Since having some of my first uploads rejected for quality, and changing cameras, could I please have an opinion? There are one or two sites that demand uploads in 300ppi. Having looked at my new camera's images (still learning it), I can see noise at 300ppi, but it's not really visible at 72ppi. Do you think something might pass at this level for noise and sharpness (ignoring composition, saleability, levels, balance etc)? Am I being overly critical? The eye is sharp - just so you know where the focus point is.

Straight conversion from raw to 16 bit tif from ViewNX (4288 x 2848 pixels), then to 8 bit tif in Photoshop, otherwise untouched.
Nikon D5000, kit lens 18-55 VR at 34mm f8 1/320 natural light, 200 ISO
Sharpness set to zero in camera, I think it was on the macro setting but I can't remember now. It's a horse, by the way.

100% crop corner at 300ppi

reduced size whole image at 72ppi (for location)


I'd be grateful for any opinions so I know what to aim for, thanks!

Yeah, I agree there is slight noise, but it should be passable.  I think we get carried away with pixel peeping sometimes.  Granted digital noise isn't as aesthetically pleasing as film noise - but there are still limits to how picky we need to be.  I think that much noise would get past Shutterstock which seem to be the pickiest on that particular 'error'

I wonder if you are confused about ppi though.  When an image is displayed on a computer monitor at 72ppi (or dpi) or 300 dpi it will look the same size.  There is no real difference in the images other than what it is set to PRINT at.  When viewing on a monitor, if an image is 300 pixels wide, it will show all 300 pixels when viewing at 100% weather it is set to 1ppi or 1000ppi

Thanks leaf, I was just trying it out for myself as you wrote the second post - I see what you mean, and I'm old enough to know better!

@ ap, no I haven't got Lightroom, just an aging version of Photoshop, but I think I can improve on it if I mess around a bit. The D5000 has a sort of fake low ISO (I believe), but 200 is the basic lowest setting. I shall have to do some more experimenting.

Thanks both 

Not old news to me, etienjames.  My masking techniques are severely lack.  I really need to take the time to sit down with some good references.

Thanks for pointing that out.

also you can use noise reducing software i use neat image and had many images accepted using this good piece of software ,ideally get it right in the camera use a tripod and the lowest iso you have got

Sites are absurdly picky about noise.  I read many people who buy photos saying this is not so important, unless it's something that harms texture in your main subject if you need a high resolution image.  If the image is going to be used in small sizes (like XS, S and even M), a little noise like shown in you example is possibly not an issue at all.

Noise doesn�t only is about ISO settings, it�s more a thing of exposure. One image can have more noise at ISO 100 that at ISO 200 with the same camera if the ISO 100 was underexposed, so the better would be to expose with a litle bit of OVEREXPOSE, just 1/3 or 2/3 stops when dealing with high ISO, and then correct the exposure in the RAW processing. This way you can reduce greatly noise in high ISO shots.

This is an excellent point!  Slightly overexposing can reduce noise a lot.  You have to be careful though, not to blow your highlights.  They cannot be recovered if gone. 

Shooting RAW does give you more leeway to overexpose a bit, though, you are right.

Do you guys find that you are using these de-noise tools on every image you submit (just to be safe)? Or only the ones that you feel are necessary?

An update. I've been looking at ways to combat the problem, and for those of you that haven't discovered it yet (sorry if millions of you already know) I discovered neatimage (as chasmcn mentioned earlier but I overlooked), and even though I don't get any commission, I'm impressed at what it can do - and so easily!


(Sorry if the images are a bit big)

The noise reduced image looks slightly lighter, but that may be as it was made from the first jpg example and not the original - i.e. opened, cropped and saved as first example, noise reduced and saved as example 2.

Who knows?! Since my first six acceptances (which were pretty miserable low-res things), everything else I submitted was rejected, so I've taken a step back to "analyze". So, having a total of six images accepted anywhere, maybe others can give a better insight, but it seems a bit like choosing wallpaper really - everyone has their own ideas.
I'm just trying to get as many "weapons" under my belt as I can before I do battle again
Edited to add. I only have an old version of ps, so this is the bees knees to me!