Aviationwiz From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 4 Posted (8 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 4563 times:
Now, like so many others here, I've had *EVERY* photo I've ever
submitted rejected. Like so many other people, I just get right back
up and try again, which I've done, time and time again. Here's the
photo in question:
Can anyone help me with that one? I'm at a loss. I've had other people
look at it and they say it's one of the best shots they have seen.
It was rejected for:
"There is too much grain or digital noise in these photo(s). All scans
contain a certain amount of grain, and all images from digital cameras
contain a certain amount of digital noise, but these amounts should be
kept at acceptable values."
Diezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (8 years 12 months 13 hours ago) and read 4548 times:
Try uploading the image with a width of 1024 instead of 1600. Also the color is a bit off and there are a couple of tiny white dots. In the upper left and right corner there is some vignetting (?) visible. But I do like it!
I did a quick edit to make the colors look more natural (Actually this is the perfect picture to get the colors right as there is white, grey and black in the picture) and got rid of most of the noise by reducing the size. Hope you like it.
Aviationwiz From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4444 times:
I got some help from D L X, and reuploaded it, and it got rejected for "quality". That's it, nothing else mentioned. Any ideas? To say this is getting frustrating would be the understatement of the year!
777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4440 times:
I am no expert by any means. I am still learning. I barely know which end of the camera to look through.
On the second shot I see alot of JPEG compression artifacting (I believe that is what it is called) along the leading and trailing edge. Possibly a tad over sharpened. The grain is gone and replaced with other issues .
I'm not sure how to fix but that is the problems I see.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4377 times:
Quoting Aviationwiz (Reply 3): I got some help from D L X, and reuploaded it, and it got rejected for "quality". That's it, nothing else mentioned. Any ideas? To say this is getting frustrating would be the understatement of the year!
I like this shot a lot. The first edit really had an over-processed appearance to it. The secong shot still looks a bit over-processed or compressed. What workflow are you using?
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3069 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4326 times:
I must say that the subject lends itself to a photograph, with all those vibrant colours on the winglet against the lovely blue sky.
I have a couple of thoughts - though I am somewhat biased in favour of the more traditional 3:2 aspect ratio, I think it would be better suited to this image, as there is quite a lot of 'dead' sky at the top of the image that doesn't really add anything. I think that could be cropped out and it would benefit the image.
I have to agree with Erick that there is quite a lot of compression noticeable in the second shot. The suggestion to upload at the smaller size was definitely correct, but I wonder whether the quality problems are inherent in the original file. Were you using a non-DSLR camera? It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult to get over the quality hurdle these days with non-DSLR equipment, and one of the key factors in the quality is the graininess of the image and that compression. Also I think the more the camera does to the image at the time of shooting - i.e. saturating colour, adding sharpening etc - the worse the outcome for those trying to upload here. If you can switch that off do so - and deal with things in post-processing, where you have more control.
If you feel I may be able to help with the image just let me know.
My question was not pertaining to what software, but which workflow you are using. Your results seem to be inconsistent and over-processed. A workflow is important because it helps you to achieve predictable consistent results every time you edit a photo. Check out Fergul's workflow on the photo upload page.
I tried using iPhoto for my first few edit attempts and found it completely useless. There is a great workflow for Photoshop available on this site in the photo upload page created by A.Netter Fergul. (As a PDF file). I've used it and it works quite well once you get the hang of it, because it leaves quite a bit open to interpretation (which is good, so that you can be creative).
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4