A

Anonymous

Question

Quality issues that I'm surprised about

Forum|Forum|3 years ago
December 23, 2022
3 replies
1097 views

I'm confused about these 2. I do get some rejected for quality, normally I have an understanding or idea why but these 2, in particular, were, in quality terms at least, better than most of my prior uploads. Can anyone tell me what I am not seeing?

Contributor critique

This topic has been closed for replies.

jacquelingphoto2017

Community Expert

Hi @26842475 ,

The composition for the first file is not good. I cannot identify a subject. It is not very sharp and has both color and grain noise. Those are in addition to what was said about the underexposure that was commented on. Overall I believe that photo quality is not good. I get the impression that it was taken with a camera with small sensor or there is too much compression.

The composition of the second image is better. However the tree at the front seem to fall out of focus. There's also noise issue, both color and grain noise. And also there are signs of either high compression or taken with a camera with small sensor. As was said it too is under expose.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

A

Anonymous

is the micro 4/3 sensor considered a small sensor? I've recently changed my Sony to Olympus and personally I've liked the results but I have seen a rejection spike lately. If there's a compression element its likely because luminance noise reduction is already at 70. This is a slightly altered one with more noise removal and exposure heightened.

Abambo

Community Expert

No, the 4/3 is not considered as a small sensor. Phone cameras have a small sensor. But still, it may be limited for what you want to do. You need to inspect your pictures at 100% and 200%. If you see artefacts as on your pictures, chances are high that the picture gets a refusal. And artefacts like on your church picture are incorrigible. You may edit less dramatically, if you have access to the raw file, you may use a better noise reduction program, but generally, you have trouble with artefacts like on your pictures.

There is also chromatic aberration, and you should clean up some debris on the picture:

Your pictures may be usable for print, I've used worse, but stock needs to keep the requirement high, as they do not know, how the buyer will use the file.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

RALPH_L

Community Expert

Photo 1 has underexposed shadows is noisy and the bird should be removed. What is the subject of the photo? What is a buyer looking for?

A

Anonymous

I was thinking abstract. However you probably have a point, %80 of what I upload is abstract and not had a download yet.

Abambo

Community Expert

Even looking at your first as an abstract picture, I wouldn't buy it. You need to compose correctly:

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

Abambo

Community Expert

Both pictures are underexposed, the 62 is strongly underexposed (no whites to the right on the histogram) and also misses some blacks (to the left):

In addition, you have strong artefacts and noise in the images:

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

A

Anonymous

ok thanks, mostly going to talk about 62 because that's simply more important to me to get on here, highlights were heavily reduced to try and for the grey sky HDR ting, I've reversed that and added a little more noise reduction (it won't stand up to much more without looking like a painting), would you say its better or just added more issues with overprocessing?

Abambo

Community Expert

You didn't solve the artefacts problem:

Besides that: I would try sky replacement if the sky does not fit.

ABAMBO | Hard- and Software Engineer | Photographer

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