pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS rejecting for too soft, out of focus for all my Sony RX10 images  (Read 10666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2015, 02:42 »
0
Thanks again folks for the helpful feedback. This was the first day I was testing the camera in good light so still getting to grips with how it works compared to the D200. It's encouraging to read others here are using it for stock. The downsizing tip is very helpful which I will use all the time now. Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop but Lightroom 5 serves me well.

Has anyone used the HDR type facility on the RX10 with regards to getting a better dynamic range ? I don't mean the horrible gimmicky effect a lot use.


« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2015, 02:57 »
0
reviewers as you know look at 100%. I can't comment without that. everything looks fine in a print that size. Also I would lose the vivid setting, It overloads the sensor. if ya want it to pop, Just use levels or a bit of luminosity in PS/Match color.

You have to click on the download button to get to see the full-size version - it fooled me, too, at first.

« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2015, 03:30 »
0
There is obvious distortion at the top right and and bottom of the pipe starting from about where the streaks of red paint runs down the pipe, I cropped off that bit and I was left with about 10MP in the centre that is sharp. It's not bad, really, for such a tiny sensor. Stopping down the lens a bit would probably improve things further.

Now some comments for those who wonder whether this really is challenging the DSLRs. I've experimented using a heap of old equipment and I think it's fair to say that the image quality this lens/camera is producing is roughly equivalent to what I have seen from consumer lenses from the 1920s (I must admit, I was surprised at how comparatively good those old primes were, but they were still a long way short of "L" glass on a DSLR). Specifically,  in addition to the lack of sharpness around the edges of the image, I would say the contrast is poor, the bokeh horrible (a bit like the "clumpy" Tessar bokeh, only worse) and the background looks to me as if it has had some in-camera correction applied for noise and CA. The sky is clean - but look at the graininess where the edges of the bridge meets the sky - that suggests cunning noise reduction to me. The out-of-focus tree to the left of where the pipes join has a green cast, which is a sure sign of magenta-green chromatic aberration, but again it seems to have been corrected. If you look at the posts on top of the bridge, the left hand side has a brown/reddish colour while the right hand side has a bluish colour - that's the result of yellow/blue CA.
A lot of this might improve if the lens were stopped down to its sweet point but I think it would probably struggle to get past inspections at Shutterstock, and if you can't rely on your camera to produce stock-quality shots when you are using it properly then I don't think it is any use as a camera for stock. You need to know that if you are doing everything right, then the camera will deliver the goods.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2015, 04:34 »
0
There is obvious distortion at the top right and and bottom of the pipe starting from about where the streaks of red paint runs down the pipe, I cropped off that bit and I was left with about 10MP in the centre that is sharp. It's not bad, really, for such a tiny sensor. Stopping down the lens a bit would probably improve things further.

Now some comments for those who wonder whether this really is challenging the DSLRs. I've experimented using a heap of old equipment and I think it's fair to say that the image quality this lens/camera is producing is roughly equivalent to what I have seen from consumer lenses from the 1920s (I must admit, I was surprised at how comparatively good those old primes were, but they were still a long way short of "L" glass on a DSLR). Specifically,  in addition to the lack of sharpness around the edges of the image, I would say the contrast is poor, the bokeh horrible (a bit like the "clumpy" Tessar bokeh, only worse) and the background looks to me as if it has had some in-camera correction applied for noise and CA. The sky is clean - but look at the graininess where the edges of the bridge meets the sky - that suggests cunning noise reduction to me. The out-of-focus tree to the left of where the pipes join has a green cast, which is a sure sign of magenta-green chromatic aberration, but again it seems to have been corrected. If you look at the posts on top of the bridge, the left hand side has a brown/reddish colour while the right hand side has a bluish colour - that's the result of yellow/blue CA.
A lot of this might improve if the lens were stopped down to its sweet point but I think it would probably struggle to get past inspections at Shutterstock, and if you can't rely on your camera to produce stock-quality shots when you are using it properly then I don't think it is any use as a camera for stock. You need to know that if you are doing everything right, then the camera will deliver the goods.


Well it is working for some here who use it for stock. I think you are really nitpicking it. I read in the guide by (can't remember his name) that stopping it more than F8 can give lens refraction issues.

As I didn't have a video camera I thought the RX10 would be worth the price alone for just that job. A bonus if I can get images out of it for stock.

Read this (professional) guy's blog and you can clearly see what it is capable of.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/getting-comfortable-with-sony-rx10.html

Also, look at this Flikr photographer

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125808962@N03/with/15811725933/

JKB

« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2015, 05:02 »
0
It takes a while to get used to a new camera or lens so I'm sure you'll soon be able to get the best out of that camera - finding the optimal aperture etc, and knowing what subjects and lighting conditions it works best with.

I use both a full-frame Nikon and a compact for stock and very rarely need to down-size the images from the smaller sensor but it is essential to avoid underexposure. This will vary from camera to camera but I found that in most situations I got consistently better results setting the normal exposure to +0.7EV. In cases where the lighting is contrasty I generally shoot three bracketed shots. More often than not I actually end up using the brightest frame - with an exposure of +1.7.

« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2015, 05:25 »
+1
..... I think you are really nitpicking it. I read in the guide by (can't remember his name) that stopping it more than F8 can give lens refraction issues.

As I didn't have a video camera I thought the RX10 would be worth the price alone for just that job. A bonus if I can get images out of it for stock.

Read this (professional) guy's blog and you can clearly see what it is capable of.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/getting-comfortable-with-sony-rx10.html



Yes, of course I'm nitpicking - isn't that what the reviewers on stock sites do, too? Isn't that why you are getting "too soft" rejections from SS? And the "professional" guy doesn't seem to be disagreeing with me - he calls it a Swiss Army Knife of a camera, it does everything pretty well but isn't a specialist tool. I assume that he is writing his blog for the consumer market, not for professional stock photographers.
As for the Flickr feed - the pictures are fine as pictures but are they stock quality? Microstock quality is, as we know, verging on the insane. But if the video is what you got it for, rather than stills, then the fact it also takes pretty good still pictures is an added benefit.
I wasn't suggesting stopping down beyond the sweet point, but the sample shot was at f/2.8, wasn't it? f/8 might be a significant improvment.


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2015, 07:27 »
+2
Most sites are accepting cellphone images. While my iPhone5 makes good quality images I don't see them being as good as this picture. I downloaded the pic, looked at 100%, and think it's plenty good for today's standards. I'd bet if it was a family playing at the beach with sunflare tone it would have been accepted.


« Reply #32 on: February 06, 2015, 12:48 »
0
I am so frustrated as I have just purchased the excellent Sony RX10 (or so I thought was excellent after all the reviews) so I can get excellent video as well as stills. All shots submitted from this camera have been rejected for just

Focus--Subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus when viewed at full resolution.

Even though I nailed the focus, got the confirmation beeps. Even in LR they look sharp enough but for some reason this camera does not fit their taste.

Tried posting an image here but when loaded all my text had gone blank.

i think you should stop relying on beeps or what other professional say about stopping it more than F8 can give lens refraction issues.
etc

there are variations even with the same camera and same lens. i do my own test-shoot for as long as i can before i shoot anything for stock or business.  these days in the internet, everyone is a guru

the only guru i believe is my own test. and yes, you will get problems with softness if you do shoot at wide open as BT pointed out.

all these points tell me you have not been doing your homework with this camera, and just point and shoot. you will be far better off with a PNS and a well-tested knowledge of what makes the PNS tick.
Sony RX 10 or Nikon or Canon, does not make it a good image automatically.
that's like i overheard someone asking a salesguy in the store, can you tell me what camera xxx use , i want to buy one so i can shoot like a pro like him.

« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2015, 18:32 »
0
If you want to learn how to use the RX10 I strongly recommend this book. I have it and it is very good.

http://whiteknightpress.com/photographers-guide-to-the-sony-dsc-rx10/

500 pages of info, download version is only 10$.

Thanks again folks for the helpful feedback. This was the first day I was testing the camera in good light so still getting to grips with how it works compared to the D200. It's encouraging to read others here are using it for stock. The downsizing tip is very helpful which I will use all the time now. Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop but Lightroom 5 serves me well.

Has anyone used the HDR type facility on the RX10 with regards to getting a better dynamic range ? I don't mean the horrible gimmicky effect a lot use.

Rinderart

« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2015, 21:24 »
0
reviewers as you know look at 100%. I can't comment without that. everything looks fine in a print that size. Also I would lose the vivid setting, It overloads the sensor. if ya want it to pop, Just use levels or a bit of luminosity in PS/Match color.

You have to click on the download button to get to see the full-size version - it fooled me, too, at first.

Got it, thanks. Doesn't look all that bad. Yes theres some issues But....For our commission Rate and someone not doing this full time. These Little sensor cameras are looking pretty good. Im Lucky as I get to test all the new stuff from High end to Low. Panny and fuji are doing some amazing things. I just can't show up at a job with one..............yet. lol

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.

« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2015, 22:05 »
0

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.


Luminous Landscape seems to be saying that it is technically impossible for the lenses to resolve more than that on a 35mm frame http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml but it's all very complicated.  However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.

Rinderart

« Reply #36 on: February 06, 2015, 23:26 »
-2

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.


Luminous Landscape seems to be saying that it is technically impossible for the lenses to resolve more than that on a 35mm frame http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml but it's all very complicated.  However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.


Agree and Michael is a very , Very Old friend. and the Only site i believe for anything. One of My oldest friends who works for the government and is the foremost authority on optics doing the Hubble and the Keck. Agrees. These guys know stuff that we will never know unless we spend 40 Years in school. He has 3 degrees. An amazing guy. I spent 3 weeks with him In Hawaii. Right before I bought the d800. He said this camera with a 24-70 is a F8 Camera. Period.

Would love to discuss this with you Offline.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 23:32 by Rinderart »

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: February 07, 2015, 05:04 »
0
If you want to learn how to use the RX10 I strongly recommend this book. I have it and it is very good.

http://whiteknightpress.com/photographers-guide-to-the-sony-dsc-rx10/

500 pages of info, download version is only 10$.

Thanks again folks for the helpful feedback. This was the first day I was testing the camera in good light so still getting to grips with how it works compared to the D200. It's encouraging to read others here are using it for stock. The downsizing tip is very helpful which I will use all the time now. Unfortunately I don't have Photoshop but Lightroom 5 serves me well.

Has anyone used the HDR type facility on the RX10 with regards to getting a better dynamic range ? I don't mean the horrible gimmicky effect a lot use.



Yes, i downloaded that book a few days ago. Currently going through it. What I have noticed with this camera is noise from anything pulled from shadows, even at 125 iso but again it's a small sensor. Artisticly it's not that much of an issue but for stock it can be tricky.

« Reply #38 on: February 07, 2015, 13:06 »
0
Agree and Michael is a very , Very Old friend. and the Only site i believe for anything. One of My oldest friends who works for the government and is the foremost authority on optics doing the Hubble and the Keck. Agrees. These guys know stuff that we will never know unless we spend 40 Years in school. He has 3 degrees. ...

Thanks for that info.  There are countless photography 'experts' putting up sites, and about a million windbags posting their unshakeable opinions,  and it's just about impossible to know what to believe.  Right now for example, the amount of crazy, contradictory stuff about "full frame" sensors and lenses is mind boggling.   Luminous Landscape has always been a site on my list, now I'll move it to the top.

BTW years ago I read a great book about the Hubble project which, as you know, nearly ended in disaster when a mis-ground mirror was put in orbit.  Maybe your friend has the real story. :-)

« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2015, 12:22 »
+2

Looking at the new uber canon in a few weeks. Only one big..BIG problem. Nikon Nor canon have the glass that can resolve More that 18 or so MP's.


Luminous Landscape seems to be saying that it is technically impossible for the lenses to resolve more than that on a 35mm frame http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml but it's all very complicated.  However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.


nikon and canon are here to sell cameras. they have the biggest collection of gadgeteers who will sell their still workable and no doubt full of mileage left less recent model as soon as the next new model arrives.  these bunch of (photographers) GWCs keep camera sales people keeping their jobs , as they buy new stuff all the time. and many are not working photographers, much like guys who used to play in the band with tone-deaf singer, out of tune guitars and drum sets ... just to pick up girls and get drunk.

so no matter what the truth is about optics, nikon and canon will sell cameras even if we get to 75 MP. same for the mobile phones which users swear is better than a nikon or canon lens
even though that is like using an instamatic to take photos, even if you say it can use kodachrome 25.

the painter keeps his brushes and pallet until he dies or those utilities break or wear out. the wannabees
will keep buying the next best thing so they can paint like the master
even though they have not even learn the basics .
photographerscamera users are the same
« Last Edit: February 08, 2015, 12:24 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2015, 16:11 »
+1
However, if that's right then the 36 and 50MP sensors are just a nonsense. You're just recording a lot of blurriness.

It's not quite so simple. The lens may resolve - let's say 20mp - in detail, but since it's a bayer sensor, it can resolve details with color with a much less mp. Every fourth pixel is red, if you have some red details, the 20mp image can resolve red details correctly only at 5mp.

The anti-alias filter also blurs the image. In a 50mp camera the anti-alias filter can be much weaker (there are even models without the anti-alias filter!), because the lens does the needed blurring already. The anti-alias filter is needed because the sensor doesn't have enough resolution! I think when the cameras are about 100 mp, we can totally throw away all anti-alias filters.

This all can be proven by making real-world tests when you all get your Eos 5DS.
Just shoot an image with two cameras, for example 5DS (50mp) and 5D mk II (21mp), same scene, same light, same good quality lens with medium aperture. The scene should include tiny details with colors. Then downsize the larger image to the same size as the smaller image. The (originally) 50mp WILL look sharper and resolve detail better!
« Last Edit: February 08, 2015, 16:15 by Perry »

« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2015, 19:55 »
0
Even with a small sensor camera you can still get a sharp image. Here is a Jpeg straight out of camera (I also shot Raw)
newbielink:https://www.dropbox.com/s/22xozknmb2mky3z/DSC00597.JPG?dl=0 [nonactive]

Looks plastic(ish) to me. I had similar issues with Fuji X-E1. Got tired of it and sold it back.

Example: newbielink:https://www.flickr.com/photos/sanmai/12717942513/sizes/o/ [nonactive]


« Reply #42 on: February 12, 2015, 20:24 »
0
Your subject is so LCV, they will just reject it for the slightest problem. If it was HCV, they probably wouldn't be this stringent.

Also they might just reject things like this for being LCV, they just dont wan't to use the LCV rejection message, because there has been so much turmoil about this subject in the forums.


Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2015, 02:53 »
0
Ok, so I have downsized my renderings. Uploaded shots taken in good, clear bright light at 125 iso and I am still getting a lot rejected on the basis of "too soft and blury" and or "excessive noise" - even after editing in Lightroom. I hardly ever has issues like this with my Nikon D200.

4 accepted and 12 rejected.  :-\
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 03:08 by Herg »

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2015, 05:34 »
0
Again, more rejections based on "Image contains excessive noise, grain, artifacts and/or is poorly rasterized." Also "too blury and soft" even after noise reduction in LR. I just don't get it, even downsizing doesn't help.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2015, 07:10 »
0
Example?

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2015, 07:29 »
+1
Also had a batch with 100% failure with the same reason (Focus) when I'm absolutely sure that the images are sharp (Canon 5D MKII / L lenses with stabilizer / 100 iso / sunny day).

After 9 years doing this, and an approval of over 90% in every agency I think I know what a sharp should look like is...

Several weeks ago the same thing happened, resubmitted and all got approved.

At this moment I have little doubts that these images are not reviewed by people but they are using some crappy software. That, or I'm entering the niche of the reviewer that's also a photographer.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2015, 09:31 »
0

Semmick Photo

« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2015, 10:41 »
0
Example?


Ok but a little dubious of sharing for fear of image theft from browsers who don't belong to this forum.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o3d6pxpun6bhqxk/Chinese%20Decorations.jpg?dl=0



https://www.dropbox.com/s/vcun48mcx05i0ke/Ornate%20Dome.jpg?dl=0


Herg, I have checked the image at 100% and I have to agree with the reviewer, there seems to be pixelation going on, which looks like its because of the small censor capacity.

This is a good read http://www.gizmag.com/camera-sensor-size-guide/26684/

If you check at 100% you will see the noise / pixelation clearly


Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2015, 11:04 »
0
The image with the Chinese decorations was in fact (by mistake of wrong in camera settings) taken as a Fine Detail Jpeg so I was limited in LR as to reduce noise. That said, all my other failed shots were taken in RAW. Others here have this camera and say they think it good enough for stock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4040 Views
Last post November 26, 2007, 01:07
by digiology
7 Replies
2828 Views
Last post October 15, 2010, 01:00
by Someone111
7 Replies
3725 Views
Last post December 15, 2011, 14:35
by jremick
6 Replies
2159 Views
Last post April 21, 2013, 17:00
by Leo Blanchette
18 Replies
5710 Views
Last post August 15, 2014, 10:24
by Phadrea

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results