MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Low color profile?  (Read 12469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 31, 2008, 07:39 »
0
Hi

I am very new to this forum. I have had only good experience with DT until recently, when suddenly they started rejecting all of my photos for low color profile.
My camera settings are good, checked and double checked, I shoot in RAW only, and convert to max quality jpg.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2008, 14:28 by srugina »


vonkara

« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2008, 09:14 »
0
Do you ask them what was "low color profile" rejection? Because I never heard that

« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2008, 09:20 »
0
Neither have I. And I do not know about the fact they could reverse their decision about accepted images later... What would happen if some of the "on the second thought" rejected images were added to a lightbox or worse - sold in the meantime?

« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2008, 09:21 »
0
I haven't heard of this either!
I don't blame you for being frustrated, specially when they culled some of your already approved images. (not so nice that!)

« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2008, 09:55 »
0
This is on DT's message boards.

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7736

« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2008, 10:11 »
0
I find it very interesting that DT wants edited images that are highly saturated, while IS wants images right out of the camera with no editing.


« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2008, 10:40 »
0

« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2008, 11:23 »
0
with Rebel Xti or Canon 40D what is better to do to make colors more vivid ?

1. to increase saturation via camera functions
2. to make images more vivid in LR, or CS, or software that came with the camera
3. to do both: camera and software adjustments

« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2008, 16:52 »
0
Every single one strait from the camera  ;D

I dream of finding places in the planet with skies and green fields like that!  ;D

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2008, 19:42 »
0
I think there's reason to be a bit concerned about this. It seems like some microstock agencies follow all kinds of trends, even if they only last for a few months, while our photos are supposed to be online for years (or at least, that's what I've thought until now).

This month, it's over-saturated photos are apparently the thing, next year, it may be something else. But while over-saturated photos may sell well for some purposes, they are unusable for others. I think the whole thing looks a bit amateurish.

« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2008, 04:51 »
0
I think there's reason to be a bit concerned about this. It seems like some microstock agencies follow all kinds of trends, even if they only last for a few months, while our photos are supposed to be online for years (or at least, that's what I've thought until now).

This month, it's over-saturated photos are apparently the thing, next year, it may be something else. But while over-saturated photos may sell well for some purposes, they are unusable for others. I think the whole thing looks a bit amateurish.

Yes I agree with you.

Well I followed their instructions and resubmitted
« Last Edit: April 09, 2008, 14:29 by srugina »

« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2008, 11:59 »
0
Excuse my ignorance, but is there any point in increasing saturation and contrast in the camera settings when I shoot in RAW format and do the postprocessing then? Would it affect the picture in any way?

« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2008, 16:30 »
0
Excuse my ignorance, but is there any point in increasing saturation and contrast in the camera settings when I shoot in RAW format and do the postprocessing then? Would it affect the picture in any way?
I think it is much better to process the raws

« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2008, 16:57 »
0
So am I correct in understanding that camera settings of saturation etc do NOT affect the picture in RAW format. Or am I missing something?

« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2008, 17:11 »
0
Every single one strait from the camera  ;D

I dream of finding places in the planet with skies and green fields like that!  ;D

Regards,
Adelaide

Ah Blue skies, I remember them. An Australian friend of mine tells me that we never have "proper" blue skies here in the UK. However I know different, I took a photo of one last year   :D

Green are pretty saturated here too, generally saturated up to about the ankle.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 11:49 by snoozle »

« Reply #16 on: April 01, 2008, 17:27 »
0
Over saturated green is an April Fools joke? Right?

Its frikin snowing here, going down to minus 8 celcius, and there is a flood advisory everywhere here because it was 11 degrees C here today and all this frikin, (did I say Frikin again?) snow (4 feet) of snow is melting - Yah!  Lets get some "Extreme" temperature fluctuations goin??? NO GLOBAL WARMING MY *SS?

I would kill for some over-saturated green right now. 

(sorry for the rant... very frustrated Canadian (Ontarian) right now) -

I feel like I'm shooting in gray scale.

Poop!

« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2008, 18:26 »
0
peep, you are correct. Saturation etc doesn't have any effect on the raw file. All that has to be done in post processing. The in camera settings only effect the jpeg etc, not raw data.

« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2008, 10:53 »
0
with Rebel Xti or Canon 40D what is better to do to make colors more vivid ?

1. to increase saturation via camera functions
2. to make images more vivid in LR, or CS, or software that came with the camera
3. to do both: camera and software adjustments

or option 4, the ideal (at least for real looking images):
Spend lots of $$ of L lenses with fantastic saturation and contrast before the light even strikes the sensor.  I didn't really believe there was that big of a difference until I got a 17-40.  Unless I'm doing B&W, I've never had a shot with my 50 or tele that couldn't use some saturation or contrast, usually a lot is needed, however with my 17-40, I occasionally have to reduce the contrast from the RAW file, and the saturation is almost nuclear as is, rarely are any adjustments necessary (especially greens, blues, and reds, the yellow can be a bit flat at times though).

Even with that though, those top sellers all must be right at the posterization point, wow what a lot of saturation, kinda ridiculous to my eyes.

I wonder though...does the posterization point shift higher when using better glass that is more highly saturated to begin with (ex all images given the exact same scene and lighting will posterize at +20 saturation irregardless of lens) or does it remain equal (ex same scene and lighting, dull glass can take +20 while the more highly saturated glass can only take +10, at roughly the same overall saturation for the posterization point)? 

I would assume that the better glass can take more simply because of the nature of signal amplification, that overamplification (and the inherent noise that is introduced) is the culprit of the posterization moreso than simply too much saturation.  If it isn't overamplification noise, though, it possibly could be that you begin to flatline parts of the image at the limit of the gamut (basically overblown color) which leads to the posterization?  Hmm... question of the day.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 11:14 by Waldo4 »

« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2008, 16:41 »
0
peep, you are correct. Saturation etc doesn't have any effect on the raw file. All that has to be done in post processing. The in camera settings only effect the jpeg etc, not raw data.

Funny, I had a colleague explain me differently.  He said saturation would be registered in the RAW, and that I should see it as a film choice (like picking Velvia for saturation).  I had imagined otherwise (just like you explained), that RAW was only influenced by ISO, aperture and shutterspeed, but he insisted it wasn't ike that.

I still have to install the RAW converter...  Now that my PC is stable, I might.

Regards,
Adelaide
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 16:43 by madelaide »

« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2008, 04:58 »
0
Surprising point madelaide! Is there anybody here able to judge it? Otherwise I would have to shoot  series of pictures with different settings and try to work it out for myself over a free weekend. The only problem in this solution is I have had NO free weekends recently! >:(

« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2008, 07:14 »
0
Any in camera settings are usually passed into the raw editor, but not actually written to the file.  Saturation could be at full blast in the camera.  Open it in a raw editor and the saturation is at full blast, however the raw file still has the native saturation that the lens captures written to it, exif data records the in camera settings and applies them to the RAW file once it is opened in an editor.  This is why when a RAW is opened and saturation for example is set to high in camera, the RAW editor shows the saturation as being high, instead of at 0 (where PS sees it when it is set to high in camera when shooting .jpeg).

In camera settings are remembered, however they do not affect the pixels in the RAW file, in camera setting are simply instructions telling the RAW editor what to do with the file, something that can just as easily be done manually with greater results, hence most RAW shooters like to start zeroed out in everything, but it need not be that way.

« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2008, 16:20 »
0
Thanks for the explanation, Waldo!  Now, when one opens the RAW converter, does he see the "untouched" image or the "filtered" one?  Is there a switch to turn on one or another?

Yeah, it's about time I install Canon's RAW converter and see what I shot last year in RAW!

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #23 on: April 04, 2008, 08:20 »
0
Update:
After sligh color boost, they seem to not mind the images anylonger.
So be careful with those colors on DT! :)
Good luck everyone and good sales!

« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2008, 08:56 »
0
I have L-lenses. So I will be doing color adjustments on the computer, if I understood waldo correctly.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
6779 Views
Last post July 16, 2008, 22:06
by Peter
2 Replies
5618 Views
Last post August 28, 2009, 16:59
by Suljo
5 Replies
4819 Views
Last post May 26, 2010, 16:36
by louoates
14 Replies
32445 Views
Last post February 13, 2011, 12:51
by Jo Ann Snover
5 Replies
3431 Views
Last post January 29, 2017, 13:35
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle