0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Any suggestions on how not get "noise/gain" QA hits from a glacier or ice close up picture (other than converting to photo to a blurry water color by removing too detail with noise reduction)? Alaska glaciers are granular at any distance from micro to telephoto and I can't seem to get an accepted by the QA folks.
submit a few in the middle of a stack of other submissions - don't they only look at one image per submission?
I don't understand why glaciers would look "noisy" unless they do have "noise" in them, or why there should be a problem shooting them without under-exposing - but then there aren't a lot of glaciers to experiment with in Arabia.
QuoteI don't understand why glaciers would look "noisy" unless they do have "noise" in them, or why there should be a problem shooting them without under-exposing - but then there aren't a lot of glaciers to experiment with in Arabia.She's probably shooting with a point and shoot or some inferior lens. Which camera/lens were you using, Beverly?
Quote from: pancaketom on September 13, 2017, 16:01submit a few in the middle of a stack of other submissions - don't they only look at one image per submission? If you fail a submission they will start looking more closely at your subsequent submissions, as well as delaying the approval process. So it's not a good policy to try to hide stuff in the pile if you know it is sub-standard.I don't understand why glaciers would look "noisy" unless they do have "noise" in them, or why there should be a problem shooting them without under-exposing - but then there aren't a lot of glaciers to experiment with in Arabia.
Well, naturally, ice texture is not noise that should result in rejection, but without seeing any pictures it's just speculation here. Why not do long exposures by the way?