technical issues

[Sejin.___.Bears]

can someone tell me what technical issues are in the picture?

both had good histogram 

[@MNiessenPhoto · Accepted solution]

Hi,

None is sharp.

Additionally, #1 is too dark and warm, and IMO #2 lacks contrast.

Hope that helps,

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

[Sejin.___.Bears]

hi

how can a photo taken at 100mm 1/400sec on a tripod not be sharp?

do you meen part of it is not sharp or all of the photo is not sharp?

[@MNiessenPhoto]

How can this be the "correct answer"?

No need to waste my time explaining anything if it doesn't matter...

Michael

_____________

Michael Niessen - Photographer, photo-editor, educator

[Sejin.___.Bears]

oh i thought it ment correcting my answer. my mistake

too bad you feel that way. i was hoping you could explain what you said. looks like nothing can be learned here

[Marianne-Deiters · Accepted solution]

---

@Sejin.___.Bears  schrieb:

how can a photo taken at 100mm 1/400sec on a tripod not be sharp?

---

No details can be seen. For example, the yellow leaves just look flat. Maybe your lens is out of order.

[Sejin.___.Bears]

i think the lens is fine. its a brand new 70-200 lens. a number of photos taken on the same day were all accepted. 

when you say it has no detail and look "flat", do you meen its 

1. out of focus

2. its overall bright (the leaves were facing the sun directly)

3. something else

sorry for asking again but i dont understand "look flat". english is not my first language. the translater isn helping either

[Marianne-Deiters]

1. out of focus

[Abambo]

hi

how can a photo taken at 100mm 1/400sec on a tripod not be sharp?

do you meen part of it is not sharp or all of the photo is not sharp?

By @Sejin.___.Bears

If it's not correctly focused…or the lens is not sharp.

[Sejin.___.Bears]

hi

when you say 1 is too dark and worm is it a problem? for example when printing?

i thought highlights and dark parts that are blown out and cant be seen on histogram was a problem when printing. 

with 2. does a photo need high contrast to be accepted? when you say "lacks contrast" do you say 2 have so little contrast it cant be used?

[Abambo]

To dark: the tree is the main subject and is underexposed.

Warm: Colour temperature.

Not only do you need to have a correct histogram, but the subject needs to be correctly exposed.

With 2: pictures need to have a "correct" contrast. Your yellow leaves simply do not have contrast because they were too much illuminated by the sun.

You can rework your pictures and resubmit.

[RALPH_L]

in addition to what @MNiessenPhoto already pointed out, if you view at 500%, you will see fringing around the branches on photo 1.

[beaver1234 · Accepted solution]

To enlarge a picture to 500% and prove anything on such a "picture" is a bunch of nonsense and advanced [inappropriate language].
In an emergency, the picture can be resized up to 20-30%.
But nobody will buy a picture enlarged at 200%.
500% is not even worth talking about.

[Abambo]

In an emergency, the picture can be resized up to 20-30%.

By @beaver1234

I've enlarged pictures to 200%, and that was long before Photoshop gave you those sophisticated algorithms.

But nobody will buy a picture enlarged at 200%.
500% is not even worth talking about.

By @beaver1234

We are not talking about buying a picture at that size, but examining the pictures at a certain magnification. I wouldn't go so far as to magnify to 500%, but if that helps you to detect faults, you may do so. I examine my pictures at 100% and 200% and if I have doubts, at 300%.

[Sejin.___.Bears]

is fringing at 500% an important reson of rejection or just a flaw that can be found?

at 500% all i see is pixel squares and cant find the reason to go that far. 

i know adobe magnify photos and view them but i dont get what standard they have. (ex100%, 300%, 500%)

when comparing photos accepted and rejected, they all look blury at 500% 

[Abambo]

is fringing at 500% an important reson of rejection or just a flaw that can be found?

at 500% all i see is pixel squares and cant find the reason to go that far. 

By @Sejin.___.Bears

200%:

In addition, I see clipping in the sky:

Both can be seen at 100%, but if you really want to check your pictures, look them at 200% or 300%.

Adobe moderators are superb at detecting those small faults (small in the sense that they are difficult to detect… 🙂  )

[Abambo]

1 has clearly a bad histogram:

But it's even worse as you need to expose for the sky and for the tree and both need different exposures. If you can't do multiple exposures, you need to work the exposure of the tree to lighten that part. You should also add some texture and clarity to work out the tree's structure. And the tree could have some more sharpness. The tree is not crisp sharp, despite your tripod.

2 needs more contrast on the leaves.

[ricky336 · Accepted solution]

Hello,

Obviously, it is not necessary to enlarge to 500%, I think around 100-200% is enough. 

5207 file, I think it lacks contrast and is too warm - so white balance issues. In the sky area, when you enlarge to 100% you can see signs of noise. Other photo, also a bit too warm.

Another point to consider though is its commercial value. What value could they have. After all, it's for the stock market, where sales are more about promoting an idea, concept, something that can actually be used to promote something. What do you think these images could promote? 

When photographers talk about a 'flat' image, the image doesn't have any 'punch'. It lacks contrast. Colours are dull. Your 5207 photo lacks contrast. It is a bit 'flat'.

[Sejin.___.Bears]

1. this helps a lot. so basicaly adobe doesnt accept the personality(color?)of the artist, but value the standard they have as "correct". like correct warm&cold, correct high&low contrast.

2. when you say image has to promote something does it meen like a apple or a banana? or like a person playing the piano? something that is easy to be understood or used in a presentation for example?

3. i take photos for esthetic purpose. maybe like a poster or a wallpaper or a postcard. if for this reason are the photos above fine or so bad even to be used as esthetic purpose. 

4. to me things like not having noise and color fringing is obviously true. but cant quit understand when someone talks about "correct" warm or level of contrast. are these thing supposed to have a correct value or are people talking like this because its a stockimage site and the site does not need esthetic value? im starting to think this is not the site to be selling photos with my personal color. 

thanks for the help

[ricky336]

• It is best to keep the 'correct' colour as the effect can be added depending on the person's use of the photo.
• Don't add your personal colour.
• Stock can be used in a huge number of ways, so it is hard to define what can sell and how it can be used.
• I wouldn't upload any 'artistic' type of photos. They generally wouldn't sell as stock is not an 'art gallery'. 

As for colour balance read this: 
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/discover/white-balance.html

and also:

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/how-to/tips-stock-image-acceptance.html?set=stock--fundamentals--adobe...

https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/tutorials.html

[Sejin.___.Bears]

thanks for the comment. looks like i chose the wrong site after all.

if it doesnt trouble you, can you recomend a site for selling  "artistic" photos?

im not quite at the level of making my own homepage.

thanks

[Abambo]

if it doesnt trouble you, can you recomend a site for selling  "artistic" photos?

By @Sejin.___.Bears

You can sell "artistic photos" here, but they really need to be technically correct. Stock photography is like a craft, not like an art. You may produce beautiful things, but they still require being usable…

I've seen some on-line galleries, but as I'm not interested, I did not bookmark those. Sorry about that.

[ricky336]

I don't know of any sites. I'm also not very interested. When you want to sell stock, you have think about being commercial!

[Jill_C]

You can sell your images on smugmug.com - but it's not free of charge, and you have to do a lot of self-promotion to build awareness.