MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Noise  (Read 2850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 20, 2007, 18:11 »
0
IS rejected one image first because of "noise/artifacting".  I denoised it and resubmitted it, now they say again:
"This file contains artifacting when viewed at full size. This technical issue is
commonly created by the quality settings in-camera or in post-processing."
They sent the "problematic area", attached below.  I don't see noise, but in fact overdenoising.

Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2007, 18:32 »
0
I hear your complaints. At least they attached the suspect region. The only thing I could see are the smudged details or the dark little bit uneven area in the top left corner. They are brutal and my acceptance rate suffers for pretty much the same reasons. Resubmit and hope for the best or try less NR on the detail and more on the smooth areas (History brush in PS).

Good luck

« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2007, 01:58 »
0
Apart from their strict reviewers, I find IS quite consistent, and quite correct in their analysis. These artifacts could be due to various reasons, they do spot things that missed my own inspection, and I learn a lot from their rejections (and acceptance).

Keep trying. Good luck ;)

cheers.

« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2007, 16:59 »
0
I'm not complaining about the rejection, just trying to understand what they see, as I have already edited it once and the sample they sent me the second time is not showing me noise.

Regards,
Adelaide


« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2007, 17:07 »
0
There are blocks of same coloured pixels towards the left hand corner,  that could be described as artefacts.

« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2007, 17:33 »
0
Upper or lower corner?

« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2007, 20:29 »
0
I believe you just coined the word "overdenoising"

Congratulations!

« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2007, 03:59 »
0
the bottom right corner seems rather over processed.  Can't make out what it is - just a blob of colors and smudges.  Perhapst hat is where they are referring to.?

Despite all the negativity towards istock's upload process - one thing they really DO have going for them is that they send a crop of the problem area when they reject things.  i think it can be very helpful.

« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2007, 15:14 »
0
rjmiz,

I hope the next edition of Webster gives credit to me. :)

leaf,

This image was taken in long exposure, so there is a lot of motion blur from people walking. Also it looks a bit too soft because I had already denoised it after the first rejection.

I agree it's good that they send this type of feedback (though they don't always do).  I only wished I could see what they did!

The funny thing is that the sister image - a horizontal shot of the same subject - was more processed than this one because it was originally a bit darker, nevertheless it was accepted at the first inspection.  We gotta be lucky with the inspector we pick!

Regards,
Adelaide


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
19 Replies
8834 Views
Last post November 23, 2010, 19:40
by djpadavona
9 Replies
2057 Views
Last post August 31, 2013, 02:19
by Ron
14 Replies
2508 Views
Last post February 26, 2014, 11:36
by Uncle Pete
3 Replies
1536 Views
Last post February 06, 2015, 17:30
by hsfelix
5 Replies
1907 Views
Last post July 30, 2018, 12:08
by alan b traehern

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results