PHOTO: Stockholm panorama

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 23 matches.
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 11:36AM

May I once more ask for your help. This stiched Editorial Stockholm panorama was rejected with the following note:


"+visibled editing in sky+

This image appears to be over-filtered"


The panorama was made from 10 stiched vertical images taken with the same manual exposure and focusing. Please help me to see the overfiltered areas.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 11:43AM
Can't see anything from that link I'm afraid. It's giving a 404 error.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 12:45PM
Yes there are vertical strokes visible at around 6200 in the sky area, roughly where the jib of the blue and white mobile crane on the waterfront is pointing. That's the worst area I think, although if I move the image about I can just about (probably not bad enough to matter I'd have thought) make out the "joins" in other places. 
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 1:34PM

Posted By Difydave:
Yes there are vertical strokes visible at around 6200 in the sky area, roughly where the jib of the blue and white mobile crane on the waterfront is pointing. That's the worst area I think, although if I move the image about I can just about (probably not bad enough to matter I'd have thought) make out the "joins" in other places. 


That's the ONLY thing I can see. This looks pretty clean otherwise. Since this is editorial it has to be essentially untouched/unchanged, so even the slightest sign of editing like that will necessarily trigger a rejection.
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 1:51PM
Posted By donald_gruener:


Posted By Difydave:
Yes there are vertical strokes visible at around 6200 in the sky area, roughly where the jib of the blue and white mobile crane on the waterfront is pointing. That's the worst area I think, although if I move the image about I can just about (probably not bad enough to matter I'd have thought) make out the "joins" in other places. 



That's the ONLY thing I can see. This looks pretty clean otherwise. Since this is editorial it has to be essentially untouched/unchanged, so even the slightest sign of editing like that will necessarily trigger a rejection.


You've got me looking again now. I can definitely see a very (very) faint join line (I assume) above the smaller spire about a third of the way over from the left. It is faint though, and only really noticeable when the image is moved. Strangely it's more visible when viewing the image in Firefox.


Problem is you start to see things after a bit!
JasonDoiy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 2:26PM
I wouldn't think a stiched image would be acceptable as an editorial. Is it?
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 2:43PM

Thank you. It is a resubmit so theoretically I guess I could try to do something about the stich-line. However that would be local editing which is not allowed in an Editorial.


It never occured to me that a stiched image was not allowed as editorial, it does not change the reality after all.


So now there are two more questions I would need to get an answer to: are stiched panoramss allowed as Editorials (if perfect).  Am I allowed to try to fix the stichline in the panorama in this Editorial?
donald_gruener
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveMember has had a submission accepted to the Designer SpotlightMember has had a File Of The WeekForum Moderator
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 3:29PM

Posted By Difydave:
Posted By donald_gruener:


Posted By Difydave:
Yes there are vertical strokes visible at around 6200 in the sky area, roughly where the jib of the blue and white mobile crane on the waterfront is pointing. That's the worst area I think, although if I move the image about I can just about (probably not bad enough to matter I'd have thought) make out the "joins" in other places. 



That's the ONLY thing I can see. This looks pretty clean otherwise. Since this is editorial it has to be essentially untouched/unchanged, so even the slightest sign of editing like that will necessarily trigger a rejection.


You've got me looking again now. I can definitely see a very (very) faint join line (I assume) above the smaller spire about a third of the way over from the left. It is faint though, and only really noticeable when the image is moved. Strangely it's more visible when viewing the image in Firefox.

Problem is you start to see things after a bit!


OK, wow, I was finally able to spot that but I had to work at it. That's so subtle as to be almost nonexistent...I doubt that bit had anything to do with the rejection. (impressive eyes, I must say )



Posted By JasonDoiy:
I wouldn't think a stiched image would be acceptable as an editorial. Is it?


It is, if it remains otherwise unedited and is very cleanly done, as this one is.



Posted By brittak:

So now there are two more questions I would need to get an answer to: are stiched panoramss allowed as Editorials (if perfect).  Am I allowed to try to fix the stichline in the panorama in this Editorial?


I guess that tiny edit would be more about restoring reality than altering it. Since you have been provided the opportunity to resubmit, I believe the message there is that you may go ahead and fix this.
pixzzle
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 3:56PM

You can easily vertical joins all over the sky if you dramatically increase the contrast of the sky using a curves tool.


The editorial collection contains many large panoramas, presumably stitched, some with clear blue skys, which in my experience, always have visible sky joins when they come out of the stitching software.
alanphillips
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 6, 2013 4:41PM
To the left of the prow (pointed end) of that white three-mast ship towards the right of the panorama there is a section that looks to me as if it is sort of slightly less focussed than the rest of the panorama (look at the middle of the pink building in that region, that's where I see the transition from focussed to less focussed).
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 12:45PM
After all the good advice I got I felt I could upload This corrected version However I got one more rejection:
"+Hi Britta, although you reduced the size of the panorama, the problematic areas are still visible in the sky. Try to go back to the origianl and clean up sections like above the smaller blue boat, near the clouds on the left etc +"  Then folloows the usual overfiltering text.


I did go back to scratch, did a new merge and ended up with This latest version . I am not going to do the same misstake again and upload it before I ask for you comments. The latest version is not yet downsized which I plan to do, as I think there are some artifacts in the water and it is big enough to downsize and still make XXXL size.
gladassfanny
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 1:22PM
Britta your latest version gives a 404 error.
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed May 8, 2013 2:19PM
Works for me but is very slow uploading maybe because of the size (46 MB) Downsized to XXXL
(Edited on 2013-05-08 14:31:04 by brittak)


Something is funny, with this version I also get error 404 repeated and get the same result, quite sure link is correct, now it is late and I give up for tonight.

(Edited on 2013-05-08 14:34:54 by brittak)

(Edited on 2013-05-08 14:37:42 by brittak)
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 9, 2013 12:48AM
This morning both links work! Dropbox must have needed a rest.
pixzzle
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 9, 2013 2:40AM
You can see the joins if you go looking for them even at XS, difficult to see on the screen, but if it was printed poster size they might become obvious.
Stockholm_pan
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 9, 2013 4:52AM
No problem to see the efects when you show them. Obviously did not darken enough when I tried. Will see if I can do something to fix it but will probably have to give it up - would not upload an image like this if I can't get it acceptable in big size.  Now sun is shining to next effort will have to wait.
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 9, 2013 12:52PM
Difydave
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu May 9, 2013 1:34PM
Looks pretty clean to me apart from a "ghost" (of the spire?) above and to the left of the spire on the extreme left.


The problem with using pixxzle's method, with all due respect, is that as far as I know inspectors only look at an image as it is at 100%, without making any adjustments. So by increasing the contrast you might be seeing problems that won't actually give a rejection. To be fair I don't know anything much about print, so I don't know whether it'd give a problem with that or not as it was.

(Edited on 2013-05-09 13:54:03 by Difydave)
dorioconnell
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsMember is an InspectorExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Thu May 9, 2013 2:27PM
Hi Britta, let me show you some of the problems that jump at me.
- on the left side the darker blue section of the cloud has a strange break to it, just above the church.
- the church spiral is faintly appears again further to the left and slightly above the actual spiral.
- right between the two church spirals, in the middle the tiny cloud appears three times. the same cloud got cloned in there.
- around those little cloned clouds you can see the sky darker than in the surrounding areas.
- on the right, at the end of the bridge around the orange building there is some issue with inconsistent depth of field.

This issues are visible, even without looking at an adjusted version of the file and however subtle they are this file is not clean enough for an editorial submission. Don't get me wrong, this panorama is not bad at all but at this present form it is just not there yet.

True enough, inspectors don't do curve adjustment or darkening or any manipulation to spot problematic issues but in the case of an editorial submission it can be a great aid to you to judge your own work if it is up to par.
brittak
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon May 13, 2013 4:26AM

Thank you all very much for all the detailed advice. This has been a very useful lecture for me far beyond the fact that you helped me getting the panorama accepted at last.


 

(Edited on 2013-05-13 04:26:51 by brittak)
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 23 matches.
Not a member?Join
Cart (0)