|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2009
Posts: 67
Location: Arizona, USA
|
Curious to know how or why pics of clouds (where clouds are the main subject) get through QC's "soft and lacking definition" rejection. This isn't a complaint, just wondering as I have many I want to upload. (I know it's a common subject, but cloud shots are like snowflakes.)
We have an astonishing assortment of cloud/sky/sunset/thunderstorm shots to choose from here in the wide open spaces of where I live in Arizona, USA. We can have a clear blue, sunny sky on one side of our house, and have dark, rain clouds and a rainbow on the backside!
One of the neatest cloud formations I've seen was one shaped like a woman doing a backwards swan dive...right down to the out-stretched arms, curved back and pointed feet! I just grinned and admired it as I knew it would be gone by the time I got my camera out
Grasshopper
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/24/2007
Posts: 978
Location: In a house.
|
Grasshopper....they just float on by 
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2008
Posts: 1,061
Location: Devon, UK
|
Grasshopper wrote:Curious to know how or why pics of clouds (where clouds are the main subject) get through QC's "soft and lacking definition" rejection.
I think you may be misunderstanding the way QC works. It's done by people, not by machines that calculate pixel positions. Furthermore the people are (allegedly) photographers or at least understand the nature of photography. They know perfectly well that a cloud, or a hazy hillside, can't possibly have sharp lines in the same way that a building can.
Alan
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/13/2008
Posts: 142
Location: UK
|
Grasshopper he wrote:Curious to know how or why pics of clouds (where clouds are the main subject) get through QC's "soft and lacking definition" rejection
This is why I haven't used myself as a model. My wife tells me I'm soft and lacking definition all the time. 
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/24/2007
Posts: 453
Location: Not sure right now...
|
Ian Sanders wrote:This is why I haven't used myself as a model. My wife tells me I'm soft and lacking definition all the time.
Ha. Guess mine knows yours ... went probably to the same 'school'.
Juerg
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/11/2007
Posts: 902
Location: St Margarets, Twickenham, England
|
archer769 wrote:Ian Sanders wrote:This is why I haven't used myself as a model. My wife tells me I'm soft and lacking definition all the time. Ha. Guess mine knows yours ... went probably to the same 'school'. Juerg
Mine won't let me model full stop - my rear end would take more than 50Mb alone.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/3/2008
Posts: 667
Location: Hastings
|
Shlloyd wrote:
Mine won't let me model full stop - my rear end would take more than 50Mb alone.
Can't you clone someone elses' rear over your own?.
Barring that(no I didn't say baring ), how about cropping it?.
Mick
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 11/3/2008
Posts: 303
Location: cambs
|
This thread has quickly degenerated from a sensible question.
I had the same problem a while ago with SoLD in cloud images and Alamy was able to give me a reply when they where questioned but I cannot remember what the reply was now.
You may be able to find it by conducting a forum search.
Allan
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2009
Posts: 67
Location: Arizona, USA
|
dingdong wrote:This thread has quickly degenerated from a sensible question.
I had the same problem a while ago with SoLD in cloud images and Alamy was able to give me a reply when they where questioned but I cannot remember what the reply was now.
You may be able to find it by conducting a forum search.
Allan
Thanks, Dingdong and Photocornwall Inchiquin - no, I'm not misunderstanding how QC works. I know "perfectly well" that a cloud doesn't have sharp lines  It's the fact that they don't have definitive lines, especially at 100%, that made me curious as to what other criteria makes a strictly cloud photo a pass and not a fail. They "can't possibly" accept every cloud photo ever presented. And being curious can't be a bad thing for a photographer
You other guys, thanks for the laughs. I'm sure you'll want to say something about being "degenerated", but don't want Alamy to end this question just yet. This would be the dullest forum, though, if we couldn't let our humor take over now and then 'hopper
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/24/2007
Posts: 978
Location: In a house.
|
Ok, well, I suppose a an answer based upon my experience of QC and what has been written by various people over the last couple of years: QC will look at an image and pass/fail based on a number of strict criteria - we all know that. But images that purposely fall outside the criteria may include night images, cut outs etc, where the white or black points fall way outside those accepted for a 'normal' image, motion blur, clouds, shallow dof, etc.
It seems that 'intentional' techniques are ok for QC, but not poor camera-craft and techniques.
Regards
Chris Potter
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2009
Posts: 67
Location: Arizona, USA
|
Thanks Chris! That helps
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2009
Posts: 381
Location: UK
|
The difficulties you may get into with 'cloud' or 'sky' pics, in relation to QC
are the tiny black dots, scattered throughout, often from birds flying in the far distance,
or indistinct 'blotches' which are often quite hard to spot
- you may have to examine the whole picture meticulously
at 100 % , and then spend time eliminating these faults.
If you don't, QC are certain to find them for you !! 
So, clouds are not quite the easy ride, that they may appear at first.
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/12/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Crete, Greece
|
Ah clouds, wonderful things...
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/12/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Crete, Greece
|
Hawkeye wrote:The difficulties you may get into with 'cloud' or 'sky' pics, in relation to QC are the tiny black dots, scattered throughout, often from birds flying in the far distance, or indistinct 'blotches' which are often quite hard to spot - you may have to examine the whole picture meticulously at 100 % , and then spend time eliminating these faults. If you don't, QC are certain to find them for you !! So, clouds are not quite the easy ride, that they may appear at first.
What, you mean you don’t check every pic at 100%?
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/24/2007
Posts: 978
Location: In a house.
|
I always spend alot of time de-spotting clouds...sensor dust is even worse on the grey ones!
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2009
Posts: 381
Location: UK
|
Cretephotography wrote:
What, you mean you don’t check every pic at 100%?
I check every pic at 100 %.
But I check sky/cloud areas meticulously !!
ie : I don't search for tiny black dots in the shadow areas of bushes,
or, any other areas of high contrasting detail,
this would be akin to searching, for a sleeping black cat in an unlit alley at midnight !! 
Let sleeping cats lie, that's what I say !!
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/12/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Crete, Greece
|
I always thought they told the truth…
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/28/2008
Posts: 1,386
Location: Suffolk
|
http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/
Like it says on the tin
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2009
Posts: 67
Location: Arizona, USA
|
Okay, Cretephotography...so how did that cloud end up looking like an old dude smoking a pipe? That's a cool pic!
I actually enjoy search and destroy missions while looking over my photos at 100%...ain't progress grand? Gonna try some of my strictly cloud photos as soon as we get high-speed internet in the next week or so Camera's still giving me the ol' ERR99, but that's another show
|
|
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/12/2009
Posts: 58
Location: Crete, Greece
|
Thanks. I was amazed the day the clouds came together like that, I’m just very glad I had my little Olympus camera in my pocket.
We also get some very interestingly shaped lenticular clouds too. Last year I put together a short video and stuck it on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gtcTpMkwWU
|
|
|
Guest |
RSS feeds