MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another photo rejected by SS  (Read 7056 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.?

« Reply #25 on: June 06, 2016, 12:41 »
0
This was the first Jpeg I have taken with this camera. I will check tomorrow.

« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2016, 13:50 »
0
You mentioned shooting at 80 ISO indoors, and this might be your problem. If you are trying to keep the ISO low and taking dark pictures, and you then need to increase the exposure, this can often bring up noise. Especially on a lower-end camera, if you don't expose it properly, even when shooting RAW, you can have an issue. It's best to expose properly even if you need to bump up the ISO to do it, rather than playing with the exposure in LR.

Moving the noise slider to 70 or 90 seems excessive. It will make even a very sharp photo soft.

I'm not familiar with your camera but if you find you are bumping up the exposure, try shooting at a higher ISO so that you don't need to increase exposure. I know from experience that with my full frame Nikon D700 I have more leeway than with my Olympus OMD E-1 if I shoot a photo that is too dark, although when properly exposed I get amazing noise-free photos from both cameras. I've shot at ISO 1600 with the Oly and had amazing results when they are properly exposed, even though it has a small sensor.

Good luck!

EDIT: I typed this several hours ago and never hit submit til now so if it's repetitive of others' posts sorry - 22 posts since I typed it this am. Don't have time to read them all but wanted to share this if it helps.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2016, 13:57 by wordplanet »

« Reply #27 on: June 06, 2016, 15:36 »
+4
If an ss reviewer doesn't like your images, they will reject it, but the reason won't necessarily be accurate. I can send noisy, soft focus images and they will accept them if they can see their sales potential. I can send super sharp images which aren't noisy and they will be rejected for noise or soft focus. Take what they say with a large pinch of salt, overall you aren't going to learn anything from the rejection reasons, you will in time learn what they like and and what they don't, then shoot accordingly.

« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2016, 01:59 »
0
Hello Wordplanet, no I don't need to increase exposure in Lightroom. I use a tripod and my shutterspeed is low. As I said beforee, I get that noise inn bright daylight. I will check the Jpeg later. I thought for 800 I would get a proper camera. I didn't think about the small sensor inside. More about if I can lift and hold that camera. 

« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2016, 02:02 »
+1
Here is the image. I cropped it a lot. The rejected one for soft focus.

Yes, that image looks soft, especially on the top and bottom. Shutterstock never liked that, they want mostly everything in focus. This is not a noise problem and has nothing to do with exposure, your post processing or shooting in RAW or JPG. It's about aperture, distance from the object and proper focusing. Shutterstock would reject this image even if you shot it on a Hasselblad.

« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2016, 02:29 »
0
No, I edited my sharp peanut cookies yesterday. They were shot indeed in a darker place . I normally don't take photos in my kitchen. When I reached  70 I stopped in horror but there was still noise. Noise was gone on setting 90. My cookies looked softer than soft. I checked the RAW file and they were sharp. I threw the photos in the bin. With Affinity and in outside sun I still have to go up to 50. DT accepts them. SS wants more noise removed. The accepted the sky after I removed more noise. This noise maker is no fun. Is there a lightweight camera that doesn't make noise. By the way, Serge, who owns the 2500 Sony A7R needs to pull the noise removal slider in LR to 40. That is a full frame shocking expensive camera. Price without lense. I do have the Topaz Collection. I could try removing noise with DeNoise instead of in LR.

« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2016, 02:49 »
0
One cookie photo I shot with f4 from above, the other one with a tripod.

« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2016, 03:13 »
0
I just read the following about this camera. Maybe it's not meant for commercial photography. Not when they want that much noise removed. Here part of the review:
Depending upon how you plan to use them, the photos can be considered acceptable through the top of its sensitivity range, ISO 12800, although you probably don't want use those shots at 100 percent. The processing and noise reduction are okay, though even at ISO 400 you can start to see some mushy edges and the not-terribly-smooth out-of-focus areas that typify small-sensor cameras. Nevertheless, in-focus areas still look good up through ISO 1600.

« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2016, 03:52 »
0
I just checked the two images I have taken yesterday. Same images. One in Jpeg, one in RAW. Both shot using Automatic mode and autofocus. Wow, what a difference. There was no colour noise in the Jpeg. Using the colour noise slider made image worse. I pulled noise slider to 30 and noise was gone. Nice looking image. Still sharp. Didn't use Clarity slider nor sharpening slider.
The RAW file: I hate looking at the sky. I stopped at 50. Still not looking good. Colour noise in image. Colour noise slider 64 and noise slider 61. In Affinity I probably would have ended up using 50.
Camera used f5.6, shutter speed 800, ISO 125.

« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2016, 04:10 »
0
I just edited the RAW file completely and despite setting the sharpening slider to 35 the image is soft and not sharp. The Jpeg is still super sharp. I have not used the sharpening slider. I didn't use the Clarity slider because I didn't want to sharpen the sky. Well, the Jpeg is great and the RAW is bad. However, yesterday's image was edited using Affinity Photo. It must be the heavy noise removal that ruins the images. Maybe the camera removes already some noise when processing it into a Jpeg.

« Reply #35 on: June 07, 2016, 04:11 »
0
I forgot to say: I bought a new camera so that I can shoot RAW and the Jpeg's end up being better.

« Reply #36 on: June 07, 2016, 04:32 »
+6
If you shoot similar images and the jpeg looks better than the raw file (after processing!), then that simply means that the jpeg engine in the camera is better than your post-processing skills.

That the unprocessed raw looks worse than the jpeg out of camera (more noise, softer) is no surprise, that's just what raw files are - you need to process them to look good. The advantage with raw is (only) that you have a lot more influence on how to process them instead of relying on the in-camera software.

Now you know what to work at.

Fudio

« Reply #37 on: June 07, 2016, 04:36 »
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 #38 on: June 07, 2016, 04:37 »
0
I just have edited the RAW. The RAW still looks worse. It gets soft when I have to set the noise removal slider so high to remove noise. I can't just leave all that noise. It will simply get rejected. I also edited again, this time using Clarity and sharpening slider. No difference. Still soft. If I don't set the noise removal so high, I still have noise. I think I will shoot in Jpeg from now on.

Fudio

« Reply #39 on: June 07, 2016, 04:55 »
0
Try processing the RAW file with Topaz Denoise. Use the RAW moderate first and see how that looks. Remember too that the RAW file has to be sharpened, so after you find a level of Denoise you are happy with you will still need to sharpen your image somewhat. Try the Topaz Adjust panel,  and set the detail slider to somewhere around 1.12. I don'the use Lightroom, but in Photoshop I find with most images a little more sharpening with Smart Sharpen is just the ticket.

Your mileage will vary with Topaz, and it takes a while to find just the right settings for your camera and shooting style, but with practice you will get there.

« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2016, 05:07 »
0
Thank you Fudio, I only bought Lightroom about 3 weeks ago. I watched lots of tutorials. With Affinity I use Clarity and set sharpening to amount: 15. I bought the Topaz collection about one month ago to help with my art images. With them I am more brutal. I just don't know how much to do on a photo for microstock. I read to leave the sharpening to the customers and the colour......But why shoot in Raw for microstock when Jpeg's are so great and so little work? For art that's different. The Topaz collection is a lot to learn. I did well when I had my Windows laptop and used Corel AfterShot Pro 2 and Corel PaintShop Pro. Affinity Photo I bought about 2 months ago when I got a MAC. I had a 100% acceptance rate on DT using my Windows Computer. Oh, yes, DXO is great for noise removal. I had to decide between buying Lightroom and DXO Elite. Since I have problems with my arms I might try shooting in Jpeg for microstock.

« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2016, 05:50 »
0
I remember that I never shot in f8 or f11 when I used Corel for editing. Then I was told that microstock wants depth of field and I need to shoot with f8. That didn't work so well. Then I increased to f9 to f11.  I only have about 40 images on DT. But the first ones where all accepted. I have not once been rejected for soft focus by DT. The new things I put on SS I had not put on DT. However, the f setting for the Jpeg and RAW file was the same.

« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2016, 06:13 »
0
Hello Michael, I just starting watching your Lightroom tutorials. I do have Lightroom in English, aber ich werde das schon verstehen.  :)
Thank you very much for the link. Much appreciated. Thank you to all of you for all your help and support.

« Reply #43 on: June 07, 2016, 06:46 »
0
Fotolia sold one of my photos today. A cat photo. A cute one. I got 1.60 credits for it. It was bought in size L. I don't understand that. A travel photo was bought in XL and I got 0.25 credits for it. Why the difference? Why did I get more for the L than the XL ?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2016, 07:24 »
0
Fotolia sold one of my photos today. A cat photo. A cute one. I got 1.60 credits for it. It was bought in size L. I don't understand that. A travel photo was bought in XL and I got 0.25 credits for it. Why the difference? Why did I get more for the L than the XL ?
I'm not on Fotolia, but it took me about ten seconds to find:
https://en.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors/Royalties

« Reply #45 on: June 07, 2016, 07:27 »
+1
Just a couple of comments. "Sweet spot" on the RX100 is apparently F5.6 - F8 you are going to lose sharpness out of that zone.
FWIW, I find I nearly always need to use a tiny amount of sharpening with the RX100 (Mk1 in my case). As well as a touch of noise reduction.
If you are needing to apply large changes of any sort in LR or any other converter to get a good "normal" image, then your original image is not right. That goes for any camera.


Can't answer about the payments I'm afraid.
[size=78%]  [/size]

« Reply #46 on: June 07, 2016, 08:24 »
0
Thank you ShadySue. I just read: For each sale, contributors are paid a commission in credits (1 credit = 0.75).
Why did I get 0.25 for my first sale which was in XL size?

« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2016, 08:30 »
0
DifyDave, thank you. Do you take landscape photos with f8? I once had a photo rejected taken with f5.6 for not having enough dof and that was a photo taken outside with a  row of houses. I wasn't far away. I thought that food photos need to be taken with a much more than f5.6 or f8. Best with a 100mm macro lens and they should have f settings of f64. I will now lower my f setting.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2016, 08:40 »
+3
Thank you ShadySue. I just read: For each sale, contributors are paid a commission in credits (1 credit = 0.75).
Why did I get 0.25 for my first sale which was in XL size?

You need to read the information on the page.
25c is the base 'minimum guarantee' for Adobe or Ft subscription plan sales, which are any size: one price.

« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2016, 09:16 »
+1
I think that SS approves far more photos then other agebcies. They look more on technical quality and composition rather then subject. Just need to make sure white balance, focus, sharpness and exposure is ok with a composition and you are in. I really take care about this points and almost everything gets accepted. If you submit regular images with flaws i experienced they reject also more often full batches.

As long you show submitters that you care and are carefull you will feel it with almost full acceptance.

« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2016, 09:59 »
0
I use around F5.6 to F8 for landscapes. Can't say about smaller apertures, I don't think I've used them.  Tend to use bigger apertures (lower f numbers) if anything.


I use the RX as a "walking around" camera though. I have a DSLR as well. Having said that I've not had any problem with images from the RX with iStock or Alamy. I wouldn't expect to have problems with iStock TBH since they lowered their acceptance standards.


I've not tried any add on lenses with the RX, tends to cancel out the "pocketability" IMHO, but I do know that any "add on" lenses are going to introduce their own problems.


If you shoot well composed and exposed images with the right WB using optimal settings, then you shouldn't need to "pull the image around" too much in LR. I'd certainly leave shadow reduction alone as much as possible. Use a reflector(s) to get light into the shadows with still life type stuff.






« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2016, 10:18 »
0
Hi DifyDave, I use the Magfilter adapter and macro lens with the RX100M3 but only for art. For flower macro photography. Great photos but maybe because I use a lower f setting. I don't know what happened but one of my images was nominated for an award. Different software but it was also before I was told to shoot in f8. The photo I sold today was shot on tripod with f4 because of not that much light and in the hope my Maine Coon boy wouldn't move an inch. Two photos accepted by SS. 3rd one has the tip of one rear very slightly less sharp. All 3 accepted by DT. I will now use Bracket Pro and lower f numbers again. Thank you so much. I have not send a photo using a macro add on lens to microstock yet. Not true, one image to DT. I couldn't resist. A bumblebee on top of a flower. I nearly fell into the flowerbed because of the bad zoom. Doesn't it bother you that this camera can't zoom in a lot? I would love to have a camera with a better zoom and a real macro lens. I have never been into macro but really enjoy it as a hobby. The Magfilter comes in a little pouch which I clip onto my camera's carry bag. Are your DSLR photos less noisy?

« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2016, 11:42 »
+1
There's a difference between "art" photography and "stock", although the difference gets pretty fuzzy sometimes.


At the extremes "stock" is flat lit, good depth of field, sharp focus. Good for use as illustrating a point, or as an element in a brochure or whatever. "Art" on the other hand can be whatever is pleasing to the eye, or thought provoking. With few if any technical considerations.


It doesn't really bother me about the lack of a really "long" lens. It's not what I bought the camera for TBH. Whatever camera / lens combination you have you will always a wider angle, or a longer focal length. That's the nature of the beast. Learn to work with the equipment you have.


My DSLR is a Pentax K5 and is getting a bit old in DSLR terms, but yes, it is better noise wise. It also has the advantage of course of being able to change the complete lens when different focal lengths are called for. That's always going to better than putting an add on lens in front of a lens. 

« Reply #53 on: June 08, 2016, 04:15 »
+2
i think this happybunny is taking us all for a ride. iso 80 outside in sunlight and still have noise. right

« Reply #54 on: June 08, 2016, 04:20 »
0
I can send you the Raw file. I even remove noise a little bit for at but not as much as for microstock. At the beginning even the outside ones were rejected for noise. You may not forget that this camera has a small sensor. I had removed noise on one image, DT accepted it, SS didn't because noise . I tell you, I was sitting here searching for that little bit left over noise. I removed more and it was accepted. I get my art images rejected when there is noise in them but they never expect me to remove that much.

« Reply #55 on: June 08, 2016, 05:01 »
0
is it noise or compression artifact ?

« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2016, 05:10 »
0
My files are saved in 100% quality. Affinity compresses even less than LR. I only had once a complaint about artifacts. That was a photo taken in Jpeg with my old camera. I wonder if SS has humans looking at the images or is that a computer searching for noise.

Fudio

« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2016, 06:52 »
+2
i think this happybunny is taking us all for a ride. iso 80 outside in sunlight and still have noise. right

I don't believe HappyBunny is taking us for a ride. I would rather believe HappyBunny just doesn't understand the nature of Raw files completely. Nor do I believe HappyBunny fully appreciates the complex algorithms and background processing involved in creating out of camera jpegs.  As mentioned many times throughout this post, HappyBunny has no problem at all with in-camera processed jpeg files. Noise free and tack sharp every time. It's only when HappyBunny tries to process Raw files that the trouble starts.

Understanding how to properly process Raw files can be a steep learning curve. Attempting to edit Raw files without first knowing the complex relationships between chrominance noise, luminance noise, exposure, etc., and how even minor tweaks to these can affect fine details, color saturation, and so on is always going to end up in frustration.

« Reply #58 on: June 08, 2016, 07:33 »
0
Hold on a minute, I only shot one Jpeg in bright daylight so far. The one nominated for an award was a RAW file. However, I have only edited one file so far with LR because I bought it only recently. True, all is new for me. I edited my first Jpeg files about 6 months ago and that wasn't for microstock. Changing from Windows and Corel AfterShot Pro to a MAC and yet another software in a short time also wasn't fun. I did get on very well with DXO. I was told not to go into the colour channels for microstock, not to sharpen them because the customers want to do that..... I am using Topaz Detail and Topaz Clarity for art. And that software I only bought recently. I did read yesterday that my camera makes mushy photos. It was a review from a magazine and indeed is a noise maker. I have learned a lot in 6 months. I had a 100% acceptance rate on DT and all were RAW files. The rejected ones were because they didn't want any more handbags... I got accepted at SS when I tried the first time. But like I once mentioned, they only accepted 50% of my images. So far I have only edited photos taken inside for microstock. With outside I am even more unsure how to edit them. I use Topaz Detail for art. Lightroom I need to learn first. And I think the noise removal from DXO is way better.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


« Reply #59 on: June 08, 2016, 07:34 »
0
No, the Jpeg file was not noise free.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


Fudio

« Reply #60 on: June 08, 2016, 07:52 »
0
I just checked the two images I have taken yesterday. Same images. One in Jpeg, one in RAW. Both shot using Automatic mode and autofocus. Wow, what a difference. There was no colour noise in the Jpeg. Using the colour noise slider made image worse. I pulled noise slider to 30 and noise was gone. Nice looking image. Still sharp. Didn't use Clarity slider nor sharpening slider.
The RAW file: I hate looking at the sky. I stopped at 50. Still not looking good. Colour noise in image. Colour noise slider 64 and noise slider 61. In Affinity I probably would have ended up using 50.
Camera used f5.6, shutter speed 800, ISO 125.

?.

« Reply #61 on: June 08, 2016, 07:59 »
0
Fudio, it's written there that i moved noise removal to 30. I am sure that the camera does some noise removal when processing to JPEG. I would not be able to give the Jpeg to microstock nor art without removing more noise.

« Reply #62 on: June 08, 2016, 08:31 »
0
just a thought. cookies by their very nature, even in real life look like they have noise. maybe experiment with smoother surfaces?
Another thought the sonya55 is a small lightweight camera and noise at 800 is minimal. since it is an older model, they can be found cheap. I got one recently for only 250 usd. because of its size, it comes with me everywhere i go.
I have also found, with the sonys I have had, the lower the iso the softer the image, especially with the 828. with the dslr's the lowest you can go is 100 and not 60 (at least with the ones I have used)
And yes many photos shot at 800 iso on the 55 have been accepted and are selling on the major sites.

Not sure if that helps at all but best of luck!

« Reply #63 on: June 08, 2016, 08:58 »
0
 :)yes, that's true about the cookies. On top of that, the background was black marbled. Longtimeshooter, you might be right. I shot these 2 images outside, one Jpeg, one Raw file and I used the automatic setting for once. Camera found ISO 125 a good idea. When I edited the RAW file I was surprised that the noise wasn't really more than when I use ISO 80. Well, not that I noticed. I think the Sony A7RII can go to ISO 50. Yesterday I saw a professional video review showing the autofocus problems when making a video with my camera. I am now having a professional photographer coming next week. I do have a 15MP camera, also a Sony but this one doesn't have Exposure Compensation.....and only shoots Jpeg. The sensor is even smaller. I will see what the photographer says. I will increase the ISO and see if that helps. I will have a look at the Sonya55. Thank you.

« Reply #64 on: June 08, 2016, 09:02 »
0
I've just been looking at some shots I've taken with the RX100 Mk1. Some of a grey black sky with a rainbow. Bit underexposed. f4 @ 1/640th ISO 125 Really not that noisy or soft. Town shots of buildings. Winter afternoon, F5 @ 1/80th ISO 125. Bit UUE again. Not that noisy or soft.


They both needed some NR for the shadow areas in post IIRC. Not all over though. And they were taken on aperture priority, hence the bit of UUE, which wasn't really a problem.


I use RawTherapee and The Gimp. So no fancy software (although RawTherapee is a very good converter IMO)


By the way it really isn't a matter of a camera having lower ISO being "better".  It's down the the camera type, the sensor and how it's used.


I'd conclude that you might have a noisy example of the camera.


Otherwise (and no offence meant) you are getting something wrong when taking the shots,
or taking shots which the agencies don't really want, and are therefore applying stricter inspection rules to.

« Reply #65 on: June 08, 2016, 09:14 »
0
I will try this out with ISO125. I just edited a photo using LR and simply stopped at noise removal setting 50. I am giving that to DT first. Next week I want to show the professional photographer how I use the camera and maybe I am doing something wrong. Manual focus I find horrible difficult on this camera. I found it easier on my old Canon, a film camera with a 200mm lens. I took photos of cats and just a ear of a cat. They were sharp. Unfortunately I don't have that camera any longer and haven't taken photos for years in between.

« Reply #66 on: June 08, 2016, 09:18 »
0
I'd agree that manual focus is pretty difficult. Only ever used it a few times, when doing things like focusing on rain on glass when the camera wants to focus on what's behind.


 

« Reply #67 on: June 08, 2016, 09:27 »
0
If I use automatic mode and half press the shutter button 6 times, it will focus 6 times differently. Outside it's okay. That's why I use manual focus sometimes as well. I do use the colour peaking but don't know if that doesn't just make it worse.

« Reply #68 on: June 08, 2016, 09:50 »
0
What autofocus area are you using? Don't use "multi" (assuming your camera is the same I know they are very similar) If you do then you are letting the camera decide what the subject is.
Use "Center" focus and then recompose your shot, or use "Flexible" and move the small spot to where you want the focus.


Just to say that while I use the camera on "aperture priority" most of the time, that's only because the manual controls are a bit fiddly IMO. I usually shoot manual with the DSLR for non moving type stuff. Apart from anything else it saves having different exposures through a series. It also allows for correction for things like white backgrounds, which nearly always come out with the subject under exposed due to the camera being "fooled"


Generally when I get a new camera I read the manual (yes really! :)) and then spend time turning off most of the automatic "features".


I want the camera to do what I want it to do.

« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2016, 10:02 »
0
I read the manual. It's not a very good one. Yes, I started using multi. That's the one I mean. I use the one you can move more and more often. However, that gave me the soft image with the asparagus. Centre I don't use at all really. I try to use multi but I am so disappointed.  For all macro flower images I use the flexible spot one. Multi works better outside I think. I am just editing an image I have taken outside a few weeks ago. I am trying to find the noise. Honestly. I am using LR and I have the noise slider on 21 and will leave it there. There is no sky in that image. My skies are always full of noise and the images taken inside. What do you do in sunlight? I can hardly see the green focus field when I am outside in sunlight. This constantly pressing on that wheel is also not exactly great.

« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2016, 10:25 »
0
As I said, I don't use multi. It's letting the camera decide what the subject is.
For preference and for most uses I use the "center" focus and re-compose after half pressing the release.


There should be two parts to the manual (or at least there are with mine), a sort of basic one and a more comprehensive one. Should be on the disc or available from the Sony site.


Working in sunlight is the biggest problem with using the screen on any camera, although I can't say that I've found it a real issue with this one.


 

« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2016, 10:31 »
0
I have one manual and no disc. Don't you use multi for landscape, seascape and when taking images of a row of houses...when you want everything in focus? I used the flexible spot until SS complained about soft focus. After that I switched back to multi. I will try out the centre one. Moving that flexible one is not that great for my thumb.

« Reply #72 on: June 08, 2016, 11:04 »
0
It doesn't work like that by making "everything in focus" (or at least not as far as I know!). It "decides" where the focus point should be, and "brackets" that area to show you where the focus is.
As I say, it's only my opinion, but I want to decide where the focus is myself. hence my use of the fixed point.


The manual you want is the "Instruction / Operation manual DSC-RX100M3
(I think that's the right one)


The English site is here
http://www.sony.co.uk/support/en/content/cnt-man/DSC-RX100M3/list
but you'll probably want to get it in your own language.

« Reply #73 on: June 08, 2016, 11:15 »
0
I have the manual in English. Multi gives you a huge green field. Nearly as big as the whole LCD screen. I use that when I am outside. For example when I shoot in a park, where there are trees and grass and flower beds....When I basically want everything. But I photographed a duck in a pond. I wish I would have seen something on the screen and could have used the flexible spot. One duck had already run away and just for myself I wanted to have a photo. I so much wanted the duck, I didn't see at all where the camera focused...too much sun...of course it wasn't on the duck, not even on the stones in front. Do you leave camera on centre setting all the time so that it is faster to take a photo?

« Reply #74 on: June 08, 2016, 11:56 »
0
I have the manual in English.

There is a "manual" with 30 pages or so. And an "Instruction operation manual" with 200+ pages.


Do you leave camera on centre setting all the time so that it is faster to take a photo?


Yes, as I have said.


I've nothing more to add really. Good luck!

« Reply #75 on: June 08, 2016, 12:27 »
+1
Hi Bunny!
I just looked up your camera, seems it is a 20 mpx?
are you submitting the full size file? That could be why they look soft.
A trick I have learned that lessens noise and sharpens the picture is to export the image between 7 or 10 mpx ( as they get smaller things tighten up.)
I know nothing about LR and have used apples' aperture since day one.
When uploading to the sites, they dont need more than 10 mpx (they upsize themselves and ya dont make more money for a bigger file and the smaller the file the faster to upload).  :-)
so maybe export a smaller version and then see how it looks at 100 % of that .

« Reply #76 on: June 08, 2016, 12:44 »
0
I always upload the original size file. It really takes long to upload. I will try out that downsizing. The problem is, that when I sharpen an image I get more noise and again I have to remove more noise which really softens my image. I paid more attention to that today and I noticed that after noise removal, sharpening and then a little bit more noise removal again the stone looked all soft. Not nice. A rock actually.  If downsizing helps just a little it would be great. Thank you to all for your help. I will put that now all in practice.

« Reply #77 on: June 08, 2016, 13:55 »
0
in my workflow, i use raw, only sharpen with the raw sliders and find that sometimes adding a touch of contrast makes the image appear sharper. on the rare times i use the jpgs my sony makes, i leave them as is, maybe adjust the wb and manual levels.
i have also found that on my camera, the wider open the aperture the softer the image.
and you are most welcome! If my thoughts help, awesome! we are here to help one another through this life :-)

Also I just looked up reviews of your camera. seems you are not doing anything wrong if you look at the samples both the 80 and 100iso look soft. try shooting at 200. (scroll down for the image sample hope this helps)
http://www.cnet.com/products/sony-cyber-shot-rx100-iii/[/url
« Last Edit: June 08, 2016, 14:13 by longtimeshooter »

« Reply #78 on: June 08, 2016, 14:14 »
0
Here is another page worth checking out :-) (be sure to check out the noise page too)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-m3/9

Dook

« Reply #79 on: June 08, 2016, 14:30 »
+6
I have the manual in English. Multi gives you a huge green field. Nearly as big as the whole LCD screen. I use that when I am outside. For example when I shoot in a park, where there are trees and grass and flower beds....When I basically want everything. But I photographed a duck in a pond. I wish I would have seen something on the screen and could have used the flexible spot. One duck had already run away and just for myself I wanted to have a photo. I so much wanted the duck, I didn't see at all where the camera focused...too much sun...of course it wasn't on the duck, not even on the stones in front. Do you leave camera on centre setting all the time so that it is faster to take a photo?
HappyBunny, tell me honestly, are you a troll? Because, this is becoming ridiculous.

« Reply #80 on: June 09, 2016, 02:29 »
+3
yeah,was thinking the same

« Reply #81 on: June 09, 2016, 05:28 »
+1
Happy Bunny-
You Are Driving yourself crazy, and these long threads on this forum about noise and focus in a picture are a little redundant.
Let me give you some great advice. There was one post that was very true in this forum.
I am exclusive with Istock but my friend is not. He has been shooting over 20 years.
When he submits to SS if they need his picture, it gets accepted. If they don't it gets a crazy rejection like out of focus when it was shot at f22 and in perfect focus shot on a Canon 5dm3. He knows how to shoot. There are times when he gets all commercial images rejected but all editorial images shot at the same time accepted so like the above post said you can't go by the rejection reason. SS probably has a million cookie shots and didn't want them, soft,noise, sharp or whatever. You need to look around and see what isn't shot and start composing that. I don't think SS would have accepted your cookies no matter how good they were. You will see many rejections from them and you won't understand most of them because most of them are because they just don't want the picture and push a button like out of focus or too much noise which isn't true. I get frustration phone calls from my friend at least once a week.
www.istockphoto.com/jodijacobson

« Reply #82 on: June 09, 2016, 05:48 »
+2
Happy Bunny-
You Are Driving yourself crazy, and these long threads on this forum about noise and focus in a picture are a little redundant.
Let me give you some great advice. There was one post that was very true in this forum.
I am exclusive with Istock but my friend is not. He has been shooting over 20 years.
When he submits to SS if they need his picture, it gets accepted. If they don't it gets a crazy rejection like out of focus when it was shot at f22 and in perfect focus shot on a Canon 5dm3. He knows how to shoot. There are times when he gets all commercial images rejected but all editorial images shot at the same time accepted so like the above post said you can't go by the rejection reason. SS probably has a million cookie shots and didn't want them, soft,noise, sharp or whatever. You need to look around and see what isn't shot and start composing that. I don't think SS would have accepted your cookies no matter how good they were. You will see many rejections from them and you won't understand most of them because most of them are because they just don't want the picture and push a button like out of focus or too much noise which isn't true. I get frustration phone calls from my friend at least once a week.
www.istockphoto.com/jodijacobson
Sound advice for well covered subjects I think your pics need to be exceptional and even then just imagine how many cookie shots people have to choose from. Far better I think to move on if a picture is rejected unless its something really special

« Reply #83 on: June 09, 2016, 06:30 »
+1
Sound advice for well covered subjects I think your pics need to be exceptional and even then just imagine how many cookie shots people have to choose from. Far better I think to move on if a picture is rejected unless its something really special


Good advice! It's what I've always done. 
I think the OP is running around in circles looking for reasons where there are none.

marryanderson322

  • Photographer-retoucher
« Reply #84 on: August 21, 2017, 17:13 »
0
not bad i think

« Reply #85 on: August 22, 2017, 07:55 »
+2
not bad i think

Have you gotten your quota yet to do whatever it is you want to do with MSG?

« Reply #86 on: August 22, 2017, 08:14 »
0
not bad i think

Have you gotten your quota yet to do whatever it is you want to do with MSG?
She arrived to 8. I don't think that it is enough ;)


 

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
5750 Views
Last post August 15, 2009, 16:33
by Dreamframer
5 Replies
1760 Views
Last post November 16, 2011, 22:49
by frozensage
18 Replies
5096 Views
Last post January 08, 2013, 17:20
by shotupdave
27 Replies
5204 Views
Last post January 21, 2016, 09:54
by Lana

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors