MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getting glaciers accepted?  (Read 1270 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 13, 2017, 12:07 »
0
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.   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2017, 12:10 »
0
Quote
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. 

That's a bummer, must be really noisy since Alamy QC is really slack. Perhaps don't crop as much? Don't open shadows too much?

Sometimes you just have to let go of some images and move on, which sucks in this case since not like you're gonna go back to Alaska anytime soon.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2017, 12:17 »
0
Like BN says, their QC doesn't tend to be all that tight, but they do have some little bugbears, it seems.
Have you thought of posting on their forum?
Without seeing your image, it's hard to give any sort of advice, though. It must be possible to get them accepted, as searching for Alaska, glacier throws up 24,952 hits.

« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2017, 16:01 »
0
submit a few in the middle of a stack of other submissions - don't they only look at one image per submission? I have had that problem with SS - digital noise rejection in pictures of sand dunes - no reviewer, what you see are the grains of sand. Some things just have grain.

« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2017, 03:39 »
+2
submit 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.

Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2017, 03:43 »
0
Quote
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.

She's probably shooting with a point and shoot or some inferior lens. Which camera/lens were you using, Beverly?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2017, 03:54 »
0
It used to be that if you uploaded a photo from a unapproved camera, it was filtered out during the upload process and it didn't reach QC. I don't know that that still happens, but quite probably it does. I read about that sometimes being a problem with very new camera models.
However, I never read about the process rejecting for substandard lenses.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 00:43 by ShadySue »

« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2017, 00:16 »
0
Quote
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.

She's probably shooting with a point and shoot or some inferior lens. Which camera/lens were you using, Beverly?
Beverly is the family name, and my point and shoot is a Nikon d7100 usually in Aperture mode on a tripod with a gen 2 kit lens (usually around 55mm).  At 60 degrees north, the sun is never bright even on the brightest day and ISO of 1600 is usually required to even to have a hope of freezing the branches and leaves of the low brush that covers most of Alaska.  So, noise is a problem all of the time.  However, none of that deals with the infinity of tiny mirrors that a granular field ice produces and looks like noise.  How do you deal with that situation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2017, 00:23 »
0
submit 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.
Do you have watch any settings to avoid when taking pictures of sand dunes if you have any nearby?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2017, 00:37 »
+1
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?

« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2017, 12:08 »
0
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?
Moving people or a moving boat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2017, 13:02 »
+1

[/quote]
Beverly is the family name, and my point and shoot is a Nikon d7100 usually in Aperture mode on a tripod with a gen 2 kit lens (usually around 55mm).  At 60 degrees north, the sun is never bright even on the brightest day and ISO of 1600 is usually required to even to have a hope of freezing the branches and leaves of the low brush that covers most of Alaska.  So, noise is a problem all of the time.  However, none of that deals with the infinity of tiny mirrors that a granular field ice produces and looks like noise.  How do you deal with that situation?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
[/quote]

ISO 1600 will cause noise every time. Better to increase your shutter speed first than the ISO. Find your shutter speed first and then adjust the ISO.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2017, 13:28 »
0
True that 1600 tends towards noise, but I have files shot at 1600 (Canon 5DMk2) accepted on Alamy, so that can't be the only problem. I use a bit of noise reduction in RAW then if necessary reduce the filesize.

« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2017, 14:30 »
0
I've got 8 or 9 on there of Hubbard Glacier.

I was shooting early morning under cloudy skies from a moving cruise ship.

Not sure which specific images were submitted and accepted, but all images shot that morning were either ISO 100 or 400. Shutter speeds were all over the place, mostly dependent on lens and focal length, but the slowest was 125th. I had more issue with sharpness than noise but ended up with quite a few keepers.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-hubbard-glacier-in-alaska-under-cloudy-skies-135201220.html [nofollow]

« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2017, 11:07 »
0
http://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-qc-failure-reasons.pdf

QC guide maybe an answer in this?

I had one unsuitable camera image and the whole rest of the batch was rejected. Undersized or wrong format will be removed, no effect on review.


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors