Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi Betty, I'm no expert but in my opinion I think that if selected by the team for QC each of these would fail. The depth of field is so slim that even an accurate focus point may not be enough to make these viable images. The noise on the third could be corrected without too much problem but again depth of field and overall sharpness may be the limiting factor for QC therefore I wouldn't submit. Still life can be so difficult can't it? Focus is critical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations you have reached the next level ;-)

Thanks for the wings! Now I can win monthly challenges too. Oh wait we don't have an angelic daughter.

 

Honestly I would let all three of the images be. You are right about the focus in the first two, unless the fork is the subject in the first.

The second is like a portrait with the nearest eye OOF: there must be a very good reason for that.

The last is at this stage just too bland. Try moving a thumbnail size of that image across the Alamy page with fried pies on a plate. Otoh the competition for apricot fried pie is minimal, so it could work ;-)

In this image I would pick out all the tiny black specks around the plate with the healing tool. It's really clean for 3200 ISO, I'm impressed!

If it's in your own kitchen, why not take a tripod? If it's in a restaurant, have you seen these or in DIY version?  I just balance the tiny RX100 on a bottle. It won't face down of course, but it's good enough for selfies. For shots facing down, I use a tiny Giottos with a 23 inch bolt from the hardware store. It can hold a bigger camera, but the bottle may tip over. The self timer is not just for selfies, it's the perfect solution for bottle mounted plate shots too ;-)

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect yor opinions, each and every one. Yes, these are the famous (snicker) fried pies. I do have them well-covered, so the loss of these 3 shouldn't hurt much.

These were the three I had concerns about, but at this point, I'm having a problem trusting anything I do.

And yes, I should have used a tripod with the Fuji. Using available light, I could have stopped down for more depth of field, and used a slow enough shutter speed to use a lower ISO. The ones with the wrong focal points, I just screwed up by not stopping down, since they were shot on a tripod. Sometimes I get excited and fundamentals slip right out of my mind. Haste makes waste, and all that rot.

 

I did notice fruit fried pies are absolutely not covered. They are mostly a product of Southern cooking. While I live in Oklahoma which is not the true south, we are so close that we have a strong southern influence, along with good Tex-Mex food, also. Texas is our Southern border, and Texas has Mexico on it's Southern border.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread with much interest and would have contributed earlier, apart from the problem of having no easy means to show my failures. 

 

Never thought of using Google+ before, so thanks Wim for suggesting it, I sent you a greenie.

 

I always look very critically at images and use the if in doubt – don’t philosophy.

 

I had a failure at the end of August, the first since September 2012, since when I had 226 successful uploads containing 2546 images.

 

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/118030012334539273173/albums/6076646422779924481/6076646426841911906?pid=6076646426841911906&oid=118030012334539273173

            

 

 

Usually when I look at a failed image I can see why, but this time I cannot see why – please have a look and see if you think it should have failed, and if so, why.

 

Hope I  have done the Google+ right. . .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter - permission is needed to view your G+ album.

 

I thought it was too easy!  When I click on the link it opens up.   I will get into Google+ and see if I can make it public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell,  I made it available to you and to Craig Yates, both of you came up on an e-mail.   I cannot find how to make it available to all.

 

Advice on how to make selected images on Google+ visible to all here would be appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

 

When i try and view, it still says i need permission. why do they make these things so complex?

 

Regards

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

 

I got e-mails inviting me to share with you and Russell, and I thought I told it to do so.  

 

Please check the forum link again to see if it works now - I found (I think|) how to make it public.

 

If not please look in your e-mail and see if you can get it there. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have been following this thread with much interest and would have contributed earlier, apart from the problem of having no easy means to show my failures. 

 

Never thought of using Google+ before, so thanks Wim for suggesting it, I sent you a greenie.

 

I always look very critically at images and use the if in doubt – don’t philosophy.

 

I had a failure at the end of August, the first since September 2012, since when I had 226 successful uploads containing 2546 images.

 

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/118030012334539273173/albums/6076646422779924481/6076646426841911906?pid=6076646426841911906&oid=118030012334539273173

            

 

 

Usually when I look at a failed image I can see why, but this time I cannot see why – please have a look and see if you think it should have failed, and if so, why.

 

Hope I  have done the Google+ right. . .

 

I would fail it on SoLD becuse of the focal plane. The thumbnail would imply all is in focus, the top part falls off focus which for this 'straight on' repro is a no no. You've not had the focal plane parallel to the note/coin.

 

EDIT. spelling

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58264026/focal%20point-7385.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58264026/focal%20point-7408.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58264026/noise-2606-AL.jpg

 

Third time is a charm, I deleted 2nd try.

 

OH MY WORD...I think I did it.  The first image I'm concerned with where the focal point is.

The 2nd, focal point.

The 3rd, is it too noisy?

 

As already been said this is subjective,

 

1st image I would have focused on the front edge of the pie.

2nd image I would have focused on the front edge of the portion on the fork. Bottom right on the plate edge there could be what looks like a dust bunny.

3rd image Focus looks good here. Probably needs a little noise reduction adding. on the plate itself there are a number of specks or potential dust bunnies. I have failed QC for this recently and now try and remove anything that could be perceived as a dust bunny. Dirt or dust or other blemishes was the reason given and it was one tiny tiny speck on the edge of a small dish.

 

Regards

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have been following this thread with much interest and would have contributed earlier, apart from the problem of having no easy means to show my failures. 

 

Never thought of using Google+ before, so thanks Wim for suggesting it, I sent you a greenie.

 

I always look very critically at images and use the if in doubt – don’t philosophy.

 

I had a failure at the end of August, the first since September 2012, since when I had 226 successful uploads containing 2546 images.

 

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/118030012334539273173/albums/6076646422779924481/6076646426841911906?pid=6076646426841911906&oid=118030012334539273173

            

 

 

Usually when I look at a failed image I can see why, but this time I cannot see why – please have a look and see if you think it should have failed, and if so, why.

 

Hope I  have done the Google+ right. . .

 

I would fail it on SoLD becuse of the focal plane. The thumbnail would imply all is in focus, the top part falls off focus which for this 'straight on' repro is a no no. You've not had the focal plane parallel to the note/coin.

 

EDIT. spelling

 

 

Geoff,

 

Good, at last I have managed to make it visible!

 

Yes your assessment is exactly right, it was failed on SoLD.   As it was taken with the camera on a tripod it should have been OK.  The thickness of a £1 coin is not much but I must have had the camera slightly inclined and the area of the £20 note above the coin is soft.   I never noticed that, especially as a printed note is not very sharp and the coin was.

 

A hard lesson learned.  Must continue to be very careful. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Peter,

 

It's a classic situation where tethered is the best option, you can then look at the file at 100% and make an assesment on whether you have 'nailed it' before having to remove a card and move camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

 

I got e-mails inviting me to share with you and Russell, and I thought I told it to do so.  

 

Please check the forum link again to see if it works now - I found (I think|) how to make it public.

 

If not please look in your e-mail and see if you can get it there. . .

I can view it now.

Agree with Geoff. But a bit of a harsh one when the focus is good on the pound coin which seems to be the main subject.

 

Regards

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Craig,

 

I got e-mails inviting me to share with you and Russell, and I thought I told it to do so.  

 

Please check the forum link again to see if it works now - I found (I think|) how to make it public.

 

If not please look in your e-mail and see if you can get it there. . .

I can view it now.

Agree with Geoff. But a bit of a harsh one when the focus is good on the pound coin which seems to be the main subject.

 

Regards

Craig

 

 I agree with this. Harsh indeed, but I guess if a store wanted this at banner size it would come into play.  :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Betty,

 

What troubles me about the first image is the cup and saucer being out of focus while the pie is not, and they are on the same plane.  The second image would seem to me to be a choice, having the focus point on the inside of the pie and everything else OOF.  A very shallow DOF is a style in food photography, perhaps not as common as it was at one time, but I would say there is nothing wrong with it if you like that style.  (Myself I hate it, especially when there is a recipe involved, how can one tell what the dish is supposed to look like!)

 

As for the third, IMHO I would have reduced the noise in the shadows somewhat, and I agree about removing the black specks.

 

Louise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

Craig,

 

I got e-mails inviting me to share with you and Russell, and I thought I told it to do so.  

 

Please check the forum link again to see if it works now - I found (I think|) how to make it public.

 

If not please look in your e-mail and see if you can get it there. . .

I can view it now.

Agree with Geoff. But a bit of a harsh one when the focus is good on the pound coin which seems to be the main subject.

 

Regards

Craig

 

 I agree with this. Harsh indeed, but I guess if a store wanted this at banner size it would come into play.  :unsure:

 

 

It's not harsh, the thumb would imply something akin to a basic repro shot...both elements need to be in absolute focus. It's obvious from the size posted that there's a significant fall off in focus at the top. It would show up at small sizes...less that the size posted. Part of SoLD is that the thumb should show what's in the file, i.e. OOF should be obvious where used but sharp should also be obvious where it's implied. It is subjective in many cases but I really don't see this case as being a harsh judgement.

 

Sorry but it's just indicative of a mistake when shooting as the poster said about being careful. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Craig,

 

I got e-mails inviting me to share with you and Russell, and I thought I told it to do so.  

 

Please check the forum link again to see if it works now - I found (I think|) how to make it public.

 

If not please look in your e-mail and see if you can get it there. . .

I can view it now.

Agree with Geoff. But a bit of a harsh one when the focus is good on the pound coin which seems to be the main subject.

 

Regards

Craig

 

 I agree with this. Harsh indeed, but I guess if a store wanted this at banner size it would come into play.  :unsure:

 

 

It's not harsh, the thumb would imply something akin to a basic repro shot...both elements need to be in absolute focus. It's obvious from the size posted that there's a significant fall off in focus at the top. It would show up at small sizes...less that the size posted. Part of SoLD is that the thumb should show what's in the file, i.e. OOF should be obvious where used but sharp should also be obvious where it's implied. It is subjective in many cases but I really don't see this case as being a harsh judgement.

 

Sorry but it's just indicative of a mistake when shooting as the poster said about being careful. .

 

 

Now that I see the problem, I don't think it is harsh, I just got it wrong.   Even if I had been working tethered, I would probably still have missed it because I did not see it when I checked the image at 100% (at least twice) before uploading. 

 

 There are a couple of possible reasons for my mistake:

 

(1)  I am used to working with the Sony RX10 and RX100.  With them a sharp centre of the subject image usually gets by with corners/ edges a bit soft.  The coin in the of the image centre is sharp.

 

(2)  This Olympus macro lens is very sharp across the whole frame.   I was at f9.   I do not know the focus distance, but I guess about 20cm.  If so, my DOF scale gives 72mm, about 36mm each side of the point of focus.   Point of focus is on the face of the coin, so I would expect to get about 36mm behind the coin face.   This would take me at least an inch into the surface of the table!  So maybe I mistakenly thought that what I was doing was OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect yor opinions, each and every one. Yes, these are the famous (snicker) fried pies. I do have them well-covered, so the loss of these 3 shouldn't hurt much.

These were the three I had concerns about, but at this point, I'm having a problem trusting anything I do.

And yes, I should have used a tripod with the Fuji. Using available light, I could have stopped down for more depth of field, and used a slow enough shutter speed to use a lower ISO. The ones with the wrong focal points, I just screwed up by not stopping down, since they were shot on a tripod. Sometimes I get excited and fundamentals slip right out of my mind. Haste makes waste, and all that rot.

 

I did notice fruit fried pies are absolutely not covered. They are mostly a product of Southern cooking. While I live in Oklahoma which is not the true south, we are so close that we have a strong southern influence, along with good Tex-Mex food, also. Texas is our Southern border, and Texas has Mexico on it's Southern border.

 

These types of shots are a challenge for me too. I usually take a series (with a tripod if possible), experimenting with different focus points and DoF settings, so that I can select the best one for Alamy when I view them on my computer. Even then, paranoia often sets in ("into your life it will creep") and I decide not to submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter, I've now had a chance to look.

 

I've nothing to add to the above other than to echo that the decision was harsh but fair.

 

As far as depth of focus calculations are concerned, they're based on "acceptable" degrees of blur - the laws of physics dictate that only one infinitesimally thin plane is truly in focus and technically, even a mm behind or in front of that plane is out of focus. It just becomes a matter of whether it's perceptible or not. In this case, it obviously was.

 

Having said that, I'm surprised that you're getting a DoF of 72mm with a macro lens shooting at f/9 at a distance of 20cm. That would imply a very short focal length (wide angle even). 

 

ETA - I've just checked your sums. You're out by a factor of 10. (M43 sensor, 35mm lens; EXIF from G+)

 

The Dof is 7.2mm not 72mm. This equates to about 4mm behind and 3mm in front of the plane of focus. In other words, that posterior DoF is less than the distance from the face of the pound coin to the note.

Edited by Russell Watkins
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Peter, I've now had a chance to look.

 

I've nothing to add to the above other than to echo that the decision was harsh but fair.

 

As far as depth of focus calculations are concerned, they're based on "acceptable" degrees of blur - the laws of physics dictate that only one infinitesimally thin plane is truly in focus and technically, even a mm behind or in front of that plane is out of focus. It just becomes a matter of whether it's perceptible or not. In this case, it obviously was.

 

Having said that, I'm surprised that you're getting a DoF of 72mm with a macro lens shooting at f/9 at a distance of 20cm. That would imply a very short focal length (wide angle even). 

 

ETA - I've just checked your sums. You're out by a factor of 10. (M43 sensor, 35mm lens; EXIF from G+)

 

The Dof is 7.2mm not 72mm. This equates to about 4mm behind and 3mm in front of the plane of focus. In other words, that posterior DoF is less than the distance from the face of the pound coin to the note.

 

Woops! I am (or was) a highly qualified engineer, not supposed to get the decimal places wrong!

 

That explains how the problem occurred with my 72 mm it would have been almost impossible to have any of it out of focus.

 

A rough check on a £1 coin makes it about 3mm thick, so with the lens not fully perpendicular to the subject  that explains what happened.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good critiques, here. (Louise also). I'm learning.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who has showed us their QC failures. Particularly in the area of SOLD or CA I find it good to be able to re-calibrate my own assessment of what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

Peter's coin and note was particularly informative. If I had a similar photo I would have probably allowed it, incorrectly, to pass my own QA, as I would have looked at the coin and the larger letters on the note and seen that they were in focus. Now I have a much better idea of what to look for I would fail it. Hopefully this continuing education will help me to keep on the right side of QA for a bit longer! 

  • Upvote 3

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.