Problems with images A700 + sal1680

[moorefam]

I am having problem with some images I have taken with the Sony A700 using the 16 - 80mm Sony lens which I bought in Nov. I recently joined a stock agency and had the 2 images below rejected, so I am wondering if there is something wrong with either the way I took them or something else. Any advice would be great. Both were taken at the highest quality JPG setting and resolution.

The first is a crop of some woodland. I used 28mm, 1/125 f4, ISO200 sharpness 1 or 2 and it was 17MB in size and not edited. It was 17MB because of the amount of detail that couldn't be compressed. The crop is of the RH lowest corner where CA can be seen. It seems a lot too me and was too much for the agency so fair enough.

On the second image I used 16mm, 1/100 f13, 200 ASA, sharpness 1 or 2. It was rejected because of artifacts. Is it sharp enough or over sharpened?? What are the offending artifacts and should I have used a lower sharpness setting? If not what else is wrong and what should I have done please? Does the lens seem OK from this image.

http://www.moorefam.plus.com/DSC00821_crop.JPG
http://www.moorefam.plus.com/DSC00766.JPG

I like the camera and the only problems I have with it is the intermittent spot focus functionality when I press the multi selector button. This is a nuisance. Also the shutter release button stayed jammed 1/2 way down at one stage but cleaning around the space between the button and the case cured this.

At the moment the lens is back to Sony to see what they find. I have also found the at 80mm zooming back towards 16mm the image shifts slightly and requires re-focussing slightly. This I can live with.
I have found that my old Sigma 18-70 has much less CA which is ironic as it cost much much less and it 16 years old.

Thanks for any help,

Moorefam

[Glyn R]

What is the image? I see no subject. DOF is shallow the image is not really sharp. Maybe you should just carry on submitting images till you find one they like. Sorry I don't think the camera or lens are at fault here.

[johnday1]

Looking at the image of the lake, I have to agree with Glyn R, that the camera and lens seem to be performing just fine.....

If the agency rejected this image due to "artifacts", then I think that they are using the term as a euphemism for "we're not interested"..., as I don't see objectionable artifacts at all.

BTW, you should learn how to process RAW files, rather than shooting in-camera JPEGS, no matter how good they may appear to you. RAW gives you more options after the fact, and this often leads to the opportunity of applying some creative input by you, at home, in a relaxed environment, in front of your computer. It's a great way to go if you are into creating artistic images for sale.

Keep up the shooting, and best of luck.

[johnday1]

Hi, again, Moorfam

I just did a tiny bit of Photoshopping on your "Lake" image......

I added some Magenta (8 units in Photoshop) and also Cyan (3 units).

I also applied a slight "S" curve, using "Curves".

I then applied a touch of "Smart Sharpen"....

You can check out my version of the image at http://gallery.mac.com/johnday1#100016

I actually think that the image shows good potential as a stock image. I am thinking that most stock libraries would want you to give them a 16 bit TIFF...., so that it can be manipulated further... This is where RAW processing comes in, btw.....

[moorefam]

Thanks for your replies.
Johnday 1. I have looked at your image and it is a better for what you have done. I don't have Photoshop although I have Elements 5 and I have increased the contrast slightly and applied some sharpening and it looks better so I'll resubmit that. The agency said that there were artifacts when viewed at full size but like you I can't see any, but I am new to digital processing and don't know much.
Unfortunately I have a slow 166Mhz PC and manipulating RAW images is rather slow, however I take your point. I am thinking of rebuilding my PC with a faster processor and motherboard.
It's the crop of the 1st image which bothers me as I can clearly see chromatic aberrations even though the crop is blurred. It was in poor light at f4 and at 28mm. I remember reading that David Kirkpatrick had problems with CA with one 16-80 he had.
I have found that sharpening +3 on the A700 makes the image more blurred that on +2 and I think that +1 is perhaps the best setting as I don't want to be accused of over sharpening.

[David Kilpatrick]

The lake image is oversharpened for photo library use. It should not have the heavy edge effects shown here, but be much more neutral. If you submit JPEGs, -3 sharpness is correct. Even 0 is to much processing. The small clip of the other image is harder to assess, it's got some odd effects happening with colour saturation. Agencies need a much less processed image than a typical web or print use - zero sharpening. I process all my images for library use from raw, and I have never had 16-80mm images rejected for artefacts, but I've had them rejected for failing to expand the tonal range enough (i.e. keeping a soft, subtle subject soft and subtle!)

David

[Glyn R]

Thanks for your replies.
Johnday 1. I have looked at your image and it is a better for what you have done. I don't have Photoshop although I have Elements 5 and I have increased the contrast slightly and applied some sharpening and it looks better so I'll resubmit that. The agency said that there were artifacts when viewed at full size but like you I can't see any, but I am new to digital processing and don't know much.
Unfortunately I have a slow 166Mhz PC and manipulating RAW images is rather slow, however I take your point. I am thinking of rebuilding my PC with a faster processor and motherboard.
It's the crop of the 1st image which bothers me as I can clearly see chromatic aberrations even though the crop is blurred. It was in poor light at f4 and at 28mm. I remember reading that David Kirkpatrick had problems with CA with one 16-80 he had.
I have found that sharpening +3 on the A700 makes the image more blurred that on +2 and I think that +1 is perhaps the best setting as I don't want to be accused of over sharpening.

I just re-read my comment it seems a bit harsh. Stock agancies will do their own sharpening images generally need to be on the soft side. Usually uncompressed ie.tiff. If your PC is struggling I suggest you look here http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/produ ... dfh&~ck=mn It will be a lot easier and less trouble in the long run. I gave up upgrading my own computer about 2 years ago never looked back. the blurring you can see is caused by artefacts.

[moorefam]

Thanks for your help folks. As I said I don't know much about digital as all my experience has been with slide and film with a Minolta 7000i Dynax and Sigma 28-70, 70-210 zooms, where with the technology available to me, I didn't blow images up to a huge size and pore over them. That is apart from using a slide projector, which I suppose does exactly that! The odd one got printed 12*8 and put on the wall and that was that and the rest went into albums.
I am starting to scan my negs to see what of these I can submit and very early impressions are of scanning negs are of more grain than the digital images I have, with bits of dust attached and possibly not so sharp. I am using an Epson perfection 2400 photo scanner so hopefully it's up to the task. I don't know if I need a dedicated neg/slide scanner?

I have had about 4 out of 10 images accepted for stock so far but it's a bit difficult to know what they'll accept and what they'll reject. A bit like being back at school!! I could do really do with sitting down with some experts.
I was going to buy an upgraded PC but the firm in question I was buying from caused me such grief that I decided to build my own so at least I can upgrade various bits without fear of invalidating some warranty. It's worked well so far.
I am also thinking about buying a good quality A4 size or possibly A3 photo printer which will also print out good quality text and which doesn't cost too much in ink or clog its ink jets.

[David Kilpatrick]

The Epson Perfection 2400 really is not up to stock library standards, the Epson 750 (or 700) tend to be the recommended flatbed choice. Even these are not ideal for negs. If you can find a used Minolta Scan Dual IV or Dimage Scan Elite, Elite II those are properly capable of clean, detailed scans from 35mm.

David

[moorefam]

David,
Thanks for the advice regarding the scanner . I was wondering if a slide copier might do the job?
Regarding sharpening images again. I have noticed it stated in a review that the EOS 40D applies more sharpening than the A700 though images can look very similar if more in camera sharpening is applied within the A700. The Nikon D300 however applies less sharpening than the A700 and again we are told that changing the level of sharpening in either camera can make the images similar. What is not mentioned are the relative level of artifacts produced in equally sharp images, with all three cameras, with their in camera sharpening adjusted. When one is not an expert like myself and having had one image rejected by a stock agency as over processed and too sharp and another rejected as too soft (though this was scanned using my inadequate scanner) these things become relevant. However, I have chosen the A700 now and I am happy with it. I will apply less sharpening in future.