Participant

Answered

Unsharp image?

Forum|Forum|8 years ago
February 8, 2018
2 replies
961 views

This image has been declined due to the reason not being sharp. Well, from all the viewers and other fotobanks, that is the first time I hear it. Am I missing something here?

Contributor critique

This topic has been closed for replies.

Correct answer v.poth

Hi,

if your picture on your screen is sharp in the original resolution, then you should check if saving the picture as jpg for upload is correct and the lowest compression level is set.

Greets,

v.poth

Ricky336

Community Expert

Hi, I agree with v.poth. It isn't completely sharp at 100% or more. And as you yourself have notice when you zoom in the edges are not clear, but a bit 'fuzzy' - hence not sharp.

It seems, though you may have tried to sharpen a bit too much in post processing - is there even a halo effect - which happens when you over sharpen? But this would also come under a different category - along with the CA.

Another thing to think about is your shutter speed when hand holding. Shouldn't be under 1/60 sec. Usual rule for hand held shots is to keep it 1/60 sec or above.

Other microstock sites don't seem to be so fussy, so when people upload here, they are very surprised their image gets rejected. Adobe appear to have higher standards - from what I have learnt. After all they are catering for the creative market rather than just an image for an internet article that is forgotten tomorrow!

L

Lukas.PlachyAuthor

Participant

Well thanks, however as already stated, this behavior is exhibited by most of lines in the imagery I have usually been able to witness in post-prod.

Unfortunately the picture above is from my older camera, which didn't have RAW yet. However as you may see from the two images I attach below, which made it through the "Adobes's higher standards" process, the boxer dog also being from the earlier camera has the very same "fussy lines", and when you resize the cow (a newer camera, so the cow has been already shot in RAW) you see the very same kind of blurriness, in fact I would say, that from the 3 samples the church is the sharpest one (aside from the trees, of course).

Btw, although I have my strongest objections to "brag" about the parameters each photo was shot at - never understood this custom, really - I shall do an exception here. And seeing the discussion which has arisen here, I was very surprised myself, when I saw the metadata. It may seem now like an stupid joke, but it isn't, so please believe me, the church was shot (btw. from a tripod due to the heavy zoom, if I recall my habits right), at 1/320 sec at F/9 on an ISO 100. Nevertheless, even when I switch off all noise reduct. or sharpening effects, the result is still the same, as you may see from the third image below (again at 8:1). So the only thing that I can imagine is, that I did not use a wire-remote (btw. a Bowden one in those times :-) and have taken the picture by pressing the release directly by hand, but I seriously doubt it, because, when having enough time, then even when not having a wire-release at hand, I always use a 2sec-delay drive.

So while I understand the standards and the matter of discussion, I rather think, that in this photograph the specific exposition and lighting (or maybe the cleanness of the background?) is rather playing some odd trick with the eyes of the viewer and/or the processing algorithms (or maybe now also the other 2 photographs get revoked as well :-).

(an image that was passed - also a JPEG-only source)

(an image that was passed - taken from RAW and you may see, that the edge line has a width of about 4-5 pixels, while the one on the church below has about 3-4, maybe 5 when taking the halo in account too)

(noise reduct / sharpening shut of)

P.S. Hmmm, or maybe I wonder, could it have been the "bent" light due to the F9? ....

Ricky336

Community Expert

I made a few assumptions. I didn't really want to get into shutter speed, tripod issues etc. I was going to ask if you used a tripod. Since you used a telephoto lens bear in mind that camera shake can be introduced by the mirror action - hence it is always a good idea to use the mirror lock function if you have it - but then also the 2sec delay which you use - should also minimize the shaking. There are a lot of factors to consider actually. Of course, when you zoom in to this level on a jpg you get to see jpg artifacts which is what you're seeing.

I don't think it has to do with the bent light though.

v.poth

Inspiring

Hi,

indeed there is nothing sharp in this image. Look at your picture at 100% or 200% zoom.

Greets,

v.poth

L

Lukas.PlachyAuthor

Participant

Well looking at 100% i find the church turret quite sharp, et least judging by the weathervane or the inside details in the dark parts of the turret window (especially look at the space between the gutter pipes to the left of the right pair of windows). I admit, that on the left border of the turret is some trace of chrom. aberation and a highlight of the sun on right, but this are a different kind of flaw.

Looking at 200% is of course not relevant, since due to the upsampling any image would be blurred.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded