Rejection because of artefacts/noise

New Here ,
Nov 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi guys,

I'm new on Adobe so I don't know if this is the right place to ask.

One of my pictures was rejected for the above mentioned reason. I viewed it in 100% but I'm not sure which area is meant or if the whole picture is wrong.

Your help is highly appreciated.P1011454.jpg

Adobe Community Professional
Correct answer by ricky336 | Adobe Community Professional

Hello,

I think that noise (in my opinion) is the overall problem. The 'colour fringes' that has been refered to is actually chromatic aberration and comes under 'Technical Issues' - to which I can't find any real evidence of and as for blur I also can't see evidence of this. The only thing is noise. Bearing in mind that this camera is using four thirds sensor size - it is small - so noise will be more of a problem, even at ISO 200. There are a lot of pixels squeezed into small area, so this actually affects the overall quality. (In the same way a small negative dosen't produce such a good enlargement as a larger negative. Noise is the digital equivalent of film grain in films. Noise is not such a desired effect in digital images.)

The lighting conditions are also not so good, it is an overcast day so the ligting is 'flat', therefore this contributes to the problems. Therefore when enlarged - 100% or so, noise becomes a bit more noticeable.

Using noise reduction in your editing software should help with this image. Be careful not to use too much though.

TOPICS
Contributor critique

Views

115

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more

Rejection because of artefacts/noise

New Here ,
Nov 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi guys,

I'm new on Adobe so I don't know if this is the right place to ask.

One of my pictures was rejected for the above mentioned reason. I viewed it in 100% but I'm not sure which area is meant or if the whole picture is wrong.

Your help is highly appreciated.P1011454.jpg

Adobe Community Professional
Correct answer by ricky336 | Adobe Community Professional

Hello,

I think that noise (in my opinion) is the overall problem. The 'colour fringes' that has been refered to is actually chromatic aberration and comes under 'Technical Issues' - to which I can't find any real evidence of and as for blur I also can't see evidence of this. The only thing is noise. Bearing in mind that this camera is using four thirds sensor size - it is small - so noise will be more of a problem, even at ISO 200. There are a lot of pixels squeezed into small area, so this actually affects the overall quality. (In the same way a small negative dosen't produce such a good enlargement as a larger negative. Noise is the digital equivalent of film grain in films. Noise is not such a desired effect in digital images.)

The lighting conditions are also not so good, it is an overcast day so the ligting is 'flat', therefore this contributes to the problems. Therefore when enlarged - 100% or so, noise becomes a bit more noticeable.

Using noise reduction in your editing software should help with this image. Be careful not to use too much though.

TOPICS
Contributor critique

Views

116

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Nov 13, 2018 0
Advisor ,
Nov 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello andreask3582147,

I see why you are uncertain about which parts of the photograph might have artifacts. While the foreground subject, the anchor, looks pretty clear -  many various parts suffer from blurred out of focus, lack of clarity and so on. The interesting bridge comes and goes out of focus.  When you have a fairly flat sky you probably can find some artifacts there too. Look at the bridge and sky and water for noise, spots, things that do not belong in these areas. Rethink the composition and perhaps try a different cropping. I hope this helps. Also, study the guidelines and information offered on artifact rejections. Kind regards. JH

Artifacts

ArtifactsPosted on this forum earlier by:    

jacquelingphoto2017 Sep 8, 2018 9:17 PM (in response to a  question.

Artifacts

    

Artifacts"tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle  Read up on all the links especially the "Stock Contributor User Guide"

tagproducts_SG_STOCK-CONTRIBUTOR_i18nKeyHelppagetitle Click/tap on each of the links to the left menu; read up on all the relevant topics, and reference links.

Reasons content is rejected at Adobe Stock

And watch this video by Matt. From Shoot to Sale: Part 1 | Adobe Blog"

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Nov 13, 2018 1
Adobe Community Professional ,
Nov 13, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi andreask

Take your image to 200% or more. Look in the area where the small crisscross supports are. Look in the space between them you will see some coloration. Those are called color fringes, and are referred to as artifacts. Now for grains, look at the larger metal area at the same magnification. You should notice the grain there.

Noise reduction tool should be able to correct the noise. However you might need the help of lens correction tool for the fringes.

I hope you found this helpful

Regards

JG

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Nov 13, 2018 2
Adobe Community Professional ,
Nov 14, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hello,

I think that noise (in my opinion) is the overall problem. The 'colour fringes' that has been refered to is actually chromatic aberration and comes under 'Technical Issues' - to which I can't find any real evidence of and as for blur I also can't see evidence of this. The only thing is noise. Bearing in mind that this camera is using four thirds sensor size - it is small - so noise will be more of a problem, even at ISO 200. There are a lot of pixels squeezed into small area, so this actually affects the overall quality. (In the same way a small negative dosen't produce such a good enlargement as a larger negative. Noise is the digital equivalent of film grain in films. Noise is not such a desired effect in digital images.)

The lighting conditions are also not so good, it is an overcast day so the ligting is 'flat', therefore this contributes to the problems. Therefore when enlarged - 100% or so, noise becomes a bit more noticeable.

Using noise reduction in your editing software should help with this image. Be careful not to use too much though.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Nov 14, 2018 1
New Here ,
Nov 14, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks a lot for your input. This is some useful information.

Ricky points out some interesting stuff. Actually the G9 should have good noise behaviour at ISO 200. But indeed the sensor is rather small and so this might be a problem.

I didn't know that the dynamic (dark anchor, light sky) could make noise more noticable. Or did I understand it wrong?

When I use Silkypix to reduce noise I find it blurs the picture too much so I try to not use it too much.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community Guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
Reply
Loading...
Nov 14, 2018 1