MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another photo rejected by SS  (Read 7076 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 06, 2016, 09:25 »
0
I had one photo accepted and one rejected. My camera makes noisy photos with it's one inch sensor. Today I had to pull the noise removal slider all the way to 70 in Lightroom and there is still noise. Is it possible that this is the reason that my photos look soft? My peanut cookies started to look all like plastic. My old camera has an even smaller sensor but makes less noisy photos. I am starting to hate the Sony RX100M3 camera. My old camera was half the price and is better. I pulled the sharpening slider to 35. There is still noise. To remove it all I would have to set the noise removal to 90. Is there a better but still lightweight camera that's suitable and doesn't produce so much noise?


Fudio

« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2016, 09:42 »
0
Did they reject it specifically for noise or another technical issue such as overdoing the filter which would definitely account for the "plasticy" look. I have the RX10 iii which I believe has the same sensor. I use it primarily for video but the holiday snaps I also use it for are just fine. In fact it handles shadow noise much better than my full frame.

What kind of noise are you getting? Exposure settings? Lighting?

« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2016, 09:47 »
0
Rejection reason: soft focus. One photo got rejected for still having noise even though others have accepted it and I didn't see any noise in it. Had to zoom to 200% to see maybe a tiny bit. I removed that last bit and image was accepted. The sunrise images are bad. This was taken with less light in my kitchen. ISO 80. I never higher.

« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2016, 09:49 »
+2
Rejection reason: soft focus.

So why are we talking about noise then?

« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2016, 09:54 »
0
I don't think the RX10iii is the same camera. Yours is a very expensive bridge camera. Well, I don't know but I didn't pay 1350. My camera was retail price 800. Just saw your message. My question is if the heavy noise removal can come cause the soft focus. How can a stack of pancakes have soft focus? A small stack. Not even that high. I took it with f8. I zoomed in to 200% to see a little bit  of softness. Just not super sharp but not blurry.  Do I need to sharpen more? 

« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2016, 09:58 »
+1
Today I had to pull the noise removal slider all the way to 70 in Lightroom and there is still noise.

This was taken with less light in my kitchen. ISO 80. I never higher.

I am not sure what you are doing wrong but you are doing something wrong. I just checked back the images I shot with the RX100III two years ago. Noise becomes visible at ISO 400 and noticable at ISO 800 but still is managable. I just put noise reduction to 25 in LR for the ISO 800 images and it's fine.

However, you are talking about soft focus and loss of detail and the low light in your kitchen which leads me to think that your problem isn't actually noise but proper exposure. Noise becomes a bigger problem in the shadow areas and especially if you are trying to raise the light in post processing. Maybe that's where things are going wrong?

If not, I'd say show us a sample image with a 100% crop and include the EXIF data.

« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2016, 10:08 »
0
Wow. The one in the kitchen I edited today. They don't have that yet. The other one had enough light. The golden hour photos look bad. But I have to set the slider always between 50 and 70. I used Affinity Photo before for editing. Well, I don't know my noise becomes visible at ISO 80 even in daylight. I shoot in RAW. Sony says it's a 1 inch sensor but it's only 0.8.

« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2016, 10:13 »
0
....If not, I'd say show us a sample image with a 100% crop and include the EXIF data.

« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2016, 10:14 »
0
Here is the image. I cropped it a lot. The rejected one for soft focus.

« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2016, 10:15 »
0
I cropped it but could only save it with 40% quality.

« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2016, 10:17 »
0
Looks worse on here than on my computer.  :)

Fudio

« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2016, 10:17 »
0
Today I had to pull the noise removal slider all the way to 70 in Lightroom and there is still noise.

This was taken with less light in my kitchen. ISO 80. I never higher.

I am not sure what you are doing wrong but you are doing something wrong. I just checked back the images I shot with the RX100III two years ago. Noise becomes visible at ISO 400 and noticable at ISO 800 but still is managable. I just put noise reduction to 25 in LR for the ISO 800 images and it's fine.

However, you are talking about soft focus and loss of detail and the low light in your kitchen which leads me to think that your problem isn't actually noise but proper exposure. Noise becomes a bigger problem in the shadow areas and especially if you are trying to raise the light in post processing. Maybe that's where things are going wrong?

If not, I'd say show us a sample image with a 100% crop and include the EXIF data.

Can't add much to that except to say that there are a lot of factors that can introduce noise to an image including sensor temperature, exposure duration, and sharpening algorithms both in camera and in post. Be very careful with sharpening. It can never fix a poorly focused image.

If we are indeed talking about noise you could also try bumping your ISO incrementally on a similar image setup in order to shorten your exposure times. Compare the variations between the images and see if you can find the sweet spot for your camera.


Fudio

« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2016, 10:28 »
0
Here is the image. I cropped it a lot. The rejected one for soft focus.

Really hard to tell from this crop but if I had to guess judging by the falloff at f8 I'd guess your focal plane is really in front of your subject. Somewhere between the edge of the plate and the pancakes? Looks soft to me.

« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2016, 10:28 »
0
Fudio, that is interesting, I never thought about exposure time because I use a tripod. Oh no, now that I am writing tripod.....this is one of my old photos before you told me to switch off image stabiliser. I think I need to go through my old ones with 200% zoomed in. I haven't edited them all yet. Best is to throw them all. However, I took a really soft awful one of the pier in the golden hour with Steady Shot off and a tripod. Shot against the sun and it's just horrible. Is anybody living near Cardiff, willing to give me some paid lessons? I never knew I need them. Images taken with my old 15MP camera in Jpg never get rejected. Apart from for noise at the beginning when I just started with microstock. Then I bought the Sony RX100M3 and my misery started. My old camera shoots would shoot such images with ISO125 and not make more noise. I would love to buy the Sony A7Rii but that's just too much money. And soooooo difficult to hold. And heavy. I will try setting ISO higher. My shutter speed is often about 1/15 inside but of course a lot higher outside. Doesn't make a difference to noise.

« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2016, 10:34 »
0
I thought the top one on the left side looks soft. Yes, the one accepted I shot with f6 and I was about the same distance away. I had less light for the one taken with f6. I have left the image on DT but have taken it of Fotolia before they check it. They have rejected an image SS has approved of. They are even worse. I really hate them. My camera is on the tripod, off the tripod....I am now really having a hard time to remember Steady On - off, Steady On -on.....

« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2016, 10:50 »
+2
Looks quite soft yes. Either due to slight misfocus or the quality of the lens. Do all photos look like this?

Also, noise reduction = blurring (roughly speaking). If you're shooting stuff like this make sure ISO is always at its lowest, aperture at its sweet spot (you'll have to figure that out) and focus stacking if necessary.

To further lower noise it is usually best to expose to the right, meaning overexpose a bit but not too much so you blow the highlights. Noise likes to live in the shadows so it usually looks better to slightly overexpose and bring highlights down than bring shadows up. As long as they're not blown out.

« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2016, 10:51 »
0
Looks quite soft yes. Either due to slight misfocus or the quality of the lens. Do all photos look like this? What is wide open on this lens?

Also, noise reduction = blurring/loss of detail (roughly speaking). If you're shooting stuff like this make sure ISO is always at its lowest, aperture at its sweet spot (you'll have to figure that out) and focus stacking if necessary.

To further lower noise it is usually best to expose to the right, meaning overexpose a bit but not too much so you blow the highlights. Noise likes to live in the shadows so it usually looks better to slightly overexpose and bring highlights down than bring shadows up. As long as they're not blown out.

« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2016, 10:51 »
0
Looks quite soft yes. Either due to slight misfocus or the quality of the lens. Do all photos look like this? What is wide open on this lens?

Also, noise reduction = blurring/loss of detail (roughly speaking). If you're shooting stuff like this make sure ISO is always at its lowest, aperture at its sweet spot (you'll have to figure that out) and focus stacking if necessary.

To further lower noise it is usually best to expose to the right, meaning overexpose a bit but not too much so you blow the highlights. Noise likes to live in the shadows so it usually looks better to slightly overexpose and bring highlights down than bring shadows up. As long as they're not blown out.

« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2016, 10:52 »
0
I just checked 2 images I have taken today. Same image, same position, same focus. One in Jpeg one in RAW. The jog is razor sharp. The RAW has this softness and the stone wall at lower part of image looks very, very soft. Maybe I should shoot JPEG instead of RAW.

« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2016, 11:00 »
0
Looks quite soft yes. Either due to slight misfocus or the quality of the lens. Do all photos look like this? What is wide open on this lens?

Well, I cropped it and saved it with 40%. I wouldn't have uploaded it looking that bad. Yes, I am now taking photos in a better place with more light. Exposure +1.3. Just before blowing out highlights. This is one of my very first images. Yes, the RAW file I shot today looks like that but the Jpeg is razor sharp. Fotolia sold a travel image taken outside and taken with my old camera. Taken in JPEG. The old camera doesn't sharpen the images that much. This one from today has very sharp leaves on the trees. I normally only do it that much for art images. The stone wall is razor sharp on JPEG and horrible on RAW image.

Fudio

« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2016, 11:09 »
0
I just checked 2 images I have taken today. Same image, same position, same focus. One in Jpeg one in RAW. The jog is razor sharp...

Eureka?  Starting to sound like it is your RAW workflow. Not the camera.

« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2016, 11:16 »
0
 :)

« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2016, 11:25 »
0
you shouldnt have to touch the sharpness slider in Lightroom at all and it wont help you reduce noise either, it introduces a sharpness effect similar to noise. and pulling the noise reduction slider to 70 is not going to help you improve the photo in any way, it will make things a lot worse. shoot with the correct exposure and sufficient light and low iso and there will be no noise and you wont have to sharpen the photo either

« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2016, 11:43 »
0
I always shoot with ISO 80 and when I am outside on a sunny day, there is sufficient light to even shoot handheld but I still get so much noise. If I don't pull the noise reduction slider to 70 I get the images rejected for too much noise. So far I never used the sharpening slider. That was my question if using it would help. This camera has a one inch sensor and I think that is the reason for the noisy images.

Fudio

« Reply #24 on: June 06, 2016, 12:07 »
0
Are your jpegs also noisy or just the RAWs.?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3295 Views
Last post August 04, 2007, 12:23
by Eco
rejected photo

Started by chl « 1 2  All » Photo Critique

27 Replies
5756 Views
Last post August 15, 2009, 16:33
by Dreamframer
5 Replies
1763 Views
Last post November 16, 2011, 22:49
by frozensage
18 Replies
5102 Views
Last post January 08, 2013, 17:20
by shotupdave
27 Replies
5209 Views
Last post January 21, 2016, 09:54
by Lana

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors