John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Sorry, don't know another way to view at 100%, do you? View, download, what's the difference? Post pic... and a screen shot of the 'relevant' part at 100%. Don't ask people to download it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author 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 So I need new glasses then. I see it as no less sharp than most of my others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Mark, change your workflow. Start to shoot RAW, post-process in Tiff and at the end "Save as" as Jpeg for upload to agency(ies). Certainly back-up the Tiffs and Raws!!!!! I edit the work of 17 different photographers and always HATE it when they present me Jpegs. The quality is simply inferior. Cheers, THankyou but that photograph was taken a year ago. I didn't have any problem with jpegs for 5 years and I can't turn my jpegs into raws. My few raws look a bit sharper but I can't work out how to preserve that in the jpegs. I might try it for high ISO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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... 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 Not only has the noise reduction made a mess of the background, you have NR working on areas that should be sharper - it's 'fooling' as a thumb as to what the image is...i.e. what should be sharp. To me, that's classic SoLD. Not sure if the head of the statue is in sharp focus, just don't understand the point of the exposure......on camera flash..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Forget about the workflow. You need to change your attitude first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Forget about the workflow. You need to change your attitude first... Can you clarify, please? To photography, forums, processing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I'm not use to Photobucket but I managed to get a full size image by hitting the edit option, sliding the size up as big as it would go and then hitting save. That has given me a 38.5Mb uncompressed image (2990 X 4500) which I have then saved to my machine as a 6.1Mb compressed Jpeg. The statue looks acceptably sharp to me but as Betty says above, there is some pretty awful red-green colour noise visible in the background building, particularly the plain darker midtones and shadows. I would personally never submit an image with such visible noise. Shooting Jpegs at ISO 1600 and presumably sharpening in camera and/or PP is the likely cause. It probably deserves to fail based on the noise which I would definitely say is unacceptable. Perhaps Alamy gave the wrong reason for failure as the noise has not destroyed the detail in the main subject so it is not really SoLD to me. Shooting raw with a tripod would perhaps solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Not only has the noise reduction made a mess of the background, you have NR working on areas that should be sharper - it's 'fooling' as a thumb as to what the image is...i.e. what should be sharp. To me, that's classic SoLD. Not sure if the head of the statue is in sharp focus, just don't understand the point of the exposure......on camera flash..? To illuminate a statue in shadow at night. IIRC the nahds were the point of focus and DoF meant to cover the head adequately. I've certainly had images accepted with much shallower DoF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Forget about the workflow. You need to change your attitude first... Can you clarify, please? To photography, forums, processing.. On-camera flash (ugh!)... Admitting your pix aren't very good (ugh)... Complaining when QC do their job... Shooting Jpeg... Enough?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 I'm not use to Photobucket but I managed to get a full size image by hitting the edit option, sliding the size up as big as it would go and then hitting save. That has given me a 38.5Mb uncompressed image (2990 X 4500) which I have then saved to my machine as a 6.1Mb compressed Jpeg. The statue looks acceptably sharp to me but as Betty says above, there is some pretty awful red-green colour noise visible in the background building, particularly the plain darker midtones and shadows. I would personally never submit an image with such visible noise. Shooting Jpegs at ISO 1600 and presumably sharpening in camera and/or PP is the likely cause. It probably deserves to fail based on the noise which I would definitely say is unacceptable. Perhaps Alamy gave the wrong reason for failure as the noise has not destroyed the detail in the main subject so it is not really SoLD to me. Shooting raw with a tripod would perhaps solve the problem. I'm evidently not used to PB either. The noise I thought I had cracked and there's none on my monitor- 15 colour NR in LR. I have far worse background noise already on Alamy but there's no PP sharpening. As I said I have had a fail for noise which I accept, but it's tough to work out what to do if the reason is wrong. Thanks for the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Not only has the noise reduction made a mess of the background, you have NR working on areas that should be sharper - it's 'fooling' as a thumb as to what the image is...i.e. what should be sharp. To me, that's classic SoLD. Not sure if the head of the statue is in sharp focus, just don't understand the point of the exposure......on camera flash..? To illuminate a statue in shadow at night. IIRC the nahds were the point of focus and DoF meant to cover the head adequately. I've certainly had images accepted with much shallower DoF. Well you haven't had this one accepted. I downloaded the file and sorry but it's a mess. As a thumb you would expect the whole statue to be pretty much in focus , especially the head - that's what SoLD is there for. If you imply the head is in focus, the image should show that. Why not use a tripod, use enough DOF to cover the statue and off camera (clam shell lighting would look good) strobes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I've finished my peanuts. Off to bed. But, sincerely, stop complaining. Review every aspect of your workflow (people have made useful suggestions, which you don't seem to heed)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Forget about the workflow. You need to change your attitude first... Can you clarify, please? To photography, forums, processing.. On-camera flash (ugh!)... Admitting your pix aren't very good (ugh)... Complaining when QC do their job... Shooting Jpeg... Enough?? Technique tutorial not asked for, not complaining but asking, 5000+ original jpegs on Alamy. I've had a few opinions on the image which I can consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Is there a "plus factor" why you decided to shoot the statue at night? If not, go back during the day and reshoot it in appealing light and the best possible composition (framing). Just my two cents. Cheers, Philippe I was there at night. Next day, Moselweinfest....I'm not missing a glass of Riesling for some crummy statue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Morrison Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Forget about the workflow. You need to change your attitude first... Can you clarify, please? To photography, forums, processing.. On-camera flash (ugh!)... Admitting your pix aren't very good (ugh)... Complaining when QC do their job... Shooting Jpeg... Enough?? 5000+ original jpegs on Alamy. 5000 images? You've been lucky. G'night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Mark, I will go ahead and echo what others have already said: The image is totally unsharp with what looks like some pretty heavy-handed noise reduction or JPG processing (the statue looks like a watercolor painting that's been rained upon!), JPG artifacts and background noise all rolled into one. If you do truly care about the quality of your work, step back and rethink your approach. First step would be to accept that you do need to clean up some things in your workflow (can QC really be wrong so many times?). Then you can start to get to the base of the problem and work towards a solution. That image never would have left my hard drive. It probably never would have even left my SD card! Best, Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Not only has the noise reduction made a mess of the background, you have NR working on areas that should be sharper - it's 'fooling' as a thumb as to what the image is...i.e. what should be sharp. To me, that's classic SoLD. Not sure if the head of the statue is in sharp focus, just don't understand the point of the exposure......on camera flash..? To illuminate a statue in shadow at night. IIRC the nahds were the point of focus and DoF meant to cover the head adequately. I've certainly had images accepted with much shallower DoF. Well you haven't had this one accepted. I downloaded the file and sorry but it's a mess. As a thumb you would expect the whole statue to be pretty much in focus , especially the head - that's what SoLD is there for. If you imply the head is in focus, the image should show that. Why not use a tripod, use enough DOF to cover the statue and off camera (clam shell lighting would look good) strobes. I don't have suitable flashguns and don't earn enough fron stock to buy them. St Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Not only has the noise reduction made a mess of the background, you have NR working on areas that should be sharper - it's 'fooling' as a thumb as to what the image is...i.e. what should be sharp. To me, that's classic SoLD. Not sure if the head of the statue is in sharp focus, just don't understand the point of the exposure......on camera flash..? To illuminate a statue in shadow at night. IIRC the nahds were the point of focus and DoF meant to cover the head adequately. I've certainly had images accepted with much shallower DoF. Well you haven't had this one accepted. I downloaded the file and sorry but it's a mess. As a thumb you would expect the whole statue to be pretty much in focus , especially the head - that's what SoLD is there for. If you imply the head is in focus, the image should show that. Why not use a tripod, use enough DOF to cover the statue and off camera (clam shell lighting would look good) strobes. I don't have suitable flashguns and don't earn enough fron stock to buy them. St I know it's not the point of the thread but you are creating your own virtuous circle. If you shoot images like that, IMO.......you won't earn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Mark, I will go ahead and echo what others have already said: The image is totally unsharp with what looks like some pretty heavy-handed noise reduction or JPG processing (the statue looks like a watercolor painting that's been rained upon!), JPG artifacts and background noise all rolled into one. If you do truly care about the quality of your work, step back and rethink your approach. First step would be to accept that you do need to clean up some things in your workflow (can QC really be wrong so many times?). Then you can start to get to the base of the problem and work towards a solution. That image never would have left my hard drive. It probably never would have even left my SD card! Best, Jason I really don't see it so maybe it is an eyesight problem. Are you aware it's a front-lit rough-finish bronze? I have seen artefacts and I don't see them either. The NR is no more than I occasionally do on my other high ISO images on Alamy. And as I've said I haven't changed my workflow. I don't say QC are wrong but I couldn't see the problem here which is why I asked. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Thanks to those who offered an opinion on the image. That's probably as far as it can usefully go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reciprocity Images Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Mark, I will go ahead and echo what others have already said: The image is totally unsharp with what looks like some pretty heavy-handed noise reduction or JPG processing (the statue looks like a watercolor painting that's been rained upon!), JPG artifacts and background noise all rolled into one. If you do truly care about the quality of your work, step back and rethink your approach. First step would be to accept that you do need to clean up some things in your workflow (can QC really be wrong so many times?). Then you can start to get to the base of the problem and work towards a solution. That image never would have left my hard drive. It probably never would have even left my SD card! Best, Jason I really don't see it so maybe it is an eyesight problem. Are you aware it's a front-lit rough-finish bronze? I have seen artefacts and I don't see them either. The NR is no more than I occasionally do on my other high ISO images on Alamy. And as I've said I haven't changed my workflow. I don't say QC are wrong but I couldn't see the problem here which is why I asked. thanks. "And as I've said I haven't changed my workflow." And there lies the problem. Bronze or not: Even in low light, harsh light, back light... with a tripod and good technique there's no reason you shouldn't see every crack and speck of dust of that thing. Tripod, lower ISO, better lighting, SHOOT RAW, etc. A combination of some/all of that will help depending on the situation. If seeing is the problem: Download some files from the free section of microstock and compare. Or, go knock off a couple shots from a good up to date DSLR or mirrorless camera in your local camera shop and your eyes will bleed. I am certainly not saying you need a new camera to get sharp shots, but it will give you an idea of what to look for. -Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 The only part of the image that seems in focus to me is the broomstick. The rest is quite soft. I would not have uploaded it. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Walker Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Had a look at 100%. It's marginal but it doesn't look particularly sharp to me. Also the out of focus brickwork looks 'muddy'. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 It it were my photo, I wouldn't have uploaded it, due to the harsh high contrast lighting combined with the uneven texture of the statue. I think the combination causes a loss of definition on the statue surface, regardless of how well in focus it might be. So, too risky for QC, IMHO. Also, as Philippe has suggested, I think it would just look a lot better in nicer lighting. I usually only submit images that I think will be visually appealing to the customers, and have tossed out ones that I didn't get right with lighting, composition, etc. Maria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Yates Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Definitely SOLD and sin bin material. If that is the standard that you are uploading i would stop and evaluate your quality and not just change your workflow but your camera equipment as well, especially if you want to take night shots like that a tripod would be a must. If this is your living then invest in some better kit that has better capabilities. A few years ago i went from a DX system to FX which gave a dramatic increase in picture quality (Nikon D80 to Nikon D700) If you don't' make a change your frustration will only increase and boil over. As others have said download some tack sharp detailed example images and compare yours side by side thentake time to reflect on what you are seeing. Regards Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.