PHOTO: Rejected Noise Snowfall scene in the tropics with Christmas tree

Displaying 1 to 10 of 10 matches.
alloymkl
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:51PM
Hi,


My photo was rejected due to the following reason:

The overuse of a noise reduction application (such as NeatImage, Noise Ninja, Noise Reduction in a RAW converter, etc.) or similar smoothing technique has left your image with a smoothed appearance thus, degrading the image detail.

http://ge.tt/2hRNuuT/v/0


file_thumbview_approve 


It's my first upload to iStock, and I didn't deliberately reduce the noise. I merely used Windows Live Photo Gallery to edit the highlights, contrast, and maybe shadows, after which I photoshopped the details like logos and the mall's name (using the clone stamp tool).

After seeing the iStockphoto standards on Noise, I still can't see what is the difference between the various noise reduction techniques. Could someone please explain them to me?


Here's a second version where I only photoshopped the logos and mall's name.

http://ge.tt/2hRNuuT/v/1


Thanks!

(Edited on 2012-12-19 22:56:15 by alloymkl)
Simplyphotos
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:31AM

Hi your photo was shot at ISO 2000 with a Canon550D.  The use of ISO 2000 has the camera kick in it's  high ISO noise reduction unless you have this default turned off.  Typically you can see noise reduction has been applied when an image loses its texture details.  You picture you can't see details in the pine needles of the trees just a blurred dark green mushy look.  To take a photo like you have submitted at a Stock standard you would need a tripod set up with a long enough exposure to properly expose the textures in the tree... as a starter. It's an interesting shot, just not the technical standard needed for stock.  Typically stock shots will be shot at the lowest possible iso's to maintain the least noise possible. 100 or 200 iso at first is probably all you want to use.  higher Iso's are possible with highly skilled post processing, though ISO 2000 that this was shot at, would be difficult to bring in to stock standard at any time.


If you post your photos you are considering submitting here you will have others pipe in on what is needed to bring them to a stock standard or if they can be brought to that standard. and lots of help.  But you'll need to realize that stock is quite different then just taking a pretty photo or creative photo.  If you read over the past forum submissions it will give you a much stronger ideal of what is acceptable for stock also.  Google any terms you don't understand and you should get lots of information that way also.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:47AM
First off, I see nothing about "the tropics" in the image. Second, no link to full size, so can't judge.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:17AM

http://ge.tt/2hRNuuT/v/1


I like your photo, good composition, great timing and it is not that far off from technical standards here. First thing that catches my eye is Chromatic Aberration aka Purple Fringing, typically seen in high contrast areas (look at snow flakes close to corners of the image). That itself causes rejection.


You should capture images in RAW format for iStock use. Than you can have full control over final JPG file.


Your file can be salvaged by simply reducing size to 3000x2000 pixels and smart sharpen it somewhat.
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:47PM
It still looks very noisy, plus it is generally not quite as sharp as I would like to see.

If you reduce the file size (and get rid of the CA) you may be able to get away this accepted.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:46PM

Posted By slobo:
http://ge.tt/2hRNuuT/v/1


All I see is a viewer page with a small image. I'm not spending time trying to figure out where the full size is.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:27AM
Posted By sjlocke:


Posted By slobo:
http://ge.tt/2hRNuuT/v/1


All I see is a viewer page with a small image. I'm not spending time trying to figure out where the full size is.

there is option to download on the left size of the page.
lucato
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistMember has had a Design Of The WeekAwarded to fabulous photographers with more than 100,000 downloads
Posted Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:04PM
I'm sorry to say that but for me it is too far from technical standards here.
For me it has camera shaking, noise, purple fringe and artifacts.

I would suggest you to set also your "Picture Style" into your 550D all to zero (Sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc) and work later on PS in your RAW file.
alloymkl
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Jan 6, 2013 9:02AM

Hey guys,


Terribly sorry for the late response. Was busy with my studies, so do pardon me.
alloymkl
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Jan 6, 2013 9:10AM
Posted By Simplyphotos:

Hi your photo was shot at ISO 2000 with a Canon550D.  The use of ISO 2000 has the camera kick in it's  high ISO noise reduction unless you have this default turned off.  Typically you can see noise reduction has been applied when an image loses its texture details.  You picture you can't see details in the pine needles of the trees just a blurred dark green mushy look.  To take a photo like you have submitted at a Stock standard you would need a tripod set up with a long enough exposure to properly expose the textures in the tree... as a starter. It's an interesting shot, just not the technical standard needed for stock.  Typically stock shots will be shot at the lowest possible iso's to maintain the least noise possible. 100 or 200 iso at first is probably all you want to use.  higher Iso's are possible with highly skilled post processing, though ISO 2000 that this was shot at, would be difficult to bring in to stock standard at any time.


Ah I see now that makes more sense on why iStockphoto says I used noise reduction programs. I'll disable that on my cam. I'll also take note not to use too high an ISO (it was on Auto).


This shot was taken without a tripod as it was somewhat an unplanned outing, which is a pity.


 


Thank you so much for your comments,really appreciate it. (:
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 10 of 10 matches.
Not a member?Join