SS rejecting for too soft, out of focus for all my Sony RX10 images

[Phadrea]

I am so frustrated as I have just purchased the excellent Sony RX10 (or so I thought was excellent after all the reviews) so I can get excellent video as well as stills. All shots submitted from this camera have been rejected for just

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.

Even though I nailed the focus, got the confirmation beeps. Even in LR they look sharp enough but for some reason this camera does not fit their taste.

Tried posting an image here but when loaded all my text had gone blank.

[bunhill]

You could post a full size image to dropbox and add a link here ?

+ if you save your processing (all steps) from RAW as a new preset you can export that as a .lrtemplate file - which is in a plain text format. That way you can quickly share the processing which will probably help people work out what you are getting wrong.

[Perry]

RX10 has a really tiny sensor (13,2 x 8,8 mm), that may cause the problem. There isn't a lens in the world that will resolve 20 megapixels on that tiny area. There are reasons why people like cameras with full size (36 x 24 mm) sensors. (Or cameras with even larger sensor)

Sorry to ask this, do you know how a tack-sharp image looks at 100% on your screen?

My first idea is for you to make your images smaller, even the minimum size.

But you really need to post an example so we can be sure what this is about.

[Phadrea]

Even with a small sensor camera you can still get a sharp image. Here is a Jpeg straight out of camera (I also shot Raw)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/22xozknmb2mky3z/DSC00597.JPG?dl=0


If you read this guy's blogs ( and look at his images) on the RX10 he seems to think it's up to the job as a pro camera.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-first-sniff-test-with-sony-rx10.html

I just want to confirm it's a camera issue and not SS being picky as they sometimes can be, even with my trusty Nikon D200.

[Semmick Photo]

I'd say the middle part of the pipe is acceptable focus, borderline, but the top right corner is indeed out of focus which can happen. Softness in the corners even happens on a 24-70L II.

However, its a 20MP image, I would downsize to say 12MP and it will pass for sure.

PS:  I downsize all my images to 12MP. Big enough for 25-38 cent. 

[Phadrea]

Thanks for the feedback and info. Could you please tell me how I do this in Lightroom ?

[PaulieWalnuts]

I'd say the quality and sharpness looks very good. Maybe they don't like the subject and are just using sharpness as an easy out.

[Cesar]

corners are too damaged, you need to crop this image, lens @ 2,8 are not  good enough , blur is too noisy, maybe iso 50?, learn lightroom first , buy new camera, dont upload this image, maybe it will 2 or 3 times sold, image should be sold 20x, sorry.....

[Semmick Photo]

Thanks for the feedback and info. Could you please tell me how I do this in Lightroom ?

On the image, right click

Export > image sizing

There is a drop down menu with different options

[Phadrea]

corners are too damaged, you need to crop this image, lens @ 2,8 are not  good enough , blur is too noisy, maybe iso 50?, learn lightroom first , buy new camera, dont upload this image, maybe it will 2 or 3 times sold, image should be sold 20x, sorry.....

The lens is supposed to be sharp corner to corner. It was taken 125 iso. Not sure what you mean by "buy a new camera". You will be surprised what random images I have taken sell on SS. Stuff you just wouldn't think which is why I shoot all subjects. I also did a closer shot of the pipe.

[bunhill]

The lens is supposed to be sharp corner to corner. It was taken 125 iso.

Yes but the lens is wide open and, more importantly, you are focused relatively close. So that means a very narrow depth of focus. Even with the tiny sensor. And the subject matter is not all in one plane - so some is in focus and some is on the edge of focus. Also - lenses are seldom sharp corner to corner wide open.

ETA: I realise that I am talking about focus when this is actually about sharpness.

[Phadrea]

Thanks for the feedback and info. Could you please tell me how I do this in Lightroom ?

On the image, right click

Export > image sizing

There is a drop down menu with different options

thanks

[Phadrea]

Thanks for the feedback and info. Could you please tell me how I do this in Lightroom ?

On the image, right click

Export > image sizing

There is a drop down menu with different options

So I type in (12) in the megapixels box. And (240) pixels per inch. I render this smaller size jpeg and compare to normal size and can't see any visible difference. Should I ?

[Beppe Grillo]

Considering that with such a camera as the Sony RX10 you will never get the quality of a full frame camera with a same image size, my advice is to over-sharp a little your full size images in post production (smart sharp in Photoshop does miracles) and then export the images no more than 8 or 10 MPixels (as shown above by Semmick Photo).

[Sean Locke Photography]

I'd say the quality and sharpness looks very good. Maybe they don't like the subject and are just using sharpness as an easy out.

Looks ok to me too, although I do see some oversharpening halo around the upper parts.

[Phadrea]

 That's strange because I opted for sharpening to be off. I shot jpeg and RAW just to see how the RX10 made jpegs. I opted for vivid though. This image has not been touched in LR, only the RAW version which was submitted.

If I can get near to the Nikon D200 quality I will be happy but perhaps this is going to be my first camera for video and second as stills. The D200  (when sensor has been cleaned) will be my main for quality as it seems more reliable. Shame.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions.

[MarcvsTvllivs]

That's strange because I opted for sharpening to be off. I shot jpeg and RAW just to see how the RX10 made jpegs. I opted for vivid though. This image has not been touched in LR, only the RAW version which was submitted.

If I can get near to the Nikon D200 quality I will be happy but perhaps this is going to be my first camera for video and second as stills. The D200  (when sensor has been cleaned) will be my main for quality as it seems more reliable. Shame.

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions.

If the rx10 is anything like my rx100 III there is no way to turn off in-camera sharpening of JPEGs. Same goes for the very heavy-handed noise reduction. Shoot Raw.

[Difydave]

For what it's worth I nearly always find that the output from my  RX100 (same sensor) needs a touch of sharpening to appear "sharp" to me.
ETA I nearly always shoot RAW.

[Phadrea]

Yes I always shoot RAW and edit in Lightroom. The RX100 has the same sensor but not the same lens. The Zeis on the RX10 is in another league, or so I hope.

[Difydave]

Zeiss on the rx100 as well. I don't know if there's much to choose between them in that way apart from the rx10's much greater zoom range, and the rx100's bigger aperture.
I'd assumed that part of the slight softness thing (and it is only slight IMO) was to do with tending to shoot at at bigger apertures. 

[OM]

I'd say the middle part of the pipe is acceptable focus, borderline, but the top right corner is indeed out of focus which can happen. Softness in the corners even happens on a 24-70L II.

However, its a 20MP image, I would downsize to say 12MP and it will pass for sure.

PS:  I downsize all my images to 12MP. Big enough for 25-38 cent. 

Agree with Ron. For shot in bright sunlight, middle of shot is borderline acceptable @100% with softness in corners. Maybe worth resubmission when downsized but beware SS review tends to dislike black shadows and may fault the image on all manner of other factors (if they don't like it)!

Once had an image rejected on poor isolation which wasn't isolated but had a 'line' in the image from use of a rendering filter (starburst effect). So, I removed the offending line and said that it was due to a filter rather than isolation and resubmitted. I can only assume that my contradicting their assumption of poor isolation got the image sent directly to Attila who came back with the following:

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.
Noise--Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized.
Lighting Problems--Image contains color fringing and/or inappropriate lens flares.
Poor Lighting--Image has exposure issues, unfavorable lighting conditions, and/or incorrect white balance

In other words.....please throw this image away. It is irretrievable (or words to that effect).

[stockastic]

IMHO there is nothing wrong with that photo.

[Rinderart]

reviewers as you know look at 100%. I can't comment without that. everything looks fine in a print that size. Also I would lose the vivid setting, It overloads the sensor. if ya want it to pop, Just use levels or a bit of luminosity in PS/Match color.

[shiyali]

I have used the RX10 for stock images for one year. The image quality is plenty good, but you can't look at it as a 20MP camera. Downsize to 12MP or a bit less, and you'll be fine.

[Semmick Photo]

reviewers as you know look at 100%. I can't comment without that. everything looks fine in a print that size.

its a full res 20mp image. How can you not check that at 100%?

[Phadrea]

Thanks again folks for the helpful feedback. This was the first day I was testing the camera in good light so still getting to grips with how it works compared to the D200. It's encouraging to read others here are using it for stock. The downsizing tip is very helpful which I will use all the time now. Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop but Lightroom 5 serves me well.

Has anyone used the HDR type facility on the RX10 with regards to getting a better dynamic range ? I don't mean the horrible gimmicky effect a lot use.

[BaldricksTrousers]

reviewers as you know look at 100%. I can't comment without that. everything looks fine in a print that size. Also I would lose the vivid setting, It overloads the sensor. if ya want it to pop, Just use levels or a bit of luminosity in PS/Match color.

You have to click on the download button to get to see the full-size version - it fooled me, too, at first.

[BaldricksTrousers]

There is obvious distortion at the top right and and bottom of the pipe starting from about where the streaks of red paint runs down the pipe, I cropped off that bit and I was left with about 10MP in the centre that is sharp. It's not bad, really, for such a tiny sensor. Stopping down the lens a bit would probably improve things further.

Now some comments for those who wonder whether this really is challenging the DSLRs. I've experimented using a heap of old equipment and I think it's fair to say that the image quality this lens/camera is producing is roughly equivalent to what I have seen from consumer lenses from the 1920s (I must admit, I was surprised at how comparatively good those old primes were, but they were still a long way short of "L" glass on a DSLR). Specifically,  in addition to the lack of sharpness around the edges of the image, I would say the contrast is poor, the bokeh horrible (a bit like the "clumpy" Tessar bokeh, only worse) and the background looks to me as if it has had some in-camera correction applied for noise and CA. The sky is clean - but look at the graininess where the edges of the bridge meets the sky - that suggests cunning noise reduction to me. The out-of-focus tree to the left of where the pipes join has a green cast, which is a sure sign of magenta-green chromatic aberration, but again it seems to have been corrected. If you look at the posts on top of the bridge, the left hand side has a brown/reddish colour while the right hand side has a bluish colour - that's the result of yellow/blue CA.
A lot of this might improve if the lens were stopped down to its sweet point but I think it would probably struggle to get past inspections at Shutterstock, and if you can't rely on your camera to produce stock-quality shots when you are using it properly then I don't think it is any use as a camera for stock. You need to know that if you are doing everything right, then the camera will deliver the goods.

[Phadrea]

There is obvious distortion at the top right and and bottom of the pipe starting from about where the streaks of red paint runs down the pipe, I cropped off that bit and I was left with about 10MP in the centre that is sharp. It's not bad, really, for such a tiny sensor. Stopping down the lens a bit would probably improve things further.

Now some comments for those who wonder whether this really is challenging the DSLRs. I've experimented using a heap of old equipment and I think it's fair to say that the image quality this lens/camera is producing is roughly equivalent to what I have seen from consumer lenses from the 1920s (I must admit, I was surprised at how comparatively good those old primes were, but they were still a long way short of "L" glass on a DSLR). Specifically,  in addition to the lack of sharpness around the edges of the image, I would say the contrast is poor, the bokeh horrible (a bit like the "clumpy" Tessar bokeh, only worse) and the background looks to me as if it has had some in-camera correction applied for noise and CA. The sky is clean - but look at the graininess where the edges of the bridge meets the sky - that suggests cunning noise reduction to me. The out-of-focus tree to the left of where the pipes join has a green cast, which is a sure sign of magenta-green chromatic aberration, but again it seems to have been corrected. If you look at the posts on top of the bridge, the left hand side has a brown/reddish colour while the right hand side has a bluish colour - that's the result of yellow/blue CA.
A lot of this might improve if the lens were stopped down to its sweet point but I think it would probably struggle to get past inspections at Shutterstock, and if you can't rely on your camera to produce stock-quality shots when you are using it properly then I don't think it is any use as a camera for stock. You need to know that if you are doing everything right, then the camera will deliver the goods.

Well it is working for some here who use it for stock. I think you are really nitpicking it. I read in the guide by (can't remember his name) that stopping it more than F8 can give lens refraction issues.

As I didn't have a video camera I thought the RX10 would be worth the price alone for just that job. A bonus if I can get images out of it for stock.

Read this (professional) guy's blog and you can clearly see what it is capable of.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/getting-comfortable-with-sony-rx10.html

Also, look at this Flikr photographer

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125808962@N03/with/15811725933/

[JKB]

It takes a while to get used to a new camera or lens so I'm sure you'll soon be able to get the best out of that camera - finding the optimal aperture etc, and knowing what subjects and lighting conditions it works best with.

I use both a full-frame Nikon and a compact for stock and very rarely need to down-size the images from the smaller sensor but it is essential to avoid underexposure. This will vary from camera to camera but I found that in most situations I got consistently better results setting the normal exposure to +0.7EV. In cases where the lighting is contrasty I generally shoot three bracketed shots. More often than not I actually end up using the brightest frame - with an exposure of +1.7.

[BaldricksTrousers]

..... I think you are really nitpicking it. I read in the guide by (can't remember his name) that stopping it more than F8 can give lens refraction issues.

As I didn't have a video camera I thought the RX10 would be worth the price alone for just that job. A bonus if I can get images out of it for stock.

Read this (professional) guy's blog and you can clearly see what it is capable of.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/getting-comfortable-with-sony-rx10.html

Yes, of course I'm nitpicking - isn't that what the reviewers on stock sites do, too? Isn't that why you are getting "too soft" rejections from SS? And the "professional" guy doesn't seem to be disagreeing with me - he calls it a Swiss Army Knife of a camera, it does everything pretty well but isn't a specialist tool. I assume that he is writing his blog for the consumer market, not for professional stock photographers.
As for the Flickr feed - the pictures are fine as pictures but are they stock quality? Microstock quality is, as we know, verging on the insane. But if the video is what you got it for, rather than stills, then the fact it also takes pretty good still pictures is an added benefit.
I wasn't suggesting stopping down beyond the sweet point, but the sample shot was at f/2.8, wasn't it? f/8 might be a significant improvment.

[PaulieWalnuts]

Most sites are accepting cellphone images. While my iPhone5 makes good quality images I don't see them being as good as this picture. I downloaded the pic, looked at 100%, and think it's plenty good for today's standards. I'd bet if it was a family playing at the beach with sunflare tone it would have been accepted.

[etudiante_rapide]

I am so frustrated as I have just purchased the excellent Sony RX10 (or so I thought was excellent after all the reviews) so I can get excellent video as well as stills. All shots submitted from this camera have been rejected for just

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.

Even though I nailed the focus, got the confirmation beeps. Even in LR they look sharp enough but for some reason this camera does not fit their taste.

Tried posting an image here but when loaded all my text had gone blank.

i think you should stop relying on beeps or what other professional say about stopping it more than F8 can give lens refraction issues.
etc

there are variations even with the same camera and same lens. i do my own test-shoot for as long as i can before i shoot anything for stock or business.  these days in the internet, everyone is a guru

the only guru i believe is my own test. and yes, you will get problems with softness if you do shoot at wide open as BT pointed out.

all these points tell me you have not been doing your homework with this camera, and just point and shoot. you will be far better off with a PNS and a well-tested knowledge of what makes the PNS tick.
Sony RX 10 or Nikon or Canon, does not make it a good image automatically.
that's like i overheard someone asking a salesguy in the store, can you tell me what camera xxx use , i want to buy one so i can shoot like a pro like him.

[shiyali]

If you want to learn how to use the RX10 I strongly recommend this book. I have it and it is very good.

http://whiteknightpress.com/photographers-guide-to-the-sony-dsc-rx10/

500 pages of info, download version is only 10$.

Thanks again folks for the helpful feedback. This was the first day I was testing the camera in good light so still getting to grips with how it works compared to the D200. It's encouraging to read others here are using it for stock. The downsizing tip is very helpful which I will use all the time now. Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop but Lightroom 5 serves me well.

Has anyone used the HDR type facility on the RX10 with regards to getting a better dynamic range ? I don't mean the horrible gimmicky effect a lot use.

[Rinderart]

reviewers as you know look at 100%. I can't comment without that. everything looks fine in a print that size. Also I would lose the vivid setting, It overloads the sensor. if ya want it to pop, Just use levels or a bit of luminosity in PS/Match color.

You have to click on the download button to get to see the full-size version - it fooled me, too, at first.

Got it, thanks. Doesn't look all that bad. Yes theres some issues But....For our commission Rate and someone not doing this full time. These Little sensor cameras are looking pretty good. Im Lucky as I get to test all the new stuff from High end to Low. Panny and fuji are doing some amazing things. I just can't show up at a job with one..............yet. lol

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.

Luminous Landscape seems to be saying that it is technically impossible for the lenses to resolve more than that on a 35mm frame http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml but it's all very complicated.  However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.

[Rinderart]

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.

Luminous Landscape seems to be saying that it is technically impossible for the lenses to resolve more than that on a 35mm frame http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml but it's all very complicated.  However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.

Agree and Michael is a very , Very Old friend. and the Only site i believe for anything. One of My oldest friends who works for the government and is the foremost authority on optics doing the Hubble and the Keck. Agrees. These guys know stuff that we will never know unless we spend 40 Years in school. He has 3 degrees. An amazing guy. I spent 3 weeks with him In Hawaii. Right before I bought the d800. He said this camera with a 24-70 is a F8 Camera. Period.

Would love to discuss this with you Offline.

[Phadrea]

If you want to learn how to use the RX10 I strongly recommend this book. I have it and it is very good.

http://whiteknightpress.com/photographers-guide-to-the-sony-dsc-rx10/

500 pages of info, download version is only 10$.

Thanks again folks for the helpful feedback. This was the first day I was testing the camera in good light so still getting to grips with how it works compared to the D200. It's encouraging to read others here are using it for stock. The downsizing tip is very helpful which I will use all the time now. Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop but Lightroom 5 serves me well.

Has anyone used the HDR type facility on the RX10 with regards to getting a better dynamic range ? I don't mean the horrible gimmicky effect a lot use.

Yes, i downloaded that book a few days ago. Currently going through it. What I have noticed with this camera is noise from anything pulled from shadows, even at 125 iso but again it's a small sensor. Artisticly it's not that much of an issue but for stock it can be tricky.

[stockastic]

Agree and Michael is a very , Very Old friend. and the Only site i believe for anything. One of My oldest friends who works for the government and is the foremost authority on optics doing the Hubble and the Keck. Agrees. These guys know stuff that we will never know unless we spend 40 Years in school. He has 3 degrees. ...

Thanks for that info.  There are countless photography 'experts' putting up sites, and about a million windbags posting their unshakeable opinions,  and it's just about impossible to know what to believe.  Right now for example, the amount of crazy, contradictory stuff about "full frame" sensors and lenses is mind boggling.   Luminous Landscape has always been a site on my list, now I'll move it to the top.

BTW years ago I read a great book about the Hubble project which, as you know, nearly ended in disaster when a mis-ground mirror was put in orbit.  Maybe your friend has the real story. :-)

[etudiante_rapide]

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.

Luminous Landscape seems to be saying that it is technically impossible for the lenses to resolve more than that on a 35mm frame http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml but it's all very complicated.  However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.

nikon and canon are here to sell cameras. they have the biggest collection of gadgeteers who will sell their still workable and no doubt full of mileage left less recent model as soon as the next new model arrives.  these bunch of (photographers) GWCs keep camera sales people keeping their jobs , as they buy new stuff all the time. and many are not working photographers, much like guys who used to play in the band with tone-deaf singer, out of tune guitars and drum sets ... just to pick up girls and get drunk.

so no matter what the truth is about optics, nikon and canon will sell cameras even if we get to 75 MP. same for the mobile phones which users swear is better than a nikon or canon lens
even though that is like using an instamatic to take photos, even if you say it can use kodachrome 25.

the painter keeps his brushes and pallet until he dies or those utilities break or wear out. the wannabees
will keep buying the next best thing so they can paint like the master
even though they have not even learn the basics .
photographerscamera users are the same

[Perry]

However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.

It's not quite so simple. The lens may resolve - let's say 20mp - in detail, but since it's a bayer sensor, it can resolve details with color with a much less mp. Every fourth pixel is red, if you have some red details, the 20mp image can resolve red details correctly only at 5mp.

The anti-alias filter also blurs the image. In a 50mp camera the anti-alias filter can be much weaker (there are even models without the anti-alias filter!), because the lens does the needed blurring already. The anti-alias filter is needed because the sensor doesn't have enough resolution! I think when the cameras are about 100 mp, we can totally throw away all anti-alias filters.

This all can be proven by making real-world tests when you all get your Eos 5DS.
Just shoot an image with two cameras, for example 5DS (50mp) and 5D mk II (21mp), same scene, same light, same good quality lens with medium aperture. The scene should include tiny details with colors. Then downsize the larger image to the same size as the smaller image. The (originally) 50mp WILL look sharper and resolve detail better!

[sanmai]

Even with a small sensor camera you can still get a sharp image. Here is a Jpeg straight out of camera (I also shot Raw)
newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/22xozknmb2mky3z/DSC00597.JPG?dl=0 [nonactive]

Looks plastic(ish) to me. I had similar issues with Fuji X-E1. Got tired of it and sold it back.

Example: newbielink:https://www.flickr.com/photos/sanmai/12717942513/sizes/o/ [nonactive]

[topol]

Your subject is so LCV, they will just reject it for the slightest problem. If it was HCV, they probably wouldn't be this stringent.

Also they might just reject things like this for being LCV, they just dont wan't to use the LCV rejection message, because there has been so much turmoil about this subject in the forums.

[Phadrea]

Ok, so I have downsized my renderings. Uploaded shots taken in good, clear bright light at 125 iso and I am still getting a lot rejected on the basis of "too soft and blury" and or "excessive noise" - even after editing in Lightroom. I hardly ever has issues like this with my Nikon D200.

4 accepted and 12 rejected. 

[Phadrea]

Again, more rejections based on "Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized." Also "too blury and soft" even after noise reduction in LR. I just don't get it, even downsizing doesn't help.

[Semmick Photo]

Example?

[StockPhotosArt.com]

Also had a batch with 100% failure with the same reason (Focus) when I'm absolutely sure that the images are sharp (Canon 5D MKII / L lenses with stabilizer / 100 iso / sunny day).

After 9 years doing this, and an approval of over 90% in every agency I think I know what a sharp should look like is...

Several weeks ago the same thing happened, resubmitted and all got approved.

At this moment I have little doubts that these images are not reviewed by people but they are using some crappy software. That, or I'm entering the niche of the reviewer that's also a photographer.

[Phadrea]

Example?

Ok but a little dubious of sharing for fear of image theft from browsers who don't belong to this forum.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3d6pxpun6bhqxk/Chinese%20Decorations.jpg?dl=0



https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcun48mcx05i0ke/Ornate%20Dome.jpg?dl=0

[Semmick Photo]

Example?

Ok but a little dubious of sharing for fear of image theft from browsers who don't belong to this forum.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3d6pxpun6bhqxk/Chinese%20Decorations.jpg?dl=0



https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcun48mcx05i0ke/Ornate%20Dome.jpg?dl=0

Herg, I have checked the image at 100% and I have to agree with the reviewer, there seems to be pixelation going on, which looks like its because of the small censor capacity.

This is a good read http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/

If you check at 100% you will see the noise / pixelation clearly

[Phadrea]

The image with the Chinese decorations was in fact (by mistake of wrong in camera settings) taken as a Fine Detail Jpeg so I was limited in LR as to reduce noise. That said, all my other failed shots were taken in RAW. Others here have this camera and say they think it good enough for stock.

[Semmick Photo]

Well, show me an image then you think has no noise, and I will check it.

[Phadrea]

Well, show me an image then you think has no noise, and I will check it.

The other one of the dome building I posted with the chinese pic. That is Raw with 125 iso.

[Semmick Photo]

Well, show me an image then you think has no noise, and I will check it.

The other one of the dome building I posted with the chinese pic. That is Raw with 125 iso.

Just chekced it and it should have been accepted.

[hatman12]

I looked at the Dome picture (downloaded full size).  There's noise in the sky and the overall image isn't sharp.  It's also LCV so as others have suggested the inspectors will look for any opportunity to reject.  Sorry.

The Chinese objects picture is also LCV and should in any case be rejected for copyright.

[Phadrea]

Semmick said it should have been accepted. You say it isnt sharp. How can this be ? I had a focus beep confirm the image was sharp before I shot it. It looks sharp to my eyes. Noise in good light at 125 iso + downsized -  Really ? I have never had this problem with a ten year old Nikon D200 and I also added NR in LR so it should not be a problem.

What does LVC mean ?

[hatman12]

It looks soft to me, in other words not tack sharp.  There's sensor noise all over the sky, more so in the darker areas of course.  You can get rid of that noise by selecting the blue channel and applying noise reduction or a gaussian blur.

LCV means Low Commercial Value.  This is just a snapshot of some uninteresting dome somewhere.  There's no copyspace - the dome is just sitting there slap bang in the middle of the picture.  Nothing to identify what it is or where it is.  Very unlikely to sell, hence LCV.

To be fair, if this was a HCV pic, it might get accepted despite the technical shortcomings (a designer can always get rid of the noise and/or sharpen it).

If you want a further opinion, perhaps JSnover will have a look - she's the photoshop and image expert around here.

If you want to produce lots of highly saleable and technically good stock photos, get rid of your small sensor camera and buy one that has at least an APS-C sensor.  I suspect that your Sony is going to be a source of tremendous frustration for stock photography.  That doesn't mean it's not a good camera for general use.  Standards have gone up, particularly at Shutterstock, with thousands of high quality photos being submitted every day.  The inspectors don't need to accept second best, and they'll just reject unless the picture is unique or has seriously high commercial value.

[Phadrea]

Points taken thanks but you would be surprised what does sell. Yes, it may have LCV but hundreds of other images I have taken with LCV have sold with no copyspae etc which is why I always shoot nevertheless. Why not, it costs a second of your time.

I really bought the RX10 for it's versatile video capabilities and lens. I suppose I could continue ( after a sensor clean) using the D200 for my general stock images and the RX10 here and there if I get a strong image with HCV.

[shiyali]

Example?

Ok but a little dubious of sharing for fear of image theft from browsers who don't belong to this forum.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3d6pxpun6bhqxk/Chinese%20Decorations.jpg?dl=0



https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcun48mcx05i0ke/Ornate%20Dome.jpg?dl=0

Herg, I have checked the image at 100% and I have to agree with the reviewer, there seems to be pixelation going on, which looks like its because of the small censor capacity.

This is a good read http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/



If you check at 100% you will see the noise / pixelation clearly

The sensor is fine at lower ISO, but the Chinese stuff image was taken at ISO1250!! What do you expect?

[Phadrea]

Yes, I realize that the Chinese image isn't the best example because I had the camera set by mistake on auto iso and shot in Jpeg. Perhaps downsize to about 10 mp ?