3 Correct answers
JPEG compression artifacts. The highlights are also a bit overexposed.
Sandstone texture:
Exposure: blacks (left) are missing, also parts of the whites (right of the histogram). Normally, this should result in a picture with missing contrasts:
You have the painterly look of an over processed, small sensor picture. There are no fine structures left. I suppose that even your whites are missing on the histogram, that the light part of the picture has been clipped (overexposed).
As for JPEG artefacts, to bring them out clearly, I've magnified the picture to 800%. Th
...
Good photography begins with proper lighting and equipment.
While you can, under ideal conditions, get decent photos with smartphones, more often than not they are just snapshots. That might be OK for posting on social media & email but that's not what Stock customers pay for.
Adobe Stock customers expect the highest visual and technical quality for use in commercial projects. Posters, billboard & TV ads, high quality printed merchandise... see links below.
...
44
Replies
But screenshot is just screenshot, and it is always not sharp,
By joych@art
A screenshot is sharp, if the picture is sharp on the screen!
joych@art wrote:
Is it something happening after I am saving them.
No, after saving, you will have no modifications, it may be that during the save operation, depending on your parameters, you get the quality worse.
Sandstone texture:
Exposure: blacks (left) are missing, also parts of the whites (right of the histogram). Normally, this should result in a picture with missing contrasts:
You have the painterly look of an over processed, small sensor picture. There are no fine structures left. I suppose that even your whites are missing on the histogram, that the light part of the picture has been clipped (overexposed).
As for JPEG artefacts, to bring them out clearly, I've magnified the picture to 800%. They are, however, visible also at lower magnification scales:
a) sharpening artefact
b) compression artefact—visible in the darker parts of the image
c) colour noise introduced by the JPEG compression. That is visible in all the light parts of the picture.
The most damaging effect of this picture is the painterly look, where the camera software has wiped out all fine structures.
Turf, …:
Disturbing patches of out of the focus elements:
They are all over the picture.
The painterly look is also visible here, your in camera optimization has optimized details away.
If you look at your histogram, you see that here too, the whites are missing.
The biggest defect here is certainly that the blades of grass are out of focus pretty much everywhere in the image. This makes the whole picture look blurry. This is followed by the painterly look of the details.
Are you seriously looking at your image in 800% where is this part what you point it out, I went through I can not see.
By joych@art
No, but I zoomed in to 800% to make the artefacts more visible. You see at 100% that something is not OK, at 200% you see that painterly look, depending on your screen resolution, you will see the artefacts also at 200%. The moderators didn't need to zoom in. They had a 10s look to check the asset and refused. They can refuse at the first error they encounter.
AdChoices
