Ouch.... Just had 12 of 12 photos rejected.   Mostly noise and focus.

Shutterstock is my best site.  I usually have 60-100% acceptance.  It is really rare to get 100% rejection.  I have been a contributor for about 18 months now.

One thing that was different about this batch is that most were new hand held Macros from a new 100mm f2.8 macro lens that I had just gotten.  I am new to  macro shooting.  One thing that I found is that there is almost NEVER enough light.  I don't use flash (maybe I should).  So.... while I normally shoot at ISO 100 in a non-Macro lens.... I pushed it to 250-400 for these shots on my Canon 7D.  In well lit areas there was no noticeable noise. But the shadows had noise and at 400 it was bad noise.   Noise reduction took care of most of it and for the bad areas I added some light blurring.

Also my DOF was more narrow than normal due to the lack of light and distance to the subject.  I thought that added to the "feel" of the image.  But it was different than my normal stuff.

I thought the images looked good. Maybe the bokeh was a little unnatural?

So I am wondering..... did I get a reviewer who had a bad day or just did not like these kind of shots  OR  did they see the larger ISO and that increased my chances of rejection?

Hand holding may also be a problem.  My understanding is that for macro shooting image stabilization/vibration reductions does not work very well. 

fred

Quote from: Fred on June 10, 2010, 12:28

Hand holding may also be a problem.  My understanding is that for macro shooting image stabilization/vibration reductions does not work very well. 

fred

My thoughts as well.  I use a tripod, the lowest ISO possible, and get a lot of DOF via f11~f22. 
Still, get "focus" rejects at SS.  They are picky.   

Just found out too late that shallow depth of field, like a caterpillar on a tall stalk of grass where the subject is perfectly sharp and the hairs are all individually clear will get rejected on SS for out of focus. OK, lesson learned. Where were you guys last week, before I sent it in? 

Quote from: bobkeenan on June 10, 2010, 11:08

 In well lit areas there was no noticeable noise. But the shadows had noise and at 400 it was bad noise.

Shadows aren't more noisy, it's your post processing (fiddling with levels/curves etc.) that causes it. If the image is correctly lit and exposed there is no need to bump up the lightness in the shadows.

Hmmmm.  Beg to differ....   Without ANY post processing.....  If you take a series of shots of an image with darker areas or shadows,  AND if you increase ISO with each shot in Av or M mode,  You WILL start to see noise in the darker areas first and it will get worse at the higher ISO's.  Eventually you will then see it in the well exposed areas too.

I do agree that post processing will cause noise too but, to me,  this is more like artifacts.  These look more like squiggles and lines rather than the random noise that you get with High ISO sensor noise.

Correct me if you think I am wrong on this please?  I still have lots to learn.

Perry: Yes, there is..., strange enough! I am not very satisfied with the amount of noise on the 7D. Even at ISO 100 there's some noise (a  400D has none on ISO100!).
And there is indeed more noise in the unsharp and darker areas. Don't understand how that is possible.
I expected better results from this camera when it comes to noise. But I must say that it is soft noise and easy to remove. Exposing to the right also helps. The more strange is that highest quality jpg straight from the camera has less noise than raw!

The example images (with no post processing) on the internet made on high ISO are misleading or I own a 7D with bad sensor.
This is my second 7D. With the first one no sharp image could be made and the noise was terrible. I brought it back to the store and they have send it back to Canon.
 For I know no one who has one too, I have no possibility to get comparative material.