Thanks for giving us the chance to consider your image. Unfortunately, during our review we found that it features excessive post-processing and/or noise, so we can't accept it into our collection.
Excessive artifacts/noise can be caused by low light, bad camera settings, strong compression or excessive post-production.
If it was due to post production effects, know that our customers typically prefer to add their own special effects, filters or black-and-white conversions to fit the needs of their projects, so adding these effects in advance drastically reduces the market for your image.
This was focus stacked with Zerene Stacker, but so were many other images that they accepted. Is it background noise? Would doing some post-production noise reduction get it through with another attempt? Is something else wrong?
Many thanks in advance.
There is noise on the background and that can be solved with noise reduction.
But I also saw errors of the stacking processor, that may be more critical:
Hi Abambo, thanks for the reply. I'll see about restacking and doing more manual touch-up there. As for the noise, would a dozen or two notches on the luminance slider in LR be enough? I do not own and am not proficient in photoshop.
You may use the luminance and other related sliders to reduce the nose and restore details. We are not able to tell you how much slide point required. When making your adjustments, zoom your image to between 100 and 200%. In that way you will be ale to see the correction as you apply it. You may find How to Reduce Noise in Lightroom useful.
Without Photoshop (or a similar product where you can do manual masking) you will have problems eliminating most of the artefacts. You can play with the parameters and I think Lr does a pretty good job here, but it is not perfect. It may, however, be enough.
As you do not own Photoshop, your Lightroom version is a little bit older and the noise reduction could be different.
The picture here is out of Adobe Camera RAW, but the sliders (and the underlying engine) in Lr are similar and the parameters can be taken over.
And BTW: Great picture. I need to get into stacking also one day... 🙂
Yep, what you're seeing there (and in a lot of places all around the outside edges of the subject) is the result of the recommended stacking and editing methods for the software (Zerene Stacker). The two algorithms -- PMAX and DMAP -- are run subsequent to one another. PMAX handles detail, edges, and overlapping objects better, at the expense of color, contrast, and noise. DMAP is better with color, contrast, and noise, but leaves lots of halos and blur where things overlap between depths of field. The trick is to use DMAP stack as the base layer, and selectively replace problem areas with the PMAX stack layer. The program does a good job at not bringing in 100% of that layer in an unfeathered 1-to-1 replacement (unless you tell it to), but I seem to always get the PMAX noise, no matter what. This is going to be my next question for the incredible creator and developer of the program, Rik, who not only replies to questions/comments lightning fast, but is constantly (and single-handedly) improving his software.
Thanks for the feedback and kind words!