We have a brand new look! Take a tour with us and explore the latest updates on Adobe Support Community.
This image has been declined due to the reason not being sharp. Well, from all the viewers and other fotobanks, that is the first time I hear it. Am I missing something here?
indeed there is nothing sharp in this image. Look at your picture at 100% or 200% zoom.
Well looking at 100% i find the church turret quite sharp, et least judging by the weathervane or the inside details in the dark parts of the turret window (especially look at the space between the gutter pipes to the left of the right pair of windows). I admit, that on the left border of the turret is some trace of chrom. aberation and a highlight of the sun on right, but this are a different kind of flaw.
Looking at 200% is of course not relevant, since due to the upsampling any image would be blurred.
Actually, when looking at 2:1 (this is what you meant by the 200% perhaps? sorry, misunderstanding on my side), preferably at 8:1 there is something, that is little miraculous, but the trouble is, that any edge exhibits such behaviour at resizes this big, I still would hesitate to consider this being unsharp...
if your picture on your screen is sharp in the original resolution, then you should check if saving the picture as jpg for upload is correct and the lowest compression level is set.
Hi, I agree with v.poth. It isn't completely sharp at 100% or more. And as you yourself have notice when you zoom in the edges are not clear, but a bit 'fuzzy' - hence not sharp.
It seems, though you may have tried to sharpen a bit too much in post processing - is there even a halo effect - which happens when you over sharpen? But this would also come under a different category - along with the CA.
Another thing to think about is your shutter speed when hand holding. Shouldn't be under 1/60 sec. Usual rule for hand held shots is to keep it 1/60 sec or above.
Other microstock sites don't seem to be so fussy, so when people upload here, they are very surprised their image gets rejected. Adobe appear to have higher standards - from what I have learnt. After all they are catering for the creative market rather than just an image for an internet article that is forgotten tomorrow!
Well thanks, however as already stated, this behavior is exhibited by most of lines in the imagery I have usually been able to witness in post-prod.
Unfortunately the picture above is from my older camera, which didn't have RAW yet. However as you may see from the two images I attach below, which made it through the "Adobes's higher standards" process, the boxer dog also being from the earlier camera has the very same "fussy lines", and when you resize the cow (a newer camera, so the cow has been already shot in RAW) you see the very same kind of blurriness, in fact I would say, that from the 3 samples the church is the sharpest one (aside from the trees, of course).
Btw, although I have my strongest objections to "brag" about the parameters each photo was shot at - never understood this custom, really - I shall do an exception here. And seeing the discussion which has arisen here, I was very surprised myself, when I saw the metadata. It may seem now like an stupid joke, but it isn't, so please believe me, the church was shot (btw. from a tripod due to the heavy zoom, if I recall my habits right), at 1/320 sec at F/9 on an ISO 100. Nevertheless, even when I switch off all noise reduct. or sharpening effects, the result is still the same, as you may see from the third image below (again at 8:1). So the only thing that I can imagine is, that I did not use a wire-remote (btw. a Bowden one in those times 🙂 and have taken the picture by pressing the release directly by hand, but I seriously doubt it, because, when having enough time, then even when not having a wire-release at hand, I always use a 2sec-delay drive.
So while I understand the standards and the matter of discussion, I rather think, that in this photograph the specific exposition and lighting (or maybe the cleanness of the background?) is rather playing some odd trick with the eyes of the viewer and/or the processing algorithms (or maybe now also the other 2 photographs get revoked as well :-).
(an image that was passed - also a JPEG-only source)
(an image that was passed - taken from RAW and you may see, that the edge line has a width of about 4-5 pixels, while the one on the church below has about 3-4, maybe 5 when taking the halo in account too)
(noise reduct / sharpening shut of)
P.S. Hmmm, or maybe I wonder, could it have been the "bent" light due to the F9? ....
I made a few assumptions. I didn't really want to get into shutter speed, tripod issues etc. I was going to ask if you used a tripod. Since you used a telephoto lens bear in mind that camera shake can be introduced by the mirror action - hence it is always a good idea to use the mirror lock function if you have it - but then also the 2sec delay which you use - should also minimize the shaking. There are a lot of factors to consider actually. Of course, when you zoom in to this level on a jpg you get to see jpg artifacts which is what you're seeing.
I don't think it has to do with the bent light though.
I don't think the blur is caused by camera shake. Here is an example of a typical appearance in a blurred picture on this reason:
These smudges are not visible in your picture. I think this must be technically based. Either with the hardware (camera autofocus e. g.) or with the image processing.
Hmmm, that is where I have to pass, since the reason of mirror shake can be definitely ruled out: none of my cameras has had the mirror pre-lift / lock or how it is called, since none of them has had a moving mirror: SONY A58 and the previous one a FinePix S9500.
But I definitely agree, that this does not seem to be a shake. I shall make some tests when such oppportunity comes with the current cam and see how it behaves on long focal lengths, but I I can't test this particular shot using the original camera anymore (dead due FW/HW error - SONY A58(*)). In the meanwhile I shall await what will Adobe manifest concerning its point of views and style requirements as based on the result of the rest of the photographs.
(*) Sorry for a small misleading information: I thought the shot was taken with the older FinePix cam (as the boxer dog) based on the fact that I have only the JPEG file, but it seems to me that - possibly due to taking spherical panorama before - I've had RAW switched off for that particular church shot on the A58 (anyway, could have guessed from the focal length, a 300mm on a S9500 is a nonsence). So I re-examained the original archive with all other shots (yes, Im a little too generous when (ab)using my storage space 🙂 so I have all the original files still present) and found out, that just a few shots later I already switched back to RAW and you may see the image is a little more sharp (other compositions done inbetween, so the image below has a new focusing), yet the effect is still present (4px edge blur) however it is lacking the lighter part (I probably did not pre-select this version of the scene for development in 2013 due to the excessive halo on the right edge, and the one I submitted did not meet my idea of unsharp, which is how this discussion has begun :-).