Posted Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:05PM
I've tried to remove the noise using LR3. How does it look now. I've been offered a resubmit
Posted Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:48PM
That's too heavy on the noise reduction, your grass and stairs have a mushy look now, the stairs look like they have a fuzzy coating. Best to use photoshop or something similar where you can use masks to select just the areas that need it and to give more to areas that need it most and less to areas that need less. Also... did it have just colour noise or was it both colour and chromo noise? At iso 100 it shouldn't have needed noise reduction at all or very little maybe just the sky, so if you posted up the orginal we could maybe guide you to the areas that actually needed some touch ups and maybe you don't need the luminance noise reduction at all.
Posted Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:13PM
So here is the original JPG as shot. It might be more trouble than its worth to correct it.
Posted Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:29AM
I think the foregroround is all underexposed, while the buildings are slightly overexposed. not sure it is fixable. It would have been better if you shot the scene with multiple exposures. See HDR.
Posted Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:06AM
I'm surprised it was rejected for noise... what was your rejectiong reason? I would have thought lighting would be the reason. First it looks like the camera has put noise reduction in before you added any. The grass looks mushy (possibly due to wind) before you add any to it. The artifacts I do see are CA along the left lighthouse (it's a light colour but it's CA) and then the right of the tombstone beside the lighthouse, windows of the building on the far right. I see a sensor spot in the sky near the top of the photo above the little house on the left of the light house. I think the grass is really unevenly lit and needed a high shutter speed to stop the wind motion that is likely what is making it look mush and lower Fstop to properly expose it. I've lightened the grass and I'm circling the the points I mentioned to show you. I don't know if this could be brought to an acceptable point as I think the grass will stop them from accepting it but I could wrong.
As i lightened the photo the CA shows more in my version, but is present in yours. The lightened version is to show how I think it should have been exposed in the camera. I circled the sensor spot and corners with CA. The grass you can just look and see how it doesn't stand out as blades with motion blur but looks more mushy and as it's underexposed it has that foggy look over the wooden path near the top just due likely to a lack of detail in the photo (not enough light hitting the sensor).
Circled areas of conceren here
Posted Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:32PM
Thank you for all the feedback. I think I will stop trying to submit old pictures. I will only submit shots taken specifically for iStock. The old shots I have been submitting were taken with a D200 and I dont think it was a great sample. I now have a D7000 and it seems to be a significant improvement.
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:54PM
Are you still shooting jpegs? They fall apart pretty quickly if you do too much post processing. Shooting RAW gives you much more leeway.