Jump to content
alvarobueno

What is noise and what is focus, for reviewers

Recommended Posts

About NOISE and FOCUS, I would like to explain something to the reviewers...

NOISE: Luminance noise or color noise is one thing, and water droplets in the air when it is raining or near a waterfall is another. Please pay attention once and for all to these facts, look beyond the cosmetic and technical needs, look at the context in the subject to be able to correctly differentiate and not waste time on collaborators.

FOCUS: About the focus, please pay attention to the technical data, if the focal length is 400 mm and the landscape is several kilometers away, it is inevitable that the objects and shapes suffer a distortion effect due to the atmospheric thermal changes , and the different temperatures of the air currents moving between the camera and the subject does not mean that the focus is wrong, the focus is correct, but the world is an irregular place and the rays of light constantly change direction, generating diffractions, refractions and reflections ... Please, I ask again that you be ahead of these types of questions so as not to waste time on collaborators.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, alvarobueno said:

FOCUS: About the focus, please pay attention to the technical data, if the focal length is 400 mm and the landscape is several kilometers away, it is inevitable that the objects and shapes suffer a distortion effect due to the atmospheric thermal changes , and the different temperatures of the air currents moving between the camera and the subject does not mean that the focus is wrong, the focus is correct, but the world is an irregular place and the rays of light constantly change direction, generating diffractions, refractions and reflections ... Please, I ask again that you be ahead of these types of questions so as not to waste time on collaborators.

Thank you.

Why should it really matter to reviewers why your image is not in focus? What matters is the result. If your image has a soft focus - for whatever reason - the image will get rejected. Customers are expecting a sharp image and can't see whether it's sharp in full size as they don't get a full-size preview. So they rely on reviewers to reject soft focus images. 
That you used the wrong lense and/or were too far away to take a proper photo of your landscape is not the reviewer's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor is it my fault that the world has an atmosphere with air and that there are different magnitudes of light, such as diffractions, refractions, etc ... But what bothers me is that the reviewers say that the focus is wrong. Another thing would be if they told me that aesthetically is not what they want to sell, well, I would accept those reasons for rejection ... It must be that the real world does not matter, you are right, yes yes ...

 

I attach a cropped file of my photo rejected for focus problems ... 100% size just crop, 300 ppp 12 quality exported from raw.

 

Thanks.

_E6A6172_1737041870.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alvarobueno said:

About NOISE and FOCUS, I would like to explain something to the reviewers...

NOISE: Luminance noise or color noise is one thing, and water droplets in the air when it is raining or near a waterfall is another. Please pay attention once and for all to these facts, look beyond the cosmetic and technical needs, look at the context in the subject to be able to correctly differentiate and not waste time on collaborators.

FOCUS: About the focus, please pay attention to the technical data, if the focal length is 400 mm and the landscape is several kilometers away, it is inevitable that the objects and shapes suffer a distortion effect due to the atmospheric thermal changes , and the different temperatures of the air currents moving between the camera and the subject does not mean that the focus is wrong, the focus is correct, but the world is an irregular place and the rays of light constantly change direction, generating diffractions, refractions and reflections ... Please, I ask again that you be ahead of these types of questions so as not to waste time on collaborators.

Thank you.

You are perfectly right about atmospheric conditions but nothing is so beautiful in the world as you see in these images. That is why we are using software for.

You have to de-haze that image. Look, just with the auto feature a the curves layer (PS), it already looks different:

2130806472_Landscape4.thumb.jpg.cdf7b0661a1d0f49751018c007b191f8.jpg

Then you can play a bit with light and colors too, to your liking, watch the noise though. If it were mine, I would replace that sky too.

landscape3.thumb.jpg.f1d807541f30e56b5a9389b5cbd2c780.jpg

Just my 2 cents, good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Whiteaster for your advice, but I use Camera Raw for proccessing the image, but just a little bit. The high saturation you gave the colour is not very real, and deheaze effect rise the luminance noise in the shadow microcontrast areas. And I don't really like the "after" you make, sorry, is not real, of course keeping in mind that the photos are just rough copies of reality. There is some fog from the morning, there is particles in the air that should be there, there is difractions, etc.... Hey but it is just my opinion!

 

EDIT: The sky is perfect, just leave it as it is.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, alvarobueno said:

Thank you Whiteaster for your advice, but I use Camera Raw for proccessing the image, but just a little bit. The high saturation you gave the colour is not very real, and deheaze effect rise the luminance noise in the shadow microcontrast areas. And I don't really like the "after" you make, sorry, is not real, of course keeping in mind that the photos are just rough copies of reality. There is some fog from the morning, there is particles in the air that should be there, there is difractions, etc.... Hey but it is just my opinion!

 

EDIT: The sky is perfect, just leave it as it is.. :)

From my last 20 sales, in 9 the sky is oversaturated, but it is your choice  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, alvarobueno said:

Thank you Whiteaster for your advice, but I use Camera Raw for proccessing the image, but just a little bit. The high saturation you gave the colour is not very real, and deheaze effect rise the luminance noise in the shadow microcontrast areas. And I don't really like the "after" you make, sorry, is not real, of course keeping in mind that the photos are just rough copies of reality. There is some fog from the morning, there is particles in the air that should be there, there is difractions, etc.... Hey but it is just my opinion!

 

EDIT: The sky is perfect, just leave it as it is.. :)

 

 

and SS is telling us, what their Customers want, not what the photographer.  The image they felt did not meet this.  I am assuming you feel they have the pulse of the market, if not why are you using them to represent you?

 

it's not for the Reviewers it's for the Buyers..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, alvarobueno said:

Nor is it my fault that the world has an atmosphere with air and that there are different magnitudes of light, such as diffractions, refractions, etc ... But what bothers me is that the reviewers say that the focus is wrong.

They don't have a rejection reason for "atmospheric distortion", and yes, the distortion is so bad it renders this image unusable (not to mention all the black specs filling the sky).

As far as post-processing goes, that is every bit as much of an art as is the photography itself, so everyone is going to view it differently.  I shoot and edit raw and prefer some additional contrast and saturation.  Someone else prefers a different look.  It's all good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Whiteaster said:

Sorry for trying to help, I always forget I shouldn't do that.

Do you think these images are real?

@Whiteaster I also received similar rejection comments all the time. Any advise how to avoid this type of rejection? (I'm still a beginner in photography)

P9271143.thumb.jpg.b2beee9ac06e8dc48e60c889734fb678.jpgRejection

 

Visible Trademark: Content contains visible brand names or logos.

Intellectual Property: Content contains subject matter that potentially infringes on intellectual property rights (e.g. artwork, writing, sheet music, isolated modern architecture, or other objects protected by copyright).

Focus: The main subject is out of focus or is not in focus due to camera shake, motion blur, overuse of noise reduction, or technical limitations of the equipment used (e.g. autofocus searching, camera sensor quality, etc).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, McOwenLevi said:

@Whiteaster I also received similar rejection comments all the time. Any advise how to avoid this type of rejection? (I'm still a beginner in photography)

Hi McOwenLevi,

I feel really honored by your trust.

This is a very beautiful image.

1. For the first rejection reason, unfortunately I don't see much at this resolution but there must be many company logos on those buildings, so it can't be submitted as commercial but

Quote

Content that contains visible trademarks may be submitted for editorial use,

2. The second reason, intellectual property, is also for architecture, probably that beautiful terrace, some historical place maybe (landmarks created after 1900) but could be any of those buildings too.

I don't know the place but usually you should try to find the website of that building or monument and check if it is copyrighted or if photography is allowed at all.

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/What-types-of-subjects-require-a-property-release?q=list+of+restricted+subjects&l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle
At some point SS says that intellectual property can be submitted as editorial but I think that has changed over the times.

You can check the list of known image restrictions too

3. Unfortunately, I can't see how much is in focus on this image but usually you can direct the reviewer's eyes with the help of the title to what you consider the main focus.
Now, this is a skyline and I don't know what was your title but it should contain your main focus (not a guaranty but for a better chance).

Rejection for focus is a very usual reason, even when it is not true.

 

I am sorry I couldn't be more helpful but you can find most rejection reasons explained at this link too:

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/pkb_sstk_core_contributorkb_home?c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons&l=en_US

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 8:27 PM, Whiteaster said:

Hi McOwenLevi,

I feel really honored by your trust.

This is a very beautiful image.

1. For the first rejection reason, unfortunately I don't see much at this resolution but there must be many company logos on those buildings, so it can't be submitted as commercial but

2. The second reason, intellectual property, is also for architecture, probably that beautiful terrace, some historical place maybe (landmarks created after 1900) but could be any of those buildings too.

I don't know the place but usually you should try to find the website of that building or monument and check if it is copyrighted or if photography is allowed at all.

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/What-types-of-subjects-require-a-property-release?q=list+of+restricted+subjects&l=en_US&fs=RelatedArticle
At some point SS says that intellectual property can be submitted as editorial but I think that has changed over the times.

You can check the list of known image restrictions too

3. Unfortunately, I can't see how much is in focus on this image but usually you can direct the reviewer's eyes with the help of the title to what you consider the main focus.
Now, this is a skyline and I don't know what was your title but it should contain your main focus (not a guaranty but for a better chance).

Rejection for focus is a very usual reason, even when it is not true.

 

I am sorry I couldn't be more helpful but you can find most rejection reasons explained at this link too:

https://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/pkb_sstk_core_contributorkb_home?c=ContributorKB%3AContent_Rejection_Reasons&l=en_US

Good luck!

That wall is a 200+ year old hwaseong fortress (public park) in South Korea but its not listed in SS known "restricted" places in Asia. My intended subject is the contrast between the green garden and highly urbanized place on the other side - which is divided by that old wall in the middle. However, I honestly made a mistake also by poorly titling this photo (quite vague too). My title was "Landscape View of Suwon City South Korea". 😁

As for their "out of focus" comment, they always use this comment in my rejected photos lately. Even to photos taken with tripod, I still get similar comments. Really frustrating sometimes.

Anyways, I'll try your suggestion on making the title more consistent with the photos' subject and/or focus and hopefully it would reduce my rejections rate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 6:45 PM, Phil Lowe said:

They don't have a rejection reason for "atmospheric distortion", and yes, the distortion is so bad it renders this image unusable (not to mention all the black specs filling the sky).

As far as post-processing goes, that is every bit as much of an art as is the photography itself, so everyone is going to view it differently.  I shoot and edit raw and prefer some additional contrast and saturation.  Someone else prefers a different look.  It's all good.

 

The black specs are starling birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 1:58 PM, Whiteaster said:

Sorry for trying to help, I always forget I shouldn't do that.

Do you think these images are real?

No, no, no, you don't have to be sorry. I appreciate your help.

Those images you show me looks like the typical oversaturated and unreal stock images that I wouldn't buy for a project...

 

I can assure you that I have had to download thousands of photographs from different stock, for different m&c projects such as shutterstock and as istock or getty ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 7:44 PM, Emily Veinglory said:

The buyers/customers want sharp images because that is just what they want.  Not every photo, no matter how nice, is good for stock.

But all the stocks wants real people, real places, real reality, real feelings, real real, real light, real life, real colorus, no filters... Heh...

 

I always try to avoid that my photographies smells like stock images...

I do not like the ultracosmetized and plastified images of the typical stock images.

They all look the same with the same saturation, the same processes, losing the authenticity of what you feel or see when you take the pic, taking in mind, of course, that photography is only a rough copy of the reality...

 

Thank you all !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, McOwenLevi said:

That wall is a 200+ year old hwaseong fortress (public park) in South Korea but its not listed in SS known "restricted" places in Asia. My intended subject is the contrast between the green garden and highly urbanized place on the other side - which is divided by that old wall in the middle. However, I honestly made a mistake also by poorly titling this photo (quite vague too). My title was "Landscape View of Suwon City South Korea". 😁

As for their "out of focus" comment, they always use this comment in my rejected photos lately. Even to photos taken with tripod, I still get similar comments. Really frustrating sometimes.

There are company logos and store names all over in that image.

The sharpness issue could be due to lens settings (are you using a small aperture that might cause diffraction?) It is slightly soft for sure. Could also be post processing depending on what you've done.

 

This might work as an editorial submission. There are fewer restrictions on logos etc.

 

Edit: there is also some pretty bad moire on the grey buildings in the top right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

There are company logos and store names all over in that image.

The sharpness issue could be due to lens settings (are you using a small aperture that might cause diffraction?) It is slightly soft for sure. Could also be post processing depending on what you've done.

 

This might work as an editorial submission. There are fewer restrictions on logos etc.

 

Edit: there is also some pretty bad moire on the grey buildings in the top right.

I think you're right about the logos showing on this photo and the lower aperture I used (f 6.3) - should had been higher. Thanks for the comment, I will improve next time 😊 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, McOwenLevi said:

I used (f 6.3) - should had been higher.

Actually no. I thought you were using f22 or something. Sorry, I said smaller aperture as in smaller opening (larger number). That can lead to diffraction.

f6.3 is typically reasonably sharp on a lot of lenses (usually two full stops down from wide open is close to the sweet spot). Maybe diffraction isn't the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, chris kolaczan said:

Actually no. I thought you were using f22 or something. Sorry, I said smaller aperture as in smaller opening (larger number). That can lead to diffraction.

f6.3 is typically reasonably sharp on a lot of lenses (usually two full stops down from wide open is close to the sweet spot). Maybe diffraction isn't the issue.

Yeah.. I get what you mean. Just my opinion I think f8 to f11 is the ideal aperture for landscapes (the f6.3 i used might be a bit higher for that shot). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...