| Clive Rivers |
| Newbie |
|
| Surrey, UK |
|
|
| None Specified |
|
| Wednesday, August 01, 2007 |
| Tuesday, November 24, 2009 12:54:49 AM |
127
[0.17% of all post / 0.15 posts per day] |
|
Brad,
A point worth remembering. A 200MB scan file viewed at 100% (as QC do), is the equivalent of a 50MB file viewed at 400%. Submitting very large scan files puts you at a disadvantage and you are more likely to fail QC than sending 50MB files, which are large enough for anything an Alamy customer will want to do with it.
Clive
|
Bhandol wrote:Thank you all for your helpful answers.....till i can afford the Multi Pro i may try and pick up the Dimage 5400II.
Cheers all
Parm
Parm,
I can recommend the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 as most of my material on Alamy was scanned with one of these. Excellent software too.
However, bear in mind that it will work in Windows XP but not in Vista. It will also work in Windows 7 in XP mode.
Clive
|
ronbedard66 wrote:I was surprised by by the latest rejection of camera shake since the image was taken with a wide angle lens of a landscape scene in sunny weather (good light).
The oft-repeated advice that you can use a slower shutter speed with a wide angle lens is a fallacy. Camera shake is camera shake. When viewing through a wide angle it is not as noticable, BUT because the image details are so much smaller and finer, it is just as destructive. In a landscape there will a great deal of fine detail which will be lost. Keep the speed up or use a tripod, preferably both!!
Clive
|
lemmy wrote:clickbrr wrote:how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. For the record, from my own observations, on a normal commercially available pin with a head diameter of 1.5mm: 176. However, if the pin head was of the same 1.5mm diameter but converted to a square format giving a side length each of 1.5mm, the figure would be 225. Assuming a charge of £25 per angel per hour and an 8 hour dancing day, the daily yield would be £4,400 with a round head and £5,565 with a square head. This is a represents a revenue increase of a more than 27% and makes the conversion well worth while in my opinion.
Priceless!! 
|
Jaybee,
You're quite right, I should have mentioned it, but truth to tell, I was embarrassed that I had shot without checking the ISO first. My mistake.
Quote:These boys and girls really do know what they're doing.
Although some of them can't distinguish between IAs and noise and sharpening!! I still feel it was a rather harsh judgement.
Clive
|
Hi guys,
Thank you for all taking the time and trouble to help, much appreciated.
I agree that the shots should have been taken at a lower ISO, (note to self - check ISO before shooting!! ).
The images were sharpened slightly and this has emphasised the noise in the shadows.
I have reprocessed some of the images from the original RAW files unsharpened and have resubmitted them, except for 2 images which are most borderline, one of them being the image I have posted. I will submit those 2 separately when the bulk have been QCed.
Yes, David, they did pick the worst one!!
Regards and mucho sales to you all.
Clive
|
Hi guys,
Many thanks for all your comments, although I don't feel I have got to the bottom of the problem yet.
Apologies, I didn't realise that the file on Photobucket would be so small, so I have added 4 crops which I hope will roughly equate to 100% view. I am still learning about posting pics on Photobucket et al.
http://s853.photobucket.com/albums/ab91/crivers_2009/?action=view¤t=lidlcrop04.jpg&newest=1
http://s853.photobucket.com/albums/ab91/crivers_2009/?action=view¤t=lidlcrop01.jpg&newest=1
http://s853.photobucket.com/albums/ab91/crivers_2009/?action=view¤t=lidlcrop03.jpg&newest=1
http://s853.photobucket.com/albums/ab91/crivers_2009/?action=view¤t=lidlcrop02.jpg&newest=1
If you mouse-over the top left corner of the image, you can zoom to 100%
I would emphasise that the image in question was not cropped at all and was only interpolated from 34MB to 51MB. There are no IAs and no jagged diagonals visible at 100%, as you will see from the crops. The sky is as smooth as a baby's bum!!
My best guess is that QC have seen slight noise in the shaded foreground block paving and have taken it to be IAs. I would be interested to hear whether anyone feels this is worth a fail. Seems a bit harsh to me.
Stephen,
My reason for buying the 24-70 lens was that my previous one was a 24-120 and was not quite sharp enough for me to feel confident in it. The reason was not IAs as I have never been failed for this in the past. As David said, it is almost impossible to get IAs with this small amount of interpolation using Bicubic Smoother in PS.
Thanks again for all your help and patience.
Clive
|
Having just forked out £1200 for a Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 lens, I was rather disappointed to get my first submission with it failed. But not for SoLD. It was for interpolation artifacts.
Having inspected the images at 100%, I can see none. I wouldn't expect any as they were taken on a Nikon D300 and the files were only interpolated from 34MB to 50MB using Bicubic Smoother in PS. There is possibly a little graininess in the shadowed foreground, but I would not expect a fail for that, and it's certainly not Int. Art.
I know there are many folks on here who swear that QC never get it wrong, but can anyone else see it? Once QC get on your case it's like shovelling s**t uphill.
Hope this link works.
http://s853.photobucket.com/albums/ab91/crivers_2009/?action=view¤t=newlidlstore06.jpg&newest=1
Clive (now the demotivated one). 
|
I had a 50mm lens damaged by a broken UV filter when an object hit the front of the lens. The object itself was too big to reach the front element, so without the filter I would not have had to buy a new lens!!
I subscribe to the school of no filters when not necessary. When Nikon's computer worked out the design of my lenses, I doubt that it allowed for me putting more glass in front of it. Multi-coating notwithstanding, a filter on the lens can only result in loss of contrast when shooting "near the light", even with a lens hood.
Clive
|
reeray wrote:Conversely, if you want the best look out for a Minolta Elite scanner 5400 dpi. Again on Ebay and at something of a premium these days but what a great scanner it is. Arguably the best ever for 35mm.
Good luck
Charlie,
Could I put in a word for the Minolta Elite 5400. A superb scanner with excellent software - the majority of my 700 images on here were scanned with one. ICE works a treat and the Mark II is faster than the Mark I, which is what I have.
One proviso, it works in XP but not in Vista, although it does work in Windows 7 in XP mode. You wouldn't be dissapointed, I promise.
Clive
|
|
RSS feeds