spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I had been moaning a lot lately about QC failures so I thought I would spare you the details but MDM suggested on another thread that I bend your eyes again. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/markrhdunn/DSC06359-2.jpg~original Previously I'd simply thought I was getting cavalier but that doesn't account for all my woes. To me it does seem that the bar has been raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 It looks fine to me at the magnified size (100% would obviously be better). Perhaps QC expected more of the frame to be in focus. I'm not sure why that would be, though. The sweeper sculpture is obviously the main subject. Compression artifacts perhaps (?), especially if the original that you worked on was a JPEG. Perhaps you should e-mail member services and ask for an explanation. I've done that in the past, and they were usually quite helpful. UPDATE: On second look, the sweeper's head appears to be a bit soft. That could be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I'm seeing a lot of color noise in the louvered grate behind the sweeper. SoLD is a term often used to cover a multitude of sins, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I would need to see it at 100% to judge sharpness. It looks sharp at its present size biut 1024 pixels isn't large enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Sorry, I can see it at 100%, can't find the problem. Can anyone help with sharing a full-size original? John, your relative puzzlement echoes mine. It is a jpeg but I have never changed my processing and never had artefacts before. Betty, I've had specific fails for noise before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I think you've said in the past that you take JPEGs. This comment from a DPReview test of your camera might have some bearing on the softness and smearing that I can see on the head of the sweeper statue and in the leaves on the ground that should have been sharper given your likely focal distance, aperture and focal length. They said "Visible loss of detail at anything over ISO 400 in JPEG mode (noise reduction too strong)". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 I think you've said in the past that you take JPEGs. This comment from a DPReview test of your camera might have some bearing on the softness and smearing that I can see on the head of the sweeper statue and in the leaves on the ground that should have been sharper given your likely focal distance, aperture and focal length. They said "Visible loss of detail at anything over ISO 400 in JPEG mode (noise reduction too strong)". I've subbed up to 1600 before without any problems. 800 never needs NR and 1600 often doesn't. I have had noisier and softer accepted from the A350. I wasn't interested in the leaves and I can't see the 'smearing' you describe, I'm afraid; i wonder if it isn't just the edge of the DoF, selective focus being acceptable. So it's not a close call in your book? perhaps John and I need new glasses, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I'm seeing a lot of color noise in the louvered grate behind the sweeper. SoLD is a term often used to cover a multitude of sins, right? True, there is quite a bit of noise there. Very eagle-eyed of you. However, I'm not sure that SoLD would include noise since it's a sin in its own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I think you've said in the past that you take JPEGs. This comment from a DPReview test of your camera might have some bearing on the softness and smearing that I can see on the head of the sweeper statue and in the leaves on the ground that should have been sharper given your likely focal distance, aperture and focal length. They said "Visible loss of detail at anything over ISO 400 in JPEG mode (noise reduction too strong)". I've subbed up to 1600 before without any problems. 800 never needs NR and 1600 often doesn't. I have had noisier and softer accepted from the A350. I wasn't interested in the leaves and I can't see the 'smearing' you describe, I'm afraid; i wonder if it isn't just the edge of the DoF, selective focus being acceptable. So it's not a close call in your book? perhaps John and I need new glasses, then. Why not experiment with shooting in RAW? Sounds as if using JPEG mode could be the source of your problems. Too bad our Sony guru David K. has retired from the forum. As I remember, he was quite fond of the a55. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I think you've said in the past that you take JPEGs. This comment from a DPReview test of your camera might have some bearing on the softness and smearing that I can see on the head of the sweeper statue and in the leaves on the ground that should have been sharper given your likely focal distance, aperture and focal length. They said "Visible loss of detail at anything over ISO 400 in JPEG mode (noise reduction too strong)". I've subbed up to 1600 before without any problems. 800 never needs NR and 1600 often doesn't. I have had noisier and softer accepted from the A350. I wasn't interested in the leaves and I can't see the 'smearing' you describe, I'm afraid; i wonder if it isn't just the edge of the DoF, selective focus being acceptable. So it's not a close call in your book? perhaps John and I need new glasses, then. I don't think it's a selective focus problem. I think another problem with this particular image is the fact that it is a metal statue and the frontal lighting and associated reflections are not sharply defining the texture within the casting. Add a little softness from the higher ISO and you get the impression of smearing, particularly around the head. I wouldn't have submitted it - but then, I photograph flowers, so what do I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 I've been experimenting lately but don't see many improvements. Never noticed anything resembling 'smearing' before and yes, I did replace my A350 with the A55 on David's recommendation (he'd recommended the A350 as well) so I'm happy that it's not the camera's fault. John R, it wasn't even marginal in my reckoning. That's what's worrying. Either my judgement is up the chute all of a sudden- or I need new specs-or the standard has tightened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I was using JPEG mode with my Sony NEX-6 for awhile. The results were really good (no QC failures). However, I went back to RAW because I missed the control it offers. The results are definitely technically superior, even with my limited processing skills. P.S. I also had some problems with detail-smearing when shooting JPEG and had to trash the occasional image, another reason why I went back to RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 To me it does seem that the bar has been raised. Most contributors would disagree with you, I think. Instead of complaining about QC, I suggest you go back to basics and review your working methods and workflow, to see where you're going wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 To me it does seem that the bar has been raised. Most contributors would disagree with you, I think. Instead of complaining about QC, I suggest you go back to basics and review your working methods and workflow, to see where you're going wrong... Personally, I think that the QC bar has been gradually raised over the years -- probably a "natural" consequence of improving sensors. Some of the examples given in Alamy's aged (ten years old?) submission guidelines are really rough. You'd have to work hard at making images look that bad these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 To me it does seem that the bar has been raised. Most contributors would disagree with you, I think. Instead of complaining about QC, I suggest you go back to basics and review your working methods and workflow, to see where you're going wrong... Personally, I think that the QC bar has been gradually raised over the years -- probably a "natural" consequence of improving sensors. Some of the examples given in Alamy's aged (ten years old?) submission guidelines are really rough. You'd have to work hard at making images look that bad these days. Maybe. Maybe not. But complaining about QC (given a 95% pass rate??) just sounds like paranoia. Anyone who's failing QC, on a regular basis, should review everything about the way they take and process photographs... or just give up altogether... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 To me it does seem that the bar has been raised. Most contributors would disagree with you, I think. Instead of complaining about QC, I suggest you go back to basics and review your working methods and workflow, to see where you're going wrong... IIRC that is what you suggested last time, when I replied that my methods and workflow (dreadful term) hadn't changed. I have reviewd ad nauseam. Incidentally I wasnt' complaining. I'm beyond that. I was looking for help with something I couldn't understand myself. I won't give up my trade if you don't mind. BTW it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. One's card can be marked and I may be in the frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 You're failing QC. Don't fret about whether the bar has been raised. Don't say that your workflow hasn't changed. Get off the forums, and get to the bottom of the problem. Or pack it in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 You're failing QC. Don't fret about whether the bar has been raised. Don't say that your workflow hasn't changed. Get off the forums, and get to the bottom of the problem. Or pack it in... Not fretting, asking, after 5 trouble-free years and page after page of green passes. This is my living. Would you mind venturing an opinion on the image, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 You're failing QC. Don't fret about whether the bar has been raised. Don't say that your workflow hasn't changed. Get off the forums, and get to the bottom of the problem. Or pack it in... Not fretting, asking. This is my living. Would you mind venturing an opinion on the image, please? If you post at 100%, I will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 You're failing QC. Don't fret about whether the bar has been raised. Don't say that your workflow hasn't changed. Get off the forums, and get to the bottom of the problem. Or pack it in... Not fretting, asking. This is my living. Would you mind venturing an opinion on the image, please? If you post at 100%, I will... Already done to the satisfaction of many, I think, if not can you tell me how? I an currently looking at a 100% version in Photobucket at the link I have already posted. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/markrhdunn/qc/DSC06359-2.jpg~original Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I can see a pic in which a statue of a streetsweeper occupies most of the frame. Is this the whole pic, or just a very small part? Best way, perhaps, is to post the whole pic... then a selected area at 100%... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 That's all of it. Can you not down load it and them zoom to 100%? The problem is the whole statue, cropping wouldn't help much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 That's all of it. Can you not down load it and them zoom to 100%? The problem is the whole statue, cropping wouldn't help much What... I have to download the pic? You're kidding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Sorry, don't know another way to view at 100%, do you? View, download, what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alp Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I could only see the small version at first, but then went back in again and somehow saw the 100% version - I don't know how or why it changed, but I did see it, so maybe check again, there was no need to download. So having said that it does look slightly softer on the top of the head. But more than that it's got the typical sharp outline but soft as mush inner to.... well pretty much everything I'm afraid. It looks like a 10 year old 6MP compact camera with the in camera jpeg sharpness turned up to fool you it's sharp. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.