assistance in judging the quality of an image is the day I hang up my cameras   

 

The more examples I see of disagreement on whether or not an image "should" pass, the more entrenched a supporter of Ed's philosophy I become.

 

I can judge the technical quality of an image no problem--I've been doing this long enough so I should be able to fgs (and so too can most here, I have no doubt). However, my images do not pass because of my ability to hit "perfect" images every time (I can't). Nor do they pass dependent on what camera I use or what noise-reduction I don't use, or what RAW converter I use, or what post-capture software I use. And they especially don't pass because Alamy should take account of the difficulties I overcame to take them. My images pass because of the decisions I make at the time of sorting for submission. I have a standard I apply, and it works very effectively.

 

And again, paraphrasing Ed (and many others): if it's a tad doubtful, no matter how much I like it and how much I think some buyer somewhere would love it, I don't submit it.

 

dd

 

And that friends is how to ensure acceptance!!