Rejected for technical reasons

[chemsaf]

These two images were focus stacked in PS and sharpened w/ Topaz. Any idea why they were rejected for technical reasons?

[Marianne-Deiters]

I'm sorry to say that the cutouts are very badly done. The picture with the three screws is very blurred and the other picture shows hardly any details. It has artifacts and lots of areas without any drawing.

[chemsaf]

Wierd, when I look at them, even at 100%, they are rock sharp. I do not understand the  observation. Artifacts? "areas w/o drawings"? Please clarify

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

For example, this is what Marianne was referring to. They are unfortunately not that well done. 

See here:

[davidre]

Unfortunately, these artifacts (and several more that aren't marked by Ricky336) are typical of unretouched focus stacks. If you are using specialized stacking software like Helicon Focus or Zerene, it's critical to review the output at 200% or more and use the retouching facilities these tools offer to make the necessary corrections. Advanced tools also support different stacking algorithms optimized for certain patterns in the composition.

Software that isn't specialized for focus stacking, such as Photoshop CC, will rarely produce results acceptable for stock, and then only with the simplest subject matter. 

[chemsaf]

Thank you all... that is what I am looking for., Interestingly, when I look at some of the "artifacts" indicates, they look like typical low quality manufacturing defects, and are real. In fact, when I examine the screws and bolts used in the shoot, such defects are visible to the eye and also by touch.

I will look at Helicon.