liverpix Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Hi, I got another rejected image the other day. Reason being Noise,Soft or lacking definition. The photo was taken in broad daylight on a sunny day. !/2000 sec, f5.6, ISO 200. The photo looks ok to me, what do others think ? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kuta Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Obviously you were focusing on the far objects and letting the frame of the boat (ferry?) go soft, but the background doesn't seem very sharp to me. What kind of focus area did you set? Is it possible you had an area of focus points and it focused on the near water? or boat vibrations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Please post a 100% crop from the centre of the image. There's no way we can tell otherwise. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Even though the image was rejected for the reasons given and without seeing a 100% crop, as Alan says, I think it is an image that was well seen and very worthy of being captured. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTC Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 16 hours ago, GS-Images said: Firstly, without seeing the actual jpg you posted it's hard to be sure. It also looks like it was quite noisy and it's been removed, then sharpened a lot to counter the softness caused by noise removal. That. Quote It would help to see the original jpg file to give a more accurate opinion. And that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpix Posted June 14, 2017 Author Share Posted June 14, 2017 This was the jpeg I sent to Alamy. So it was judged on this. Ill have a look for the original jpeg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 25 minutes ago, liverpix said: This was the jpeg I sent to Alamy. So it was judged on this. Ill have a look for the original jpeg. Sent to Alamy at 2048 x 1421 px ? wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpix Posted June 15, 2017 Author Share Posted June 15, 2017 2 hours ago, wiskerke said: Sent to Alamy at 2048 x 1421 px ? wim 4704 x 3264 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpix Posted June 15, 2017 Author Share Posted June 15, 2017 This is the original jpeg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpix Posted June 15, 2017 Author Share Posted June 15, 2017 This is a crop at 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 It looks OK from a distance, but when I looked at your colour jpg at 100%, the ship and buildings were soft and a little blurred. As you had a fast shutter speed, perhaps the softness was due to camera shake or problems with the focusing. Maria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I'm with Maria. It's a bit off, even in the centre. I don't know your processing- too much luminance NR might do it but why would you use any?- but I use a kit lens like yours with no problems except the odd focus miss. GS, my kit lenses are off at the edges, worse than this, but no problem as such with QC. A resize to the minimum might have got you through especially with a RAW. I might also have upped the sharpening in this borderline case, but not on a jpeg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I think you should be able to read the roman numerals on the clock face. If you can it could be my laptop display, I'll have another look on my shiny screen downstairs. To me it's just off. I would probably have submitted it with my special processing sauce. But as I said not from a jpeg. You all taught me that lesson and I haven't forgotten it. Edit: no, still off. There's also an acutance effect (I had to look that up, it's been a while) around dark-light transitions which looks like a processing artifact to me, as if clarity has been dialled right up. Seems unlikely that an experienced contributor would make processing errors, though. My kit lens is OK at 5.6, but maybe this would have passed at 8-11? It certainly didn't need to be 2000th. at 200ISO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 It just doesn't have the crispness that I would be looking for. I wouldn't have submitted it myself. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTC Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 4 hours ago, GS-Images said: I honestly wonder if our browsers are rendering things differently somehow? It's possible. The colour image posted here doesn't have colour space embedded, so yes. At full size, it's not as sharp as it could be for me. Might have passed if it were downscaled though. The transition from dark to light would be an issue for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 15 minutes ago, KTC said: The transition from dark to light would be an issue for me. You mean the purple fringing which is quite evident around the top and right-hand side of the "window"? I'm guessing this might be partly why the liverpix converted it to greyscale rather than submitting the original colour image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I think he means the acutance effect. Got it! A light bulb came on. Mackie lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 What I meant was this: Maybe I'm paranoid but I worry about this kind of thing failing QC in my photos and would try and remove the slight purple edge. Whether this counts as CA, I'm afraid this is where my knowledge probably falls short, but to my eyes, I see a slight purple edge. BTW .. hope OP doesn't mind us discussing his image like this. Have to say, I do really like the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTC Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I meant the same as Matt Ashmore. It's not the focus of the image, but it's actually quite extreme if you look to the left edge of the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 It certainly looks sharp in the centre so I have no real problem there. I do see some noise in the shadows which may be a problem for Alamy however over all I like the content and if it could be downsized would probably make the grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, GS-Images said: Maybe it just looks blue on the uncalibrated monitor I'm using right now, but the colour still matches the blue frame on the inside, if you look lower down on the right. I still do agree though that I would remove that, as it doesn't look great and obviously could be considered unacceptable fringing. That isn't fringing, that is the window frame. Geoff. Have to admit, I don't think the frame is painted blue: Are we back to 'what colour is the dress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I think that's paint. The vessel is blue on the outside. Look at the other side of the opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 I may be wrong, but the impression I get from the OP's first post and image is that he submitted this image in B&W. if that is correct, whether there is color fringing or not is a moot point. So the rejection would be for other reasons. Betty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said: I may be wrong, but the impression I get from the OP's first post and image is that he submitted this image in B&W. if that is correct, whether there is color fringing or not is a moot point. So the rejection would be for other reasons. Betty We've gone off at a bit of a tangent. A colour fringe in b/w might show as this Mackie line effect which I suggested might betray over-processing. I really meant around the edges of the buildings in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Yes, we have gone off topic and just followed an interesting line of discussion. The OP did indeed ask about a black and white version of the image so purple/blue vs white and fringing makes no difference in that respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.