Picture with ice crystal structures rejected due to technical issues?

[Miguel.F]

I just uploaded a pic for contribution, showing bizarre ice structures on an outside table. I loved the pic since it is a great winter expression.

It was unfortunately rejected due to technical issues. However, this picture seems to be very sharp and clear in the focus area, but doe to the nature of ice, it contains lot of finest structures and frozen water drops. Could these be the reasons for rejection?

Please comment and probably reconsider the decision.

Kind regards

Miguel

[lenao58654695]

I have the same problem and have yet to get an answer. Have tried to get through to Adobe stock to no avail and people that I manage to get hold of have absolutely no clue and it is all outsourced. I wanted to know if it is a machine that approves or an actual human. Hope you will get an answer from someone with knowledge of the process

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @lenao58654695 , 

Based on records of your questions, you have been asking the same question about a silo image that you received the answer multiple times along with reference of the guidelines. There might be multiple of them, but do you know who owns them? Are they landmarks? The question you post about the silo had to do with intellectual property violation only, and hence, have no relevance to the question of this thread.

With regards who or what does the reviews - human, and human alone does reviews.

Best wishes

JG

[lenao58654695]

No it is not the same picture, beside silo sold elsewher. I just responded to someone else's question so kindly reply to that person and not me. TIA

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @lenao58654695 ,

Sorry, that does not seem to be a qualified reply to the question of this thread, but seem to be statements, or comments requesting answers or clarification. It would be more helpful if you are giving an answer or replying to a question asked,that you do so with helpful and relevant information, rather than giving the impression that your concern was not adequately or correctly addressed by qualified people, and or references. In addition, if you are participating in the community, you need to be mindful that you will be addressed or directly responded to at some point or the other, either, for clarity or otherwise.

Adobe has very strict IP regulations. Adobe knows why. Other platforms have stricter MR regulations than Adobe. They know why. The thing is to work with whatever the policy of each of these platforms you associate with. 

Regards

JG

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Miguel.F ,

The photo is has excessive grain/noise. It also features slight color noise. And I believe the color balance is also out. 

Zoom your files to between 100 and 200% to inspect them.

Best wishes

JG

[Miguel.F]

Hi @jacquelingphoto2017 

Thanks for your response. I have just reviewed the pic again following your hints. Maybe there could be some more noise reduction, but you picked a part of the pic which is not in the focus area and showed it in 300% zoom, and some noise can be seen, but nothing that I would call excessive. Totally rising the noise reduction would end up with unnatural color blocks. If you look at the focused parts, no significant noise exists at all.

The pic was taken with a full format body (Canon EOS 5D Mark IV) in RAW format at ISO 800 - from the pure technical capabilities of the camera, no high noise degree can be expected either.

The color balance is also as it should be since the ice covered a green/turquoise table which was shining through the ice.

I accept your rejection since I want to learn from you, and all your hints are helpful, although I would have loved to see this pic in my collection.

Best regards

Miguel

[jacquelingphoto2017]

Hi @Miguel.F ,

I use Microsoft photo viewer to view your photo. I'm unable to say at what magnification it was viewed. Usually noise are visible in the darker areas of your frame. Once noise is visible your file will be rejected. The image at full size is this, according to the photo viewer. Still showing noise.

The zoomed image I initially post was for you to see the color noise. Now that is minute. I thought luminance was obvious enough for you to see it. But all in all always look in the darker areas of your frame for luminance noise. You will most likely not see it in the lighted area.

If you use camera raw to edit your file, to remove noise, it should not cause dark blotches except the subject was well underexposed. The most you should observe is softness, of which if not excessive can be addressed with sharpening. 

This is really a nice image, but sad to say too much of it is out of focus. Try setting a better depth of field in the future. 

Best wishes

JG

[Miguel.F]

Hi @jacquelingphoto2017 

Thanks for your helpful hints. Indeed, a wider depth of field would have been definitely better, although the pic was already taken at aperture f/8 (focal length 85 mm).

As for the luminance noise in the darker area that you point to: To me this is not a noise effect, but just the unfocused water drops which are resembling noise. Take a time and look into the focused darker area (to the right of the large white spot), and you will see countless of frozen water drops. If you follow then into the unfocused areas they turn into something that looks like noise.

Do you agree?

Best regards

Miguel