Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This photo taken down at the Albert Dock, Liverpool last week was rejected for being soft or lacking detail. Doesn't look too bad to my eyes.

 

Taken with a Sony Nex 3N. Camera resting on a 'bean bag' screwed into base of camera, f6.3, 1.3. sec exp, ISO 400.

 

What do you guys think please ?

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/liverpix/36574580635/in/album-72157685113064103/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can see on my screen the important parts are sharp, however, the sky looks noisy and has what looks like processing artifacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is  2048 x 1361 the original size?

Probably not.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

Is  2048 x 1361 the original size?

Probably not.

 

wim

4912 x 3264.  That's the size I sent to alamy and the size I uploaded to Flickr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little hard to see at this size, but to my eye some parts of the ship do not seem quite as sharp as the buildings in the background--perhaps there just a tad of ship movement?

 

If the ship in the foreground were less prominent, perhaps they would have taken the background to be your intended focal point, but since it is such a large part of the image, then they would take the ship to be the primary focal point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of images on Alamy taken with a NEX-3. It's a capable little camera. However, I found that it has a tendency to back-focus if you use multi-point AF. I had a couple of QC failures due to this a few years ago (my bad). Best to use flexible spot AF or manual focus, especially with night shots where there are a lot of bright lights in the background. As others have said, though, it's not really possible to see the problem at the size you've linked to -- 100% needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The maximum size I can access on Flickr is 2048 x 1361. It's not easy to make a judgement without being able to see the image at 100% (4912 x 3264) that was uploaded to Alamy. Looking at the ~40% view I agree the boat in the foreground looks softer than the buildings in the background. I think at 100% the boat would probably look decidedly soft.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sultanpepa said:

From what I can see on my screen the important parts are sharp, however, the sky looks noisy and has what looks like processing artifacts.

 

Agreed, but I wonder if the artifacts are due to what Flickr has done to the image? Do they exist in the original?

 

Have to say it looks sharp enough at the size presented, and, given the circumstances of the shot, within my tolerance band. Would need to see the full size image to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really need to see this at 100% to give an opinion, however our opinions won't change a thing if QC has failed it. 

Better to move on than try and convince yourself it should have passed.

 

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the sky has artifacts.  There is a strange dark outline on some of the clouds.  Also, the Western Railway building area on the left looks burned out and soft.

It's a great image but perhaps not to Alamy's technical requirements.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies. Not sure how to send a full res image on here.

 

I obviously thought it was sharp enough at 100% before I sent the image to Alamy. Its just a pain to get about 50% of my submissions rejected for no obvious reason. They even punish you by not letting you upload for about 10 days, very childish, I think.

 

Just trying to find out what I am doing wrong so that they don't fail me so often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Thanks for your replies. Not sure how to send a full res image on here.

 

I obviously thought it was sharp enough at 100% before I sent the image to Alamy. Its just a pain to get about 50% of my submissions rejected for no obvious reason. They even punish you by not letting you upload for about 10 days, very childish, I think.

 

Just trying to find out what I am doing wrong so that they don't fail me so often.

 

You used to get locked out for 30 days, so things have been improved considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, liverpix said:

They even punish you by not letting you upload for about 10 days, very childish, I think.

 

 

They have better things to do than spend their time assessing submissions from photographers who can't make the grade. So if you repeatedly fail the wait is an incentive to get it right next time. If there were no 'punishment' as you call it, there's nothing to stop them being continually bombarded with substandard submissions.

 

It's like any quality control system in any business. You are expected to meet the standards and if you can't then having to wait might focus your mind on how to do so. At least Alamy allow you to keep trying. Sainsburys wouldn't be so accommodating.

 

Alan

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posterisation in the sky (the dark outlines that John Walker refers to above).  Did you shoot raw and if so what software did you use for converting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said:

Posterisation in the sky (the dark outlines that John Walker refers to above).  Did you shoot raw and if so what software did you use for converting?

Shot in jpeg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks for your replies. Not sure how to send a full res image on here.

 

I obviously thought it was sharp enough at 100% before I sent the image to Alamy. Its just a pain to get about 50% of my submissions rejected for no obvious reason. They even punish you by not letting you upload for about 10 days, very childish, I think.

 

Just trying to find out what I am doing wrong so that they don't fail me so often.

 

If you're happy with their T&Cs you could upload a full size image for free here, then copy and paste the link the site provides to the uploaded image into your Alamy forum posting. You should then get more reliable comments on your image.

 

Also suggest making a note of the delete image link for future reference, or set an expiration period.

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 18:47, liverpix said:

 

 

Taken with a Sony Nex 3N. Camera resting on a 'bean bag' screwed into base of camera, f6.3, 1.3. sec exp, ISO 400.

 

 

 

Problem is, even if your camera didn't move boats do. I'd try reshooting it with a shorter exposure time and multiple shots to increase the likelihood of a sharper image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, liverpix said:

Thanks for your replies. Not sure how to send a full res image on here.

 

I obviously thought it was sharp enough at 100% before I sent the image to Alamy. Its just a pain to get about 50% of my submissions rejected for no obvious reason. They even punish you by not letting you upload for about 10 days, very childish, I think.

 

Just trying to find out what I am doing wrong so that they don't fail me so often.

 

For that we do need to see it at 100%

Probably all you have to do is to allow downloading the full image size on Flickr.

Maybe put a watermark in.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

If you're happy with their T&Cs you could upload a full size image for free here, then copy and paste the link the site provides to the uploaded image into your Alamy forum posting. You should then get more reliable comments on your image.

 

Also suggest making a note of the delete image link for future reference, or set an expiration period.

 

Mark

Thanks,Ill try that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be some camera shake, but it's obscured behind its being out of focus, I think.

If it is in focus, RAW might have saved it. A bit surprising, Sony should be fine at 400. I had passes in similar light at 1600 with an A55.

In RAW you would be able to see the noise rather than just all that jpg plastic look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Hmm.. I still don't see a full-size image. How do I do that?

 

There's a download button in the menu bar on top.

Or you can click on the image; then right-click and save as.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

There's a download button in the menu bar on top.

Or you can click on the image; then right-click and save as.

 

wim

 

Thanks. I missed that button somehow.

 

Just had a look at the full-size image. It could be the NEX-3 back-focus problem that I mentioned above. I'm no expert on these matters, but the image definitely looks too soft to me. I tried downsizing it to 3000 pixels on the long side (Alamy's minimum file size), and I think there's a chance that it might have passed QC at that size.  The NEX-3 generally has good noise control, so I don't think that's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.