Hi! Can anyone help me in details about ""ARTIFACTS problem"?
I have read suppot blog and posts here, per my understanding, the artifacts means you don't color too much/sharp, correct?
I think this is not noise/composition/focus since Adobe has different codes. So I would read it as "color" issue?
When shoot in raw, no color adding maybe ok. But what if shoot in jpg and without adjustment, images look pale and dead. From my experiences, these adjustments would be rejected in highl ratio ""ARTIFACTS problem". But those rejected photos maybe happened to sell on other site.
Really confused, thanks for your help.
Also, saving in JPEG makes artefacts and every edit adds more If you shoot in JPEG, don’t edit for any reason, not even cropping.
Artifacts include noise - luminance and chromo - colour noise. Also, JPEG, especially if shot with a smartphone. Here you can get JPEG compression artifacts. They become noticeable when enlarged, but, can look great on social media. If you sharpen too much you get halos around the edges - artifacts, using noise reduction too much - makes the picture look like a painting - this will cause rejection at AS and the list can go on. Post-processing is necessary to some extent, but you have to actually know what and by how much.
But I have exame all images in 100% to check noise, unless the noise standard is different.
And before I do check noise, I've got lots of noise rejection from Adobe, that's how I learned to check in 100%.
So I would think this ""artifacts" not noise.?
Noise is under the artifacts category.
Thank you for explaination, so when shoot in jpg, without touching, noise is terrible over the image.
If I just correct the noise, but no color and others editing? but again, it looks pale and dead.
For some people report their images sell good, their profiles look colorful, it can't be original raw or jpg without touching color or at least auto adjustment......?
Therein lies the art of taking a good image and having good post-processing techniques.