Author Topic: Another photo rejected by SS (Read 21207 times)

longtimeshooter · « **Reply #75 on:** June 08, 2016, 12:27 »

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 ….

HappyBunny · « **Reply #76 on:** June 08, 2016, 12:44 »

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.

longtimeshooter · « **Reply #77 on:** June 08, 2016, 13:55 »

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

longtimeshooter · « **Reply #78 on:** June 08, 2016, 14:14 »

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 »

Quote from: HappyBunny on June 08, 2016, 11:15

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.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #80 on:** June 09, 2016, 02:29 »

yeah,was thinking the same

jodijacobson · « **Reply #81 on:** June 09, 2016, 05:28 »

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

Pauws99 · « **Reply #82 on:** June 09, 2016, 05:48 »

Quote from: jodijacobson on June 09, 2016, 05:28

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

Difydave · « **Reply #83 on:** June 09, 2016, 06:30 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on June 09, 2016, 05:48

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 · « **Reply #84 on:** August 21, 2017, 17:13 »

not bad i think

Mantis · « **Reply #85 on:** August 22, 2017, 07:55 »

Quote from: marryanderson322 on August 21, 2017, 17:13

not bad i think

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

Chichikov · « **Reply #86 on:** August 22, 2017, 08:14 »

Quote from: Mantis on August 22, 2017, 07:55

Quote from: marryanderson322 on August 21, 2017, 17:13
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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another photo rejected by SS (Read 21207 times)

longtimeshooter

HappyBunny

longtimeshooter

longtimeshooter

Dook

Microstockphoto

jodijacobson

Pauws99

Difydave

marryanderson322

Mantis

Chichikov

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors