Jump to content
Pabloohana

Confused of failing QC

Recommended Posts

Hi all,


I uploaded a number of images and they have failed QC (and now very frustratingly had my account frozen for 10 days!) because of:
'Soft of lacking definition'

'Noise'


But I'm not sure why? The images have not been touched up and are in focus. I have emailed Alamy and had no response.

 

I later added a number of paparazzi style images so naturally, they were not quite as perfect as you'd imagine but they were also rejected. 

 

Anyone any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please inspect every inch of your images at 100%. That's when they'll look soft, or noisy, or have dust bunnies, or you'll see chromatic aberration. 

The QC people enlarge them to 100% to inspect them, and that's why they find the bad stuff.

Betty

Edited by Betty LaRue
Typo

Share this post


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

Hi all,


I uploaded a number of images and they have failed QC (and now very frustratingly had my account frozen for 10 days!) because of:
'Soft of lacking definition'

'Noise'


But I'm not sure why? The images have not been touched up and are in focus. I have emailed Alamy and had no response.

 

I later added a number of paparazzi style images so naturally, they were not quite as perfect as you'd imagine but they were also rejected. 

 

Anyone any ideas?

 

Can you post the failed images so that we can view them at 100%.

 

"not quite as  perfect as  you'd imagine". you have answered you own question there.

 

 

 

Craig

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pap one also has terrible interpolation artefacts, possibly down to oversharpening as well, but as Geoff says it's not sharp to start with.

As Geoff also says, pap-type images, if genuinely newsworthy, should go to live news and bypass QC.

Alamy don't offer feedback on QC failures.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John, much as the others have said really.

 

The Pap image is a little blurred on the subject, so that's not going to get through a regular QC. News, maybe.

 

The other portrait images have a lot of noise. Looking at them all in your link, noise is the main issue on all of them, with some of your portraits up to ISO 3200 & very little if any noise reduction. Your D3100 is a fine camera, the 18-135 zoom is acceptable, but it's worth bearing in mind with a consumer zoom that they often loose image quality at their max zoom length. With a crop camera, diffraction starts to creep in after f11, & you have a few shots at f14 - which with the noise & max zoom, only adds to the softness. Nice lighting though.

 

As Geoff mentioned, just mask the sharpening & deal with the noise & they may be ok.

Edited by Orange Elephant
Acknowledge Geoff's comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 13:02, Pabloohana said:

Here's a link to one of the profile photos: https://www.flickr.com/gp/47484166@N08/fY9RB1

And the pap one: https://www.flickr.com/gp/47484166@N08/9iT8W3

The portrait seems pin sharp to me, I can even see the whiskers. I can sympathise with you as I have also had quite a few submissions failed for softness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GS-Images said:

 

The mouth is sharp but the eyes are not. Alamy also mentioned excess noise, which the portrait definitely has.

 

Like we keep saying, you only have to look at 100% and you'll see for yourself. If anyone cannot see these things, they can't be looking at the original at 100% on an appropriate display.

 

Geoff.

I don't see any noise on the portrait.

Share this post


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

I don't see any noise on the portrait.

 

The background has pretty bad noise artifacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the noise is the primary factor on both pictures. 
I feel for instance that the beard stubble almost blend in with the noise.  

Overall the face is in focus but due to the noise the portrait is generally lacking definition.

When you downscale the portrait to 3000x2000 pixels, the nose becomes less visible and the picture may just pass QC (as 6MPix is the minimum picture size).

 

The photo with the car has been discussed - I agree the man is soft - maybe due to movement. 

Downscaling will probably not help on that one. 

Share this post


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

I don't see any noise on the portrait.

 

Are you sure you're looking at a 100% image? Use the download button to download the original 4608 x 3072 image. Just clicking the magnifier doesn't appear to show the image at 100% size.

 

Here's a 100% screenshot.

 

Screen_Shot_2017-09-05_at_07.26.17.png

 

Look's quite noisy to me.

The other image (man + car) is significantly noisier.

 

Mark

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your main problem is the high ISO of your photos. Try to shoot below 400 ISO. I am new here but work in the microstock field since several years and rarely propose images over 100 ISO...and it is why we need fast lens. Alternatively , you can try to use  "Noiseware professional" to remove the noise. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP, all your images look like live news- were they uploaded as such, which bypasses QC? If so I'm puzzled as to why you have failed. Perhaps Alamy didn't think they qualified as news, in which case they go into QC.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


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

I don't see any noise on the portrait.

 

Talk about noise  - it looks to me like there is an overlay of coarse grit on the image. You definitely have a problem if you can't see it as Geoff says.

 

One reason for noise not being apparent is the monitor used - I notice that it is much harder, for example, to see noise on my MacBook Pro with a Retina screen than on my good matte monitor. The Retina screen is probably at the extreme end as any reflective screen will likely reduce the ability to see noise, moreover if the screen is positioned in such a way as to enhance reflections. Another very obvious reason could be an eyesight problem. Whatever the case, you need to figure out why you can't see noise in that image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

 

Try to shoot at ISO100 unless you really need to go higher. Even at ISO400, use Lightroom to remove the noise when it's mild. You really don't need all these various other programs for such basic things as removing background noise. A shot like that portrait, assuming the light was fair, doesn't even need a high ISO at all, or a fast lens.

 

 
If you can't see that noise, you really are doing something wrong, and it explains why you don't see a problem with that image you recently posted about. I can't explain why you can't see it, but if you don't see such obvious things like that, you need to (FOR YOUR OWN SAKE) resolve whatever it is, or you'll keep failing QC. You have to be able to check images at 100% properly in this business.

 

Geoff.

 

Sure Geoff, I just think about sport event photos where a fast lens help to shoot in low ISO...  I suggested Noiseware because it helped me to save some photos years ago when noise was a bigger problem. Interesting things are profils you can use for different scenes, like night scenes or just remove the noise on the sky  keeping the skin unchanged in a portrait to preserve details. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your distance vision is fine, you may only need a pair of pound-shop readers for editing. I'm further gone than that.

If you can't see the monitor well at about 18", you definitely need some IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GS-Images said:

 

Talking of eyesight, I've recently had the opposite problem. For a time I kept deleting photos directly in my camera, thinking the AF missed focus. I'd then look at others on my PC when home, and delete some that didn't look sharp. It wasn't long before I realised that actually those images were sharp and it was my eyes. This has all been in the past 6 months or so. Now when processing and editing I have to sit back a little from the monitor to assess whether an image really is sharp or not. I need glasses!   :)

 

Geoff.

Sounds like you are long-sighted. You can get very adequate off the shelf reading glasses from the pound shop or poundland or whatever it is called. Or you can get slightly more expensive ones from Tesco (2 for £6 or something). I was travelling to Ireland recently and forgot my reading glasses but Tesco in Holyhead saved the day. Without reading glasses I could not look at my images properly. 

 

Posted this before I saw spacecadet's similar post.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could probably use the old close-up lens formula to work out what strength glasses you need but I suspect +1 or 2 dioptre will do it.

Take your camera to the shop and try them out on the LCD screen- that should be about right. One reason I don't chimp is that I couldn't focus on the screen with my distance glasses anyway.

If it's any consolation, it took me about 13 years to go from off-the-shelf readers to needing glasses for distance as well. HTH.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GS-Images said:

Thanks Mark, it does help. I'll take a walk around my local supermarket soon and give some pairs a try. I'll see who I can drag with me to tell me how I look (all my cows are busy).

 

Geoff.

 

Shouldn't let the bull run with the herd Geoff.;)

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GS-Images said:

 I'll see who I can drag with me to tell me how I look (all my cows are busy).

 

 

 

Why not a selfie :D ? and let QC choose the pairs.B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Tannachy said:

 

The background has pretty bad noise artifacts.

Surely, its the portrait that's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Tannachy said:

 

The background has pretty bad noise artifacts.

 

 

27 minutes ago, liverpix said:

Surely, its the portrait that's important.

 

The whole image is very noisy, it's just that it is more evident in the areas where there is little or no detail (the background). Look at the ears for example. It was shot at ISO2200 so it is bound to be noisy. It also looks very oversharpened.

 

My advice to the OP would be to shoot at much lower ISO (400 max) in better light if necessary (or use a monopod or tripod), make sure you are not underexposing, shoot raw and, if sharpening, use sharpening suitable for portraiture only and don't overdo it (Lightroom has a good preset for this). Also apply some modest color and luminance noise reduction in LR if shooting at or above ISO400. The D3300 is more than capable of producing very decent images and has no AA filter so images should be inherently sharp.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


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

My advice to the OP would be to shoot at much lower ISO (400 max)

I have submitted plenty of images at ISO 1600 - 6400 what I never do is oversharpen them (bare minimum) and in the case of ISO 1600 and below no noise reduction either

(I have never failed QC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LawrensonPhoto said:

I have submitted plenty of images at ISO 1600 - 6400 what I never do is oversharpen them (bare minimum) and in the case of ISO 1600 and below no noise reduction either

(I have never failed QC)

 

Agreed. A lot depends on the camera, its sensor and the processing applied. It's difficult to define a simple rule like ISO 400 max. On my small sensor cameras I tend to agree with the ISO400 rule (it keeps the post processing simple), but with APSC sized sensors or above you can go to much higher ISOs. Sure I can go above ISO400 with a small sensor, but I have to be sure that the picture is exposed optimally (so I don't need to open up the shadows too much which would reveal the noise), I may also need to downsize, or apply masked noise removal and use the same mask inverted when applying any sharpening. I believe the amount of available light also makes a difference. The same ISO setting may be fine in bright sunlight, but in low light, more noise may creep in.

 

Mark 

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


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

The whole image is very noisy, it's just that it is more evident in the areas where there is little or no detail (the background). Look at the ears for example. It was shot at ISO2200 so it is bound to be noisy. It also looks very oversharpened.

+1

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.