Gone Soft Again According To Alamy

[liverpix]

14 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Both are with a A7R2 but at 100% it's comparing apples to apples because you're looking at the same pixels not the different size of the image.

The zoom lens is the Sony 28-70mm.

The standard lens is the Sony 55mm.

 

wim

Just looked at a review of the Sony A7R2. It's a high spec camera at 43.6 mp. My Sony Nex 5N is only 16.1 mp and cost me under £350, I think. The Camera body for the A7R2 is £2,000. So it's hardly comparing apples with apples !

[wiskerke]

2 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Just looked at a review of the Sony A7R2. It's a high spec camera at 43.6 mp. My Sony Nex 5N is only 16.1 mp and cost me under £350, I think. The Camera body for the A7R2 is £2,000. So it's hardly comparing apples with apples !

 

At 100% it's comparing apples to apples because you're looking at the same pixels not the different size of the image.

 

Your total image is just smaller at 100%. The pixels are the same. The sharpness is the same.

Precisely that is why Alamy and it's clients check our images at 100%.

 

wim

[liverpix]

20 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

At 100% it's comparing apples to apples because you're looking at the same pixels not the different size of the image.

 

Your total image is just smaller at 100%. The pixels are the same. The sharpness is the same.

Precisely that is why Alamy and it's clients check our images at 100%.

 

wim

I thought we agreed that your photo on the right is a bit sharper. Could be due to may things like weather conditions( my photo was taken down by the docks with a slight breeze, your photo looks like a holiday destination in summer), f number, camera ensor. You can't say its comparing apples with apples as you have a superior camera to mine.

[M.Chapman]

19 hours ago, liverpix said:

I thought we agreed that your photo on the right is a bit sharper. Could be due to may things like weather conditions( my photo was taken down by the docks with a slight breeze, your photo looks like a holiday destination in summer), f number, camera ensor. You can't say its comparing apples with apples as you have a superior camera to mine.

 

Wim is simply demonstrating what a sharp image looks like, so you hopefully understand why you failed Alamy QC. The Alamy QC requirement of sharp at 100% size is independent of the camera/lens being used. It's true that some cameras and lenses meet the standard more easily than others and some cameras and lenses will never make the grade. Others are marginal and can only make the grade if their images are downsized.

 

Mark

[liverpix]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Wim is simply demonstrating what a sharp image looks like, so you hopefully understand why you failed Alamy QC. The Alamy QC requirement of sharp at 100% size is independent of the camera/lens being used. It's true that some cameras and lenses meet the standard more easily than others and some cameras and lenses will never make the grade. Others are marginal and can only make the grade if their images are downsized.

 

Mark

Thats fair enough, but there's only going to be one winner when comparing a photo taken with apsc cmos sensor to one taken one taken with a full frame sensor. (Not comparing apples with apples !)

[M.Chapman]

8 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thats fair enough, but there's only going to be one winner when comparing a photo taken with apsc cmos sensor to one taken one taken with a full frame sensor. (Not comparing apples with apples !)

 

I think you may be missing the point. Wim is comparing images 100% pixel view with another 100% pixel view. Apples with apples, just like Alamy QC do. QC don't care what lens or camera is used (providing it's above a certain quality level) they just care about the end result.

 

With the correct processing and technique 1", Four Thirds, APSC and Full Frame cameras can all produce images that pass Alamy QC. In some cases it's actually harder to pass with a full frame camera as the higher pixel count and larger sensor will reduce depth of field, placing increased demands on lenses and focussing.

 

Mark

[spacecadet]

On 8/21/2017 at 23:37, liverpix said:

Please don't suggest Specsavers !

Sorry, but I am going to suggest it. If the image you posted looks sharp to you at 100%, and your monitor isn't defective, then eyesight may be a factor.

I had some QC bother a couple of years ago and whilst the problem lay elsewhere, the lack of reading glasses didn't help. 

Direct Sight are very reasonable- made in the UK. Just send your prescription in and they arrive in a week.

 

 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, arterra said:

 

But if your eyesight is bad, wouldn't you be inclined to toss almost all your pictures overboard, thinking they are all out of focus (while in reality they are fine)? 

Hell, when I take off my glasses, i hardly see my monitor   

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

Doesn't the brain adjust it's definition of what it perceives as sharp. If everything in your world looks slightly soft, then that becomes your new "sharp".

"Soft is the new sharp" sounds like a fashion statement. Then, when you put the right glasses on, you realise what you've been missing

 

Could the patch below be a simple test to see if our eyesights and monitors are working together to see allow inspection of pixels to the necessary level (100%)?

 

 

Do you see a uniform grey patch or can you easily see the alternating 1 pixel wide vertical light and dark grey stripes from your normal viewing distance?

NB. Needs browser set to 100% view.

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

39 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

If you use a £5K top of the range FF camera with a £10K lens and it's mounted on top of a gold plated tripod, uses a nuclear power source and a naked virgin presses the shutter, and there is movement (which I'm sure is the problem is your case) or focus isn't accurate, then it will fail QC.

 

Geoff.

 

Your images are always sharp, I presume you must carry all those accessories with you? 

[hdh]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Doesn't the brain adjust it's definition of what it perceives as sharp. If everything in your world looks slightly soft, then that becomes your new "sharp".

"Soft is the new sharp" sounds like a fashion statement. Then, when you put the right glasses on, you realise what you've been missing

 

Could the patch below be a simple test to see if our eyesights and monitors are working together to see allow inspection of pixels to the necessary level (100%)?

 

 

Do you see a uniform grey patch or can you easily see the alternating 1 pixel wide vertical light and dark grey stripes from your normal viewing distance?

NB. Needs browser set to 100% view.

 

Mark

Thanks Mark, 

 

really a good test, I can even see the individual lines on my 4k Monitor

[hdh]

32 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

 

Well the naked virgin carries it all for me, but yes, it's all always with me. 

 

Geoff.

Have been on Kingfisher hunt this morning, as always it let me down again :(. 

As for the naked virgin, I did not have one with me. 

But during I sat waiting, I saw countless great tits around.

 

Next time I take the naked virgin, maybe that attracts the kingfisher more than I or the great tits do? 

[Paul Thompson Images]

1.3 seconds could be a factor depending how you took the picture.

Did you use a cable release or your finger or self timer?

 

what kind of shutter is it?  I haven't looked up the camera so don't know if a mirror slap is involved or if it's an electronic shutter.

 

Just a few factors to check over and/or eliminate.

 

 

[spacecadet]

58 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

 

Well the naked virgin carries it all for me, but yes, it's all always with me. 

 

Geoff.

..on a golden calf cow, I trust.

[Bryan]

On 22/08/2017 at 01:20, liverpix said:

Just looked at a review of the Sony A7R2. It's a high spec camera at 43.6 mp. My Sony Nex 5N is only 16.1 mp and cost me under £350, I think. The Camera body for the A7R2 is £2,000. So it's hardly comparing apples with apples !

 

My sharpest lens, a Zuiko 50mm f1.8, came with an as new (film) camera attached, for £10. Coupled with a 16.1 MP Sony NEX 6 it will provide images that are pin sharp from corner to corner. You don't need to spend big money to obtain very good results. (It's also a stellar performer on the more densely packed sensor of the  a6500.) I've also tested old 50s from Pentax and Canon, and they are all excellent with the smaller than full frame sensor.

 

Here's a typical example

 

In my experience, the cheaper crop frame modern lenses that are designed to fit Sony are OK in the centre of the frame but pretty poor at the edges. I guess they are finding a compromise between size, weight, cost and optical performance. This is generally OK for stock, as the bits that need to be sharp are, and you can always crop if concerned about the edges. 

[John Mitchell]

I concur with  Bryan. Those lovely old manual focus lenses can give excellent results. I have a Minolta MD 50mm f/1.7 (cost me $40 CAN) that is sharp across the frame on my NEX-6. Problem is, I don't find the equivalent 75mm focal length to be very useful. If you're looking for a really sharp "standard" lens, I'd recommend the Sony E 35mm f/1.8. It's a bit expensive but worth the money. I found a used copy in pristine condition for a very good price. The OSS and wide maximum aperture make it handy for low-light shooting as well. I use the Sony E 18-55 kit lens for much of my general Alamy photos. It's plenty sharp I find, as good as any zoom lens I've owned in that focal range.  You don't need to break the bank. Just make sure that the main parts of images are in focus and shoot RAW (of course).  Good luck.

[ChrisC]

13 hours ago, GS-Images said:

 

The quality of images from an APSC or FF sensor is close to identical. FF will give you less noise in some situations but other than that, you won't see the difference with your eye at 100% crop if the same lenses are used.

 

We are all trying to help you out here and if you're the only one who thinks that image is sharp, surely you need to look deeper into why you think it is sharp? It's not our fault.    The camera and lens used really isn't the issue, and I've said this so many times to newbies here. People quote their camera/sensor/lens/how they took it/tripod or not, and say that with that setup it should be sharp so should pass QC. All that makes no difference though if the result is blurred. If you use a pin-hole camera and the result is sharp AT 100% then it will pass QC. If you use a £5K top of the range FF camera with a £10K lens and it's mounted on top of a gold plated tripod, uses a nuclear power source and a naked virgin presses the shutter, and there is movement (which I'm sure is the problem is your case) or focus isn't accurate, then it will fail QC.

 

Geoff.

I reckon it's the naked virgins fault, I often see them when I'm cycling past the Albert Dock, although unlike Liverpix, I go past during the day, even then they can't keep still, let alone press a camera shutter without moving!

[ChrisC]

23 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thats fair enough, but there's only going to be one winner when comparing a photo taken with apsc cmos sensor to one taken one taken with a full frame sensor. (Not comparing apples with apples !)

Sorry, but I think you are missing the point, it's not about winners, the full size picture you have shown (like a previous one),isn't sharp, your fellow contributors are simply trying to help by showing what a sharp image looks like, or trying to work out what your issue is, camera & lenses can be an issue, difficult lighting can be an issue, workflow can be an issue, screens etc etc.

 

But if you can't see the problem then that is a major issue & especially if you can't actually see it once Alamy has highlighted it.

Personally, i find Alamy's rules are pretty straight forward, I've only had a couple of fails, one was a colour infringement and one was for "soft images", but once it was highlighted I could see it, but I'm always careful about ensuring an image is sharp, if it isn't or I have a doubt, I won't take the chance of uploading it.

 

If you can't see what is wrong with that image, or what went wrong when you took the photo, or after processing the image when Alamy and many on this forum have said it's not acceptable, then it sounds like you have been lucky getting any images accepted, but to ensure you don't fail again you maybe need to learn a bit more about processing and image quality, otherwise this will be a continual problem, Alamy don't change the boundaries, cameras are getting better and better, but you simply need to know what a sharp image is and how to take them consistently, but if you a have any doubts don't upload it.

 

Chris

 

[liverpix]

5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I concur with  Bryan. Those lovely old manual focus lenses can give excellent results. I have a Minolta MD 50mm f/1.7 (cost me $40 CAN) that is sharp across the frame on my NEX-6. Problem is, I don't find the equivalent 75mm focal length to be very useful. If you're looking for a really sharp "standard" lens, I'd recommend the Sony E 35mm f/1.8. It's a bit expensive but worth the money. I found a used copy in pristine condition for a very good price. The OSS and wide maximum aperture make it handy for low-light shooting as well. I use the Sony E 18-55 kit lens for much of my general Alamy photos. It's plenty sharp I find, as good as any zoom lens I've owned in that focal range.  You don't need to break the bank. Just make sure that the main parts of images are in focus and shoot RAW (of course).  Good luck.

Thanks. I just came across these 2 lenses which are worth considering and are quite cheap : Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN, Samyang / Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 NCS CS.

Unfortunately, I prefer jpegs : ). Smaller size and I find then easier to process.

[liverpix]

14 hours ago, Paul Thompson Images said:

1.3 seconds could be a factor depending how you took the picture.

Did you use a cable release or your finger or self timer?

 

what kind of shutter is it?  I haven't looked up the camera so don't know if a mirror slap is involved or if it's an electronic shutter.

 

Just a few factors to check over and/or eliminate.

 

 

A self timer. (2 sec)

[Bryan]

7 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks. I just came across these 2 lenses which are worth considering and are quite cheap : Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN, Samyang / Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 NCS CS.

Unfortunately, I prefer jpegs : ). Smaller size and I find then easier to process.

 

JPGs - the work of the Devil, best avoided unless speed of the essence. e.g Live News.

 

I own both the Sigma 19 and the Rokinon 12 mm . Neither perfect, but both usable. Sigma noticeably soft at the edges, Rokinon prone to CA. Both susceptible to flare.

 

 

[spacecadet]

12 hours ago, liverpix said:

 

Unfortunately, I prefer jpegs : ). Smaller size and I find then easier to process.

It is unfortunate for you. I've already referred to the problems sticking to jpeg caused me. It's another potential point of failure, because at higher ISOs RAWs are sharper- it's as simple as that. It really is.

As to processing, rendering may take a bit longer in Lightroom, but that's about all. You can have a cuppa whilst it gets on with it.

All the forum can do is offer advice- and it's good advice, and none of what's essential will cost you anything. We can't make you follow it, but if you don't then unfortunately you'll probably fail again.

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

<> because at higher ISOs RAWs are sharper <>

 

Only if you know what to do with it.

 

wim

 

[spacecadet]

31 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

Only if you know what to do with it.

 

wim

 

I learnt that from the forum.

[John Mitchell]

17 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks. I just came across these 2 lenses which are worth considering and are quite cheap : Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN, Samyang / Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 NCS CS.

Unfortunately, I prefer jpegs : ). Smaller size and I find then easier to process.

 

A few years ago, I experimented with shooting JPEG for general walk-around photography and quickly went back to RAW. I found JPEG files very frustrating to work with. It doesn't really take that long to process most RAW files.

 

Keep in mind that the Sigma 19mm doesn't have OSS and is not fully compatible with Sony's hybrid AF system. It does get good reviews, though. 

 

 

[Martin P Wilson]

I only  use out of camera JPEGs for live news where time is of the essence and I will be transmitting from my laptop. Oh, and for family snapshots when I don't use my 'phone, and then only sometimes. It's RAW for everything else.

 

Selecting and captioning is the biggest job (I don't machine gun), adjusting doesn't take long if shooting technique is good. Then I go and make a quick cup of tea while they process or start on another batch, usually less than 5 minutes per batch on my properly configured workstation and professional software (an excellent investment, more cost-effective than most of my camera gear!).