hdh Posted February 21, 2016 Author Share Posted February 21, 2016 I am a fan of shallow dof All unsharp I have as well, either out of focus or mtion blurred in the puddle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Towers Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-macro-image-of-the-stipe-and-gills-of-a-king-trumpet-mushroomfungi-96296679.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=7267AA94-C600-4D67-9CAA-549B073AA694&p=279257&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=12&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d12%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d1%26qt%3d%26qt_raw%3d%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d0%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3ddavey-towers%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d0%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3dGB%26cap%3d1%26cid%3dUMCLB8SA3F5UWSRKS9RSDE2N3S3D7HTXUMC7VTN2GLLMPA88MDZWEGFUDK8H9BD7%26vd%3d0 I really didn't think this one would make the grade but I was pleasantly surprised that it did. DOF was the culprit!!! OOps, that didn't work like I thought!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 This thread rather proves that Alamy QC do actually understand when blur is deliberate and not just SoLD! Perhaps the QC paranoia is a little overdone? I fully appreciate that some people have had a cause to worry, for whatever reason. Hopefully those challenges are in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 Also they value situations, which do not allow tack sharp pictures. In somebody playing with sparking pois and you want to catch the movement of the sparks (at night), the picture will naturally be blurred and show signs of high iso (taken with an old Canon 400D). Got the example below and there are quite a few other fire poi pictures on Alamy: http://www.alamy.com/search.html?qt=fire%20poi&imgt=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 This thread rather proves that Alamy QC do actually understand when blur is deliberate and not just SoLD! Perhaps the QC paranoia is a little overdone? I fully appreciate that some people have had a cause to worry, for whatever reason. Hopefully those challenges are in the past. I agree Martin. I think this thread really is now preaching to the choir--blurry photos of a particular ilk have always been acceptable, as any of a number of related search-terms prove again and again. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 I do not believe it is a (as in one) particular ilk, this thread has several techniques that seem acceptable for QC. Most commonly obviously * Motion blur * Depth of field But the thread also has examples for: Soft Or Lacking Definition Noise Out of Focus Camera Shake which are actually Alamy QC fail reasons. The second group are the most interesting, as they are borderline. Seeing these pictures allows us to interpret where that border of QC is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I do not believe it is a (as in one) particular ilk, this thread has several techniques that seem acceptable for QC. Most commonly obviously * Motion blur * Depth of field But the thread also has examples for: Soft Or Lacking Definition Noise Out of Focus Camera Shake which are actually Alamy QC fail reasons. The second group are the most interesting, as they are borderline. Seeing these pictures allows us to interpret where that border of QC is. Another noise example, even if artistic noise... but that's the point isn't it? I'm starting the feel that everything is allowed so long as there's an obvious artistic outcome (intent is unnecessary): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 Another noise example, even if artistic noise... but that's the point isn't it? I'm starting the feel that everything is allowed so long as there's an obvious artistic outcome (intent is unnecessary): fully agree, specially with the blue part - albeit some pepole may define a great photo as pure intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Another noise example, even if artistic noise... but that's the point isn't it? I'm starting the feel that everything is allowed so long as there's an obvious artistic outcome (intent is unnecessary): fully agree, specially with the blue part - albeit some pepole may define a great photo as pure intent. funnily enough I was talking to a friend about a photo of his that he told me was pure luck and that he hadn't noticed the poster in the background which the two crazy guys in the foreground were mirroring... I suggested a better story around the taking of the picture - no intent->intent and nobody will ever be the wiser... so it's suddenly a brilliant photograph, rather than... well, just a lucky accident? Really? Edit: I think it is a brilliant photograph, full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I do not believe it is a (as in one) particular ilk, this thread has several techniques that seem acceptable for QC. Most commonly obviously * Motion blur * Depth of field But the thread also has examples for: Soft Or Lacking Definition Noise Out of Focus Camera Shake which are actually Alamy QC fail reasons. The second group are the most interesting, as they are borderline. Seeing these pictures allows us to interpret where that border of QC is. It is one particular ilk I am refering to: "obviously deliberate". Alamy also have mentioned in the past the concept of "visible at thumbnail size", and artistic intention (when talking about point of focus), as mentioned here already by others. Ignoring SOLD for the moment, the QC fail reasons you list are not quite as cut and dried as you appear to believe: Noise . . Alamy's description of noise is "excessive noise". Noise per se can be accepted, and often is--there are numerous examples showing quite noticeable luminance noise amongst Alamy's collection (especially monochromes IMMSMW). But excessive noise, especially as has been pointed out here many times in the past, excessive CHROMA noise, is much more likely to result in a fail. Out of focus . . . never been a problem when carried out in certain ways . . . if you still doubt it, do a search for "out of focus"--a large proportion of the 145,000 + images that will show up are totally out of focus. Camera shake . . . if it's deliberate, camera movement of a wide variety is usually not a problem . . . but if it's NOT noticeable at thumbnail size (and not obviously deliberate) and slipped through QC, I'd suggest you might be inviting a refund in the future. Now, SOLD . . . which image posted in this thread was SOLD? If it was one of mine and was SOLD but not noticeable at thumbnail size (and it would have to be one that had somehow escaped my usual due diligence pre-submission), I'd promptly remove it . . . refunds really are not much fun. I really haven't seen an image (shown in the biggest size) in this thread that I'd not consider submitting, excluding of course the smaller images as it's impossible to tell at that size. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 I posted already in another thread, sorry for duplication. Picture is not (yet) sold, but first picture is out of focus or soft as in QC definition. Not really noticeable @ thumbnail, kind of visible if you enlarge the picture and very obvious at 100%. In fact there is nothing in the first picture that is in focus, hence does not classify as DOF. Second photo, the face is tack sharp for comparison. I uploaded the picture deliberately, hoping it would pass QC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I posted already in another thread, sorry for duplication. Picture is not (yet) sold, but first picture is out of focus or soft as in QC definition. Not really noticeable @ thumbnail, kind of visible if you enlarge the picture and very obvious at 100%. In fact there is nothing in the first picture that is in focus, hence does not classify as DOF. Second photo, the face is tack sharp for comparison. I uploaded the picture deliberately, hoping it would pass QC. I agree first photo is SOLD . . . and if it was me, I can think of no reason to even try to get it through QC, and if it was accidental, I'd remove it once I realised it was there . . . I can't see the point other than increasing the chances of a refund. I do not think this SOLD photo indicates anything about Alamy's standards, other than the fact that sometimes images get through that perhaps shouldn't. dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with soft focus - otherwise why would anybody have an interest in diffusor filters or even consider using unsharpen in postprocessing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with soft focus - otherwise why would anybody have an interest in diffusor filters or even consider using unsharpen in postprocessing? Soft focus and out of focus are not really the same thing. Otherwise why would "beauty" and other photographers spend money on filters and even specialist soft-focus lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 I did not use a filter, neither a special soft focus lens, but asked a few people prior to upload and answers were mixed. Interested in the forum reader's views; Is the image to be classified as out of focus - or putting it more direct: shall I better remove the image as dusty dingo suggests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wawa Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Hope I did this right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marianne Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Took this with a lensbaby: Lots of greenies here - I like to see the creative touch - especially love the football net. I usually don't chance shallow DOF but sometimes my bravery is rewarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Gent Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 As usual, it rained at the Hay festival that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Love the look in the palomino's eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdh Posted June 29, 2016 Author Share Posted June 29, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Quite like this one London taxi Kumar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Vietnamese cyclist dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarsMadsen Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Don't know if it is my favorite but there is quite a bit of motion blur... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn Palmer Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 This image was a happy accident, but I think it works better than if the caged jaguar been in sharp focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 That woodpecker makes me laugh. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.