MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another photo rejected by SS  (Read 18677 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

« Reply #26 on: June 06, 2016, 13:50 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
One cookie photo I shot with f4 from above, the other one with a tripod.

« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2016, 03:13 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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.


« Reply #37 on: June 07, 2016, 04:36 »
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 »
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.


« Reply #39 on: June 07, 2016, 04:55 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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 ?


  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2016, 07:24 »
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:

« Reply #45 on: June 07, 2016, 07:27 »
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 »
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 »
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.


  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2016, 08:40 »
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 »
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.


Related Topics

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

Started by chl « 1 2  All » Photo Critique

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


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle