2 images rejected for TECHNICAL ISSUES

Explorer ,
Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

 

Good morning,

I just had these two rejected, I checked for noise at 100% I wish reviewers would give more of a reason instead of just TECHNICAL ISSUES as I have no idea what to fix so now I have to post here and waste your time.

Kind regards,

Stefan

TOPICS
Contributors , Troubleshooting

Views

99

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines

correct answers 2 Correct answers

Community Expert , Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Both photos have underexposed shadows and overexposed highlights.

The first photo has a halo around the dark objects next to the sky.

The second photo the flying birds should be removed. They are out of focus and appear only as spots.

Likes

Translate

Translate
Community Expert , Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Hi Stefan,

 

Moderators have very little time to check a picture. And it's very effective to refuse on the first defect seen. And the reason is indeed generic, but still gives you an indication where to look.

 

Now your first:

You say you checked noise at 100%.  Noise and other artefacts are best seen at 200% or higher. I went to 300% and the chromatic noise popped into my eyes: 

Abambo_0-1641985243131.png

 But also without that noise, you have these blown out reflections in the sea giving your sensor quite a hard time.

Abambo_1-1641985372065.png

...

Likes

Translate

Translate
Community Expert ,
Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Both photos have underexposed shadows and overexposed highlights.

The first photo has a halo around the dark objects next to the sky.

The second photo the flying birds should be removed. They are out of focus and appear only as spots.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Many thanks for quick reply
I think the 2nd is a quicker fix will give that a go and submit again

 

Thanks again

Stefan

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Stefan,

 

Moderators have very little time to check a picture. And it's very effective to refuse on the first defect seen. And the reason is indeed generic, but still gives you an indication where to look.

 

Now your first:

You say you checked noise at 100%.  Noise and other artefacts are best seen at 200% or higher. I went to 300% and the chromatic noise popped into my eyes: 

Abambo_0-1641985243131.png

 But also without that noise, you have these blown out reflections in the sea giving your sensor quite a hard time.

Abambo_1-1641985372065.png

 

The overall image is underexposed, missing blacks, as you can see on the histogram:

Abambo_2-1641985455535.png

All in all, are counter-light images very demanding. You did put your camera to ISO800, which is quite high. The image would have been better at a lower ISO and lower f value. But as an overall, it's not a good image also because of that big piece of street in the front and the dog walkers in full counter light.

 

Your second picture also has much noise in the water and the houses. Just hitting the Auto-button in Camera Raw improves the image, but also here, you have a too high ISO value, too high f value. Don't go into the extremes, especially if the lens is a weaker one. I do know nothing on the quality of your zoom lens, so this should be considered a generic remark.

Abambo_3-1641986284088.png

 

 

 

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

 

High Abambo,

 

Oh yes now you point it out why was I at 1/1250 should have dropped a bit and iso down to 200 not 800 I'm on Z6 and lens was Z24-70. I wanted to freeze the waves on the water and have a little sunburst/sunstar too.

 

Oh well next sunny morning I shall go out and try again thanks for replying,

 

Stefan 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

quote

 

High Abambo,

 

Oh yes now you point it out why was I at 1/1250 should have dropped a bit and iso down to 200 not 800 I'm on Z6 and lens was Z24-70. I wanted to freeze the waves on the water and have a little sunburst/sunstar too.


By @Hobsie

Hi Stefan,

 

Don't forget your quite high F value.

20220112_122004519_iOS.png

You should also get a correct exposure and enough sharpness with a lower f value. I suggest you take a tripod and do numerous pictures with different settings. Shoot raw, if you don't, and don't forget that in Photoshop you can combine different pictures (if you don't do HDR in LrC). HDR, however, with moving objects (like water waves) is sometimes working but also sometimes producing bad results.

 

BTW: for such pictures, I would acquire gradient ND filters, also in the digital world.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Explorer ,
Jan 12, 2022 Jan 12, 2022

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

Hi Abambo,

Yes on the bay I should have used tripod and focus stacked with the people walking well even if you forget

composition I should have concentrated on the lighting around the people and not just crank upto f22 just to get a sunburst and everything else came secondary might see if I can still get one at f16 instead. 

 

Thanks again

Stefan

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines