Thank you for info on the last photo. I looked at this one again before I posted it, but if I'm missing something please let me know. Thanks!!
There are several artefacts in the leaves. This one stroke my eye, before even looking deeper at the image:
Hi konkling, I think you can take out that small pink flower and clean up the area on Photoshop. The rest of the photo looks clear. If you pick the color of your background and erase carefully - it will leave only background color behind. Make sure it set to background for match color. Leave no traces. Best regards, JH
It seems that you are using a smartphone for this picture - according to your metadata. So, with such phones artifacts are going to be a problem - especially when you increase them in size. Below was enlarged 111%. I guess you took this in JPEG format right? So, this is already a compressed file. Therefore, when enlarged you are going to get signs of artifacts like this:
See how 'blocky' the leaves are. This is due to the JPEG compression.
In all honesty, generally speaking, it is better to have a camera with a bigger sensor and one that can take raw, rather than JPEG -
especially if you are considering uploading to Adobe Stock (and other stock sites).
To be clear: Phone pictures are accepted by Adobe. But to avoid refusals, all elements need to be optimal, including and specially lightning. Your phone should also have one of the better camera systems. Newer phones are here way better than older ones. I wouldn’t use my iPhone 6 for pictures for stock, because I feel that the required quality level of that camera is not given. I take pictures of my dog with it, and I love them, but they are not usable for stock.
Yes, they do as I have one which was accepted, (and sold) but I took this using DNG format, so I could post process this in Lightroom. JPEG format is no good, as I get JPEG compressions like above, so no good for Adobe anyhow. They will just reject it. There are many factors which have to be taken into account - sensor size and type of phone/camera are just one of many...
Whatever type of camera/phone camera one has, one just has to know their equipment...
I have LIghtroom, but I haven't really used it before because Photoshop is my go to program. When you shoot dng, are you shooting raw and uploading to lightroom in dng format?
Yes, I did use my phone for the white background photos. How was you able to see my metadata? Anyway, I have the samsung 8s phone and it takes good pixs, but when i don't use a flash it does seem that things are more pixilated. I see what your saying by the photo you posted. I've not shot raw before so I think I'm going to read about it and practice now! I have a Canon 1300D...its not the best, but I do like it. Thanks for all the advice!
The metadata can be seen (if you keep this info in the file), when the image is downloaded (which is necessary so 'we' can look at the file in more detail and give useful information) in the details part of the file. The metadata can be very useful to know what type of camera and file info in order to be able to help you. Be aware nothing personal is in this data - only camera information. Hence, knowing that you used a phone camera would explain why you had these problems.
DNG is Adobe's raw file, camera manufacturers have their own. Canon is .CR2, Nikon .nef - other camera manufacturers have adopted Adobe's DNG. (Digital Negative - as it is the digital version of the film negative.)
I shoot in raw as I see the raw file just like a negative and import directly into Lightroom - rather though into a catalogue or imported into a current catalogue. The actual files go into a location of your choosing.
It would be very good for you to learn how to use Lightroom. Have a look at the Lightroom forums. Bear in mind there are two versions now - Lightroom Classic CC and Lightroom CC - which is the cloud based version, Lightroom Classic is the desktop version.
I shot this photo in raw I think...I set to raw on camera. It was saved as tiff, but I changed to jpg. I've been kind of studying lightroom. Doesn't look real hard. But I've got photos in there that I didn't put there....I'll figure it out, but wanted to show you this pix. Thank you for all the help. I'm confused about a few things with raw, but have been watching videos and reading up on it.
Did you submit that picture? You know that the tree in the ball is not sharp? I feel tht the tree needs to be sharp to submit sucessfully such a picture. But it’s a great idea. So go on!
Just to say: Lightroom/Photoshop et al can turn a good picture great, but never a bad picture good.
no, I didn't turn it in to anywhere. I saw that the tree isn't focused, but I did do one that is. This was just playing around trying to learn about raw. I know the tiff file was 83 mgs!! Is that normal?
Sure! Tiffs are big. But you do not need TIFFs except if you edit « outside » of Lightroom.
Jpegs are higly optimized picture files and quality can degrade quite fast depending on the parameters. Especially each time you save, you will get degedation even if you did not change anything (open - save - close).
TIFF files store the information faithful, without degradation. compression is lossless, but per se very bad with photographs.
RAW files are the most faithful for photographs as they store what comes directly from the sensor with very little to none change. But raw files are unfit to be viewed on a screen, therefore any raw interpreter needs to interpret that data. Lr and all the interpreters I know do that in a manner to store the operations needed to interpret the data. So when you decide to export your file, the raw file will be used and the developping parameters will be applied and the data will be written according to your instructions. This is great, because it does never change the original file data.
Raw files except for SIGMA cameras are composed of a black and white picture, each pixel representing a grey scale value of 12 to 14 bits. That’s why raw pictures are compact against TIFF files. There each pixel represents a value of 24 to 48 to 64 bits. You can literally see, why TIFF files are such big compared against raw files. JPEG files contain only 24bits colour values, but lossy reduced and rearanged in a special manner to create very compact files.
So yes, a TIFF file will be at least the double of the size of a raw file.
I use TIFF files when doing things like HDR pictures or layered editing in Photoshop. For the othe 99% of my images, I keep them raw and export to JPEG when needed. To upload to stock, I use the Stock Plug-in provided by Adobe. For other stock providers, I use JPEG (max size and quality) files I exported directly from Lr. Those files can be deleted as soon as uploaded. For Flickr and Facebook, I use also the provided plug-ins.
Some of the stuff you talk about sounds foreign but most of it I understand. But one question...if you keep an image raw, what is the name for the file? I mean, not png or jpg..is it dng? And raw files, if I go through LR will be black and white? Ok, I won't bother you any more, but you have helped so much! I really appreciate it..thank you!
Raw is a general name for the native camera file. It is 'unprocessed'. Canon is .cr2 as mentioned in my above post. Nikon .nef and so on.
So, for Canon it is IMG_xxxx.cr2 (Camera raw version 2.)
(You can convert it to IMG_xxxx.dng if you use Adobe's DNG format.) I usually import into Lightroom as .cr2
As I said DNG is Digital Negative - DNG - a digital version of a negative!
In Lightroom the file is seen as RGB - colour - unless you change to B&W - grey scale.
I've been reading up on lightroom classic cc and my camera on the web. Right now I have it on raw. I've taken pixs...it will only let me import pixs to dng. I don't see a camera raw version 2. Is that from my camera? I have the raw & jpg or just raw on my camera to choose from. I would like to keep them raw if possible with the cr2 format. I haven't found anything in lightroom about cr2 format. Am I looking in the right area? Thanks
Look at your image files from Canon - they will be something like this: IMG_2314.cr2 for example.
You can set your camera to take raw as you have seen - the file therefore instead of JPEG: IMG_2314.JPG will be: IMG_2314.CR2 - which is your 'raw' file.
You should read the user manual from the Canon 1300D. It will tell you a lot about these kinds of things.
DNG is Adobe's file format - nothing to do with Canon!
In the Import module of Lightroom, you can copy the file as DNG - which means that during the import the file is changed from CR2 to DNG - this takes longer - or just copy which would then copy as CR2 without any change - this is much quicker.
For now, concentrate on just the CR2 file rather than DNG, and choose 'copy' when importing.
Look here for a short tutorial on importing from a memory card into the Lightroom database (including copying the data to the hard drive): Lightroom CC - Importing Images From a Camera - YouTube
(Lightroom CC should be read Lightroom Classic CC now as unfortunately Adobe used the Lightroom name for its cloud based product and now calls the old Lr Lr Classic).
And there is a huge resource of data available with Victoria's Lightroom Queen Website: https://www.lightroomqueen.com/
To understand the problematic of raw files, you need to read some basics:Bayer filter - Wikipedia .
Sensors are basically colour blind, so for each pixel there is a colour filter in front of the sensor pixel. The same effect as having a colour transparent in front of a picture. Red, blue and green! As the human eye is more sensitive to the green colour, there are twice as many green filters then red or blue ones.
The colour then gets calculated from the pixel and the neighboring pixels using a technique called demosaicing.
As a raw file stores the sensor data and the program reading the raw file knows about the sensor's organization, you will get displayed a colour image.
If you use Lr to interface Adobe stocks, Lr will automatically write out a JPEG file and transfer that one to your account. You just do not need to take care of all the quality parameters that are needed with JPEG files.
DNG is a raw file format created by Adobe to unify the different proprietary file formats. Some small camera manufacturers (small but expensive...) use the DNG format as a native one, but the big manufacturers prefer the own format, so they can introduce new things like Canon's dual pixel format.
BTW: there is one Leica camera without that Bayer filter. That camera can only take black and white pictures. But the camera does so at an excellent level.
For all other sensors, you first do a colour version and than transform that into a bw picture.
The exif data is stored together with the jpeg file and is quite useful to analyse data like this. Phone pictures are detectable however because of their really typical JPEG compression artefacts. You get an eye for that after a while. As I said, for a phone picture to be acceptable it really needs to be taken at absolute best conditions.
The reason for this is that the sensor is so small, the lens is in a bad situation (I have my phone in my pocket with no protective hood...) and postprocessing is trimmed to get pictures looking good on those phone screens. That’s not the best production situation.
You can, as Rickey says, have an advantage shooting raw (dng or native raw) when your phone allows for this. The big advantage here is that despite the bad physical constraints, you will be able to tweak your pictures manually.
Your 1300D is able to shoot raw and when yo put the right lens on, you will get great pictures. Well, the photographer needs to have an eye for the situation. And I very often take a bunch of pictures to select one as the good one.
Abambo, I would normally never try an Adobe stock photo via cell phone. However, I did sit in my car during an exceptional cloudburst and afterward came a sight I had to capture. I sent it to Adobe Stock and it was rapidly accepted! I took two more yesterday same way. If you like I will post it to this forum thread. Yes, I am having fun. Best, JH
Yes. You can submit phone pictures. But the conditions need to be ideal.