Center of Focus

[John Mitchell]

After a recent confusing (to me) QC failure (soft and lacking def), I'm totally paranoid about shallow depth of field. Alamy claims that shallow DOF is OK if there is a clear center of focus. In the image below, I focused on the statue -- which is sharp -- while the hotel sign and balustrade in the background are slightly fuzzy. Is this image going to get me in QC hot water? Opinions appreciated. I don't want to spend another month twiddling my thumbs.

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aMRnFj8UZbw/s/860/860/Merida130033.jpg

[spacecadet]

Can't tell without a 100% crop, but I think I might expect DoF to cover both.

[John Mitchell]

Can't tell without a 100% crop, but I think I might expect DoF to cover both.

 

The statue is 100% sharp, while the background is about 75% sharp. But you might be correct. My caption only identifies the statue, not the hotel, so it seems ridiculous to me that I should have to worry about this. However, Alamy's QC apparently doesn't read captions.

[Russell Watkins]

Well, these two are from my latest accepted batch and are, in fact, representative of the whole batch - all have very shallow DoF --

.

.

.

.

.

.

...for what that's worth...

[John Mitchell]

Well, these two are from my latest accepted batch and are, in fact, representative of the whole batch - all have very shallow DoF --

.

.

.

.

.

.

...for what that's worth...

 

Thanks, but I think that my photo presents a different kind of issue when it comes to Alamy's QC. In your vivid closeups, it is obvious what the center of focus is because the backgrounds are totally blurred. But with my photo, because QC doesn't read captions, they might decide that I meant the hotel to be the main subject of the photo rather than the monument. I suppose that I should have opened up more and blurred the background further. But I quite like the results the way they are. So I'll probably end up sending this one elsewhere. It isn't worth another month in the sin bin.

[Gervais Montacute]

I think it would just make it but it's borderline looking at it on a retina display iPad. If it was mine, TBH, I would not chance that one.

[Chuck Nacke]

John,

 

I would assume that the image sharpness is fine, keeping in mind that I am going by your word that the statue is sharp.

 

In my opinion; without going to extraordinary lengths and using multiple exposures or a good old field camera with swings and tilts you

 

are not going to get foreground and background in 100% sharp focus.

 

 

 

Chuck (Still the original Chuck)

[John Mitchell]

John,

 

I would assume that the image sharpness is fine, keeping in mind that I am going by your word that the statue is sharp.

 

In my opinion; without going to extraordinary lengths and using multiple exposures or a good old field camera with swings and tilts you

 

are not going to get foreground and background in 100% sharp focus.

 

 

Chuck (Still the original Chuck)

 

Thanks, Chuck. Actually, I didn't want both the monument and the background to be in focus (just the statue). But QC might think that I did. Therein lies the rub. As mentioned, I now realize that I should probably have used a shallower DOF for Alamy.

 

Here is another one that I will probably shelve for similar reasons. I focused on the two tourists checking their cameras, but QC might decide that I was photographing the blurry metal statue, which I used merely as a frame:

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000FfE7ZAvgTPA/s/860/860/Merida130063.jpg

[Russell Watkins]

 

Thanks, but I think that my photo presents a different kind of issue when it comes to Alamy's QC. In your vivid closeups, it is obvious what the center of focus is because the backgrounds are totally blurred. But with my photo, because QC doesn't read captions, they might decide that I meant the hotel to be the main subject of the photo rather than the monument. I suppose that I should have opened up more and blurred the background further. But I quite like the results the way they are. So I'll probably end up sending this one elsewhere. It isn't worth another month in the sin bin.

Ah, sorry John. I didn't see you'd posted a link to your image and now I can see your quandary.

[Niels Quist]

After a recent confusing (to me) QC failure (soft and lacking def), I'm totally paranoid about shallow depth of field. Alamy claims that shallow DOF is OK if there is a clear center of focus. In the image below, I focused on the statue -- which is sharp -- while the hotel sign and balustrade in the background are slightly fuzzy. Is this image going to get me in QC hot water? Opinions appreciated. I don't want to spend another month twiddling my thumbs.

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aMRnFj8UZbw/s/860/860/Merida130033.jpg

I would actually prefer the background to be more out of focus in this case. That is often my problem when taking images on light summer days of items of which I would prefer a blurred background. It can be added later, but I have never done it yet. Landscape images are often quite opposite - require a wider DOF. What was the image that let you down?

 

Later remark: Oh, I can see that you have been pretty much around this.

[Allan Bell]

Hi John, Could you not blur the background a bit more in your imaging software for Alamy?

 

Allan

[John Mitchell]

Hi John, Could you not blur the background a bit more in your imaging software for Alamy?

 

Allan

 

Good suggestion. I'm not big on muddling with pics, but I might give it a try. Thanks.

[Bryan]

This is a similar image. The statue is sharp, but, although you can't really see it at this size, the background is not. As you can see it didn't cause a problem with QC

 

 

Provided some significant part of the photo is sharp, I don't see why it should fail QC. As has been said, the laws of physics apply to all of us, so , unless you were using special kit, the background is not going to be 100% sharp.

[John Mitchell]

This is a similar image. The statue is sharp, but, although you can't really see it at this size, the background is not. As you can see it didn't cause a problem with QC

 

 

Provided some significant part of the photo is sharp, I don't see why it should fail QC. As has been said, the laws of physics apply to all of us, so , unless you were using special kit, the background is not going to be 100% sharp.

 

Yes, I'm probably being overly paranoid. Do you think your image would have passed QC if you had shot it as horizontal with the statue taking up much less of the frame than the blurry-ish background That's the concern I have with the image that I linked to (see below). If I had used a vertical format to frame the statue as you have, I wouldn't be as concerned. 

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aMRnFj8UZbw/s/860/860/Merida130033.jpg

[Bryan]

Yes, I'm probably being overly paranoid. Do you think your image would have passed QC if you had shot it as horizontal with the statue taking up much less of the frame than the blurry-ish background That's the concern I have with the image that I linked to (see below). If I had used a vertical format to frame the statue as you have, I wouldn't be as concerned. 

 

 

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aMRnFj8UZbw/s/860/860/Merida130033.jpg

I guess that at some point, where the bulk of the shot is OOF  and the principal object not prominent, it may become questionable. You could crop your image of course, but, I suspect that it will fly through QC as it is. 

 

Am I correct in thinking that your previously failed image was not critically sharp anywhere within the frame?

[Ed Rooney]

I see no QC problem with that image. If I were doing the post I would have opened up the shadows a bit on the statue and brightened the image's exposure and saturation. But it should pass okay. 

[John Mitchell]

 

Yes, I'm probably being overly paranoid. Do you think your image would have passed QC if you had shot it as horizontal with the statue taking up much less of the frame than the blurry-ish background That's the concern I have with the image that I linked to (see below). If I had used a vertical format to frame the statue as you have, I wouldn't be as concerned. 

 

 

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aMRnFj8UZbw/s/860/860/Merida130033.jpg

I guess that at some point, where the bulk of the shot is OOF  and the principal object not prominent, it may become questionable. You could crop your image of course, but, I suspect that it will fly through QC as it is. 

 

Am I correct in thinking that your previously failed image was not critically sharp anywhere within the frame?

 

My last failure took me by surprise. It wasn't the one in the batch that I thought might have failed. There was a center of focus as far as I could see, but obviously someone disagreed. A stretch of the foreground was blurry, which might have been the problem. Also, the center of focus was on the left side of frame (horizontal) as it is in the photo that I linked to. Hence my paranoia. I have no desire to become a sin bin regular.

[John Mitchell]

I see no QC problem with that image. If I were doing the post I would have opened up the shadows a bit on the statue and brightened the image's exposure and saturation. But it should pass okay. 

 

Yes, the lighting isn't that great. I have opened up the shadows a bit already. If I get the nerve to submit this one -- it probably won't sell anyway -- I'll open it up a bit more. I generally don't adjust saturation thinking that it's best left to the end-user. A pinch doesn't hurt, though.

[spacecadet]

You get a feel for QC after a while.

[John Mitchell]

You get a feel for QC after a while.

 

Yes, I've been feeling my way around QC for almost six years. However, they still surprise me with some of their calls.

[John Mitchell]

First of all, thanks everyone for your input. Very helpful advice. My "center of focus" paranoia is slowly lessening.

 

Having said that, here is my latest "center of focus" dilemma (see link to photo below). The article of clothing (a Mayan huipil) is the main subject, and it is in perfect focus. However, the greenery is purposely blurred. Will this pass QC? Or am I looking at another ticket to the sin bin? All opinions welcome.

 

http://www.photoshelter.com/mem/img-get/I0000SkKJfPB9Trc/s/1000?1370311684

[Nick T-F]

Don't necessarily want to be over pessimistic - but I seem to recall that Alamy has said in the past that if it looks sharp in the thumbnail then it should be sharp at 100%. So deliberately oof areas should be really oof.

 

Might err on the side of caution.

 

Nick

[John Mitchell]

Don't necessarily want to be over pessimistic - but I seem to recall that Alamy has said in the past that if it looks sharp in the thumbnail then it should be sharp at 100%. So deliberately oof areas should be really oof.

 

Might err on the side of caution.

 

Nick

 

Yes, that was my primary concern. However,  anyone interested in this image would be leasing it for the piece of clothing, not for the blurry background greenery. I included the plants because I thought they complemented the floral design on the huipil (blouse), but this is really  a "content" image more than a "design' image.

[John Mitchell]

It looks as if I messed up on the link to this latest photo. I'll try again:

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000SkKJfPB9Trc/s/860/860/Merida130110.jpg

 

I'm still interesting in opinions on this one. Is the center of focus (the blouse) obvious enough for QC?

 

The leaves embroidered on the blouse/huipil are 100% sharp BTW.

 

Thanks

[John Mitchell]

OK, so here is my latest selective focus and "content" images quandary. In the image linked to below, the main subject -- and the one in 100% focus -- is the unusual looking Moorish archway, not the staircase in the background. However, my concern is that, without reading the caption, a QC person might think that I meant to focus on the stairs, which are about 80% in focus. Does this photo have an "obvious centre of focus"? Or would I be writing myself a one-way ticket to the sin bin by submitting it to Alamy?

 

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000bjUok6To8T0/s/860/860/HaciendaUxmal13009.jpg

 

Thanks again for indulging me. BTW, I would love to see examples other neurotics' COF/SF dilemmas. Please feel free to post them on this thread for comment. There is nothing like a few second opinions.