C S Wimsey Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I have an couple of images which if they had been taken with my current camera body I think they would pass QC. Unfortunately these were some of my last photos taken on my old D200. When the images is are smaller they are fairly sharp, but because the D200's sensor can be a bit "soft" at 100% I'm not confident they will pass QC. I'm really worried that if I submit these photos I might be placed in the sin-bin of doom which I have read about in this forum. Is it right that I could be frozen for 28 days? Do you think these images are worth risking through QC? This is the link to the images on the Flickr Album https://www.flickr.com/gp/120450234@N07/1x003D/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Hello and welcome, Just looked at the images on flickr and personally I would not submit them as they appear to be soft and would, in my opinion, fail. Others with more experience may differ or offer other advice. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Douglas Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Hello and welcome, Just looked at the images on flickr and personally I would not submit them as they appear to be soft and would, in my opinion, fail. Others with more experience may differ or offer other advice. Allan I agree with Allan, I wouldn't submit them either. They look soft even at a less than 100% size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Watkins Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I agree with the above. And looking at the EXIF, it's the fault of the lens rather than the D200 sensor, IMO. Zoom lenses like that tend to be soft at the long end, especially wide open as these shots were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Richards Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 It is a pity, they are nice images but they are soft and I wouldn't risk submitting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callie Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 also agree with the above, no way would I submit those Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I confess to struggling to see whether or not they're soft without a 100% zoom. I have some very sharp images that look like that when they are zoomed out. Maybe you could show a 100% of the in-focus area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Even at that size they look way too soft to me. It can be hard when you first join Alamy because it's easy to come here thinking "I've got loads of older pics that I'm very fond of which would make a great start to my portfolio". I had fond expectations of uploading scans of thousands of my favourite 35mm pics and got a very rude awakening when I realised that 95% of them would never pass. If some images are borderline it's worth trying them out in your early days as there's nothing like a couple of QC failures to focus your mind on what's acceptable and set you up for continued success in the future. But from what I can see, even at the small size, I think these fall well short of the border. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 It's not just that it's soft and blurred, but QC doen't like overly sharpened and processed images. It would be perfect for Stockimo though. Pity it's not taken with a phone. wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C S Wimsey Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks guys. You all confirmed my gut feelings on these pictures. I think the issue is more the camera body than the lens because I have used the same lens at 500mm with my new camera body with far better results (which have passed QC). Undoubtedly though a 500mm prime would be sharper. I'll be picky which photos from my backlog portfolio go in, and enjoy taking many new pics :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 "When the images are smaller they are fairly sharp," Why don't you try downsizing the images (un-sharpened versions, of course). Alamy's minimum file size is now 17MP (about 3000 pixels on the long side). It might just do the trick. Most editorial usages are small anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allison J Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I didn't look at the exif data but i've had plenty of images pass QC with the D200 but "pro" zooms or primes were used I agree that I probably wouldn't have submitted these particular images Good luck John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C S Wimsey Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 I didn't look at the exif data but i've had plenty of images pass QC with the D200 but "pro" zooms or primes were used I agree that I probably wouldn't have submitted these particular images Good luck John To be fair John I'm key-wording some D200 shots myself which have also passed QC, so agree it isn't just the camera. I moved away from the D200 mainly because of noise even at medium ISO. Used sensibly I can't knock the D200 - and you're right about the glass :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stokie Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Thanks guys. You all confirmed my gut feelings on these pictures. I think the issue is more the camera body than the lens because I have used the same lens at 500mm with my new camera body with far better results (which have passed QC). Undoubtedly though a 500mm prime would be sharper. I'll be picky which photos from my backlog portfolio go in, and enjoy taking many new pics :-) Usually if you think they might fail - they will do! John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Thanks guys. You all confirmed my gut feelings on these pictures. I think the issue is more the camera body than the lens because I have used the same lens at 500mm with my new camera body with far better results (which have passed QC). Undoubtedly though a 500mm prime would be sharper. I'll be picky which photos from my backlog portfolio go in, and enjoy taking many new pics :-) Usually if you think they might fail - they will do! John. My approach is if I feel the need to ask about sharpness - it in't. In my heart I know I am clutching at straws because I love the image too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C S Wimsey Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 Well, that's interesting. Reading Jeff Greenberg's post I had another look at the goose on eggs. at 100%. It looked awful - but yes the grass was definitely in focus (if a tad soft maybe). I then remembered you guys had spotted sharpening which I must have done a while ago when I first took the pic. I took it out - and Mmmm. Way better - maybe still a bit borderline, but hey. Tempting. It's a little soft because of the glass and the camera sensor being a little soft too - I'll have to have a think about that.. I've uploaded the amended image to the original flickr link https://www.flickr.c...234@N07/1x003D/ It may be that Alamy isn't the right place for it (borderline), but I think I might be able to do something with it. I have my sights not set on some more prime lenses, This was taken on the sigma 150-500 zoom, at 500mm - but - cardinal sin - 2x teleconverter - so I was on 1kmm (yes I was using a tripod...). It's that money thing... or lack of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C S Wimsey Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 If that link doesn't work try this https://www.flickr.com/gp/120450234@N07/81A163/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Yates Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I would personally not upload those images they look excessively soft with the dog being the least soft of the 3. It's not worth the stress of the sin bin. Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 No. Motion blur is quite acceptable but t needs to be sharp where it's expected to be- the nose and beak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C S Wimsey Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 Really glad I asked you guys - and thanks for your honesty. I've learned much; There's a tendency to "hold onto those favourite images" even if you know in your heart they're not technically there. Guilty m'lud. Best to take more images knowing the specifications needed than to try and ram an old square peg into a round hole where you know it doesn't belong. Time is finite - spend it wisely. I'm going to enjoy taking plenty more images with an eye to their sharpness. What a penance... I hate photography ;-) I'm feeling a lot better now as I've now had around 50 images passed by QC in 3 batches and believe I've learned so much from that experience and by listening to you guys on here. Thank you all so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Nice shots but they are soft so do not submit them. L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.