MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: second reject  (Read 10469 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2009, 16:43 »
0


« Reply #26 on: September 04, 2009, 04:22 »
0
chl,

This can be very useful:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

Wow, Adelaide this is awesome. Thank you for sharing.



chl

« Reply #27 on: September 04, 2009, 06:07 »
0
thankyou madelaide  and thankyou whitechild

chl

« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2009, 06:11 »
0
thankyou jerry

JerryL5

  • Blessed by God's wonderful love.
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2009, 10:17 »
0
thankyou jerry

You're welcome, Chl :)

chl

« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2009, 02:12 »
0
Dear White Child,

Below please find the photo link that taken without the extension lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3889284956/#

Do you think it is better than the photos before with extension lens?

« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2009, 09:34 »
0
I checked it out, and it still looks a bit soft to me, but at least I can't see any purple fringing. Lighting here is different, and there is no any big contrast like on the first image you showed to us, so maybe that's the reason why I can't find any purple fringing, but also, maybe there won't be any purple fringing without extension. What bothers me is that softness. I would like if someone else could take a look at this picture and tell us if it's soft or not. Maybe it's just my auto suggestion. Your images are all resized to 1024 pix, so we can't check it in full size to really say the difference.

« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2009, 13:02 »
0
It also looks a little bit soft to me. Maybe you can post a part of the picture in the original size? Only at 100% we can best see the technical issues.

chl

« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2009, 08:11 »
0
Below is the photo link that with UV filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3892879320/#

Below is the photo link that without uv filter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41024635@N03/3892101941/#

« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2009, 11:16 »
0
UV filter doesn't look like problem to me. Both images have the same sharpness. But, as Goldenangel said, we have to check it at 100% size. Crop some focused small part of the image and post it in original size. Don't resize it to 1024 pix.

chl

« Reply #35 on: September 07, 2009, 05:54 »
0
Dear White Child,

I have emailed the original photo to your email account.

« Reply #36 on: September 07, 2009, 15:40 »
0
Ok chl, I got your image and here is what I saw:
The image itself has good lighting, but it lacks contrast. Somehow, that lack of contrast makes it look a bit soft, If you take a close look at the center of the image (the focused part) you will notice that leaves edges are sharp enough, but one thing is missing...leaves texture. I guess it's because the contrast of the image is pretty low and those small differences in contrast that make the texture of the leaves visible are missing. The other problem is chromatic aberration (purple fringing). It's not strong in focused part of the image, but if you look at other parts it's pretty strong, especially when you get close to the corners if the image. It's normal to have chromatic aberration in those parts of the image when they are not focused, but on your image it's little too much. I don't know how much you paid for this lens, but obviously it's not very good. I don't say you have to spend thousands of dollars to have a decent lens, but this one will give you pretty much trouble. I honestly think you should consider the possibility of selling this, and buying some new lens. I didn't have time to find and read some review for this lens. You can google for it. I just told you what I saw. Next time when you buying some new lens read as much reviews as you can.

Now, what you can done to make some of your images acceptable on microstock. In your place, after full editing of image, I would apply very small amount of sharpening, and resize the image to 4 Mpix as a final step. I also tried to increase the contrast on your image using curves, and after is I resized the image to 4 Mpix, and it looked just fine. Both methods looked good with this image. The only problem still remains chromatic aberration...if it's too visible, your image will be rejected again.

chl

« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2009, 08:08 »
0
My camera and lens still under warranty. I will see this could be solve under warranty

« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2009, 16:51 »
0
Good idea...

« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2009, 17:13 »
0
I think you may be "missing the boat" thinking that this can be fixed via a warranty.  Purple fringing isn't necessarily a total disaster, since it can be reduced in most photo processing software from photoshop, to photoshop elements, paintshop pro and even through a script for GIMP.  

I have owned the same lens that you are using, and sometimes purple fringing was a problem, but very  few times it couldn't be modified by photo editing software.  Istockphoto seems to find the photos with this problem most frequently.  I also have the 28-105 lens that Lisafx told you about.  If you look at bottom of page in each link (page 2) of the following lens review site for each lens, you can see that the lens you are using has more of a problem with purple fringing than the 28-105.

15-55 IS
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/181-canon-ef-s-18-55mm-f35-56-is-test-report--review?start=1

28-105
http://photozone.de/canon-eos/189-canon-ef-28-105mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

Granted, Whitechild was able to view your image full size and see the level of the purple fringing problem, but I am less convinced that its a warranty type issue due to the nature of the lens.

« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2009, 18:31 »
0
Maybe he thinks he can turn back this lens and get another one while still in guarantee...

« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2009, 19:02 »
0
Or have it checked and calibrated.

RacePhoto

« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2009, 21:26 »
0
Purple fringing isn't necessarily a total disaster, since it can be reduced in most photo processing software from photoshop, to photoshop elements, paintshop pro and even through a script for GIMP.  

I have owned the same lens that you are using, and sometimes purple fringing was a problem, but very  few times it couldn't be modified by photo editing software.  


I haven't had issues with purple fringing with this lens, but since it seems that some day I will. Maybe you can explain how to correct it with Photoshop, CS3 or Elements for all the people who will be reading the thread? Others describe it as "easily" correct.  :)

I've had images submitted to IS rejected for purple fringing, when they were identical to red, orange and green subjects, same lighting, settings, everything, but the subject was Blue. Funny how that works?

RacePhoto

« Reply #43 on: September 09, 2009, 21:37 »
0
Thank you whitechild. These few days the weather condition in my place is couldy. I will shoot when sunny day to compare the difference

Funny how I keep coming back to this thread and it's interesting with all the informative responses. Two comments.

If you could host the photo somewhere so people can look at the EXIF data, and full size, it's helpful to see what else you are doing, instead of drawing it out, one message at a time, question by question.

Second, you actually would like to be shooting on a sunny overcast or cloudy day, because that will eliminate your harsh shadow problems. Bright Sunlight is much more difficult, you get extremes in light and dark, which make the photos nearly impossible to correct afterward. Shadows are the enemy!  ;)


« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2009, 01:41 »
0
I haven't had issues with purple fringing with this lens, but since it seems that some day I will. Maybe you can explain how to correct it with Photoshop, CS3 or Elements for all the people who will be reading the thread? Others describe it as "easily" correct.  :)


The second method has worked for me:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/133/article1.html

chl

« Reply #45 on: September 10, 2009, 10:07 »
0
Thank you for all of the informations. I guess this lens model performance is at the same par with the price. More expensive lens perhaps give better result. I will save money for better lens in the future.

« Reply #46 on: September 10, 2009, 19:53 »
0
A)  A couple of years ago I read about a photoshop action called "Purple Fringe Killer" on luminous-landscape.  I can't remember where I got it, it may or not be the one mentioned in the link below:

http://blog.lorrifreedman.com/index.php/2008/07/30/hdr-and-the-purple-fringe/

B)  I read about another fairly inexpensive (around 25 US bucks) plugin called PT lens while researching a lens with distortion problems at 17-18mm on the istock forum.  PT lens runs either as a filter in photoshop or stand alone, and you can zoom into the purple fringe area, and adjust sliders to modify the fringing.

I usually try to remove the fringing on a layer with a selection, so the modification only applies to the problem area.  Purple Fringe Killer is sort of automatic, there are no settings, it just runs, as opposed to PT lens which has other options and things it can accomplish.  The only downside to PT lens that I have found is it runs out of memory on a stitched panoramic of 3 tiles or more, so then "purple fringe killer" is the only choice.  Most of my purple fringing areas occur when an object intersects with a bright blue sky, like around a light pole in a parking lot, or a shiny roof edge against the sky.

Hopefully one day I can upgrade to better glass, and this problem will go away completely.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
6729 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 04:44
by litifeta
43 Replies
8798 Views
Last post June 03, 2009, 05:24
by Milinz
15 Replies
5654 Views
Last post July 17, 2010, 12:53
by borg
26 Replies
4783 Views
Last post April 09, 2017, 22:50
by YadaYadaYada
4 Replies
1356 Views
Last post January 24, 2019, 11:31
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results