Refused Feathers

[beachgirl444]

Hi there, I was wondering if anyone could give me some clarity and advise on these pictures that were given the following feedback:



"Poor optical performance due to low lens quality, such as less fringing, chromatic aberrations, uneven sharpness in focus areas."



"Distorted pixels, image was interpolated, poorly scanned, unsampled, oversharpened or JPG was not saved at the highest quality. Poor lighting due to lighting conditions and/or camera limitations. Poor contrast or incorrect exposure."



"Poor optical performance due to low lens quality, such as less fringing, chromatic aberrations, uneven sharpness in focus areas."

Any ideas how I can correct these issues? Thanks so much for any guidance, again, I'm still learning and trying to figure out my camera!

[Shadowman]

hi Krissy,

First thing, the photos look pretty good to me. These were shot with a point and shoot on a very challenging subject.

Regarding the comments, yes you will detect lens defects when you zoom in on the image and you can correct in post processing. Did you submit these for a contest or a review and is that where you received the feedback?

[Geoff F]

I suppose to some extent you are bound to have poor lens quality with that camera; if compared to someone using a £1,000 lens (without body) or even better.

However that sort of equipment is beyond the financial capabilities of most photographers so the comments are a little on the harsh side.

These shots have a limited area of sharp focus but we really need to know more information about how you shot and edited them. Including your uploading procedure.

What is your narrowest aperture lens setting? I see they were shot around F4/F5.6 which is too open for a normal DSLR lens but what are the limits with your camera?

Did you use a tripod?

What lighting was used; natural light (sun/shade) or flash/studio lighting?

Have you used any sharpening during editing?

Possibly, cropping a little closer might remove some of the out of focus areas.

An unedited straight from the camera example might be helpful.

[beachgirl444]

Hi John, I submitted these along with some others to a stock photo site. They were all refused, but I won't give up!

Hi Geoff, here are the answers to your questions:

These were all shot in the sunlight. I was trying to focus on the water drop and in the sun they really sparkled! Probably not the best choice though, to shoot in bright sun light? I uploaded them in JPG format (I don't think I can do it in RAW with this camera).

*Settings for picture #1- f4 - 1/400 - ISO 200
Picture #2- f4 - 1/250 - ISO 200
Picture #3- f5.6 - 1/1250 ISO 200

I edited them on a program called Zoom Browser. It's very basic - no bells & whistles with this program! I basically toned down the color and cropped them a little. These are very close to what the original pictures looked like.

I didn't use a tripod. I shot these at such a wierd angle and so close to the ground that a tripod wouldn't have worked, unless I had the feathers up higher on a table, etc.

I'm sure the settings I had were not corrrect. That's where I'm having problems! I love taking macro picutres, so I really need to learn what settings to have my camera on to get the best results. Any suggestions on this? I'd love to hear from people that know what they're doing ~ unlike me! That's why I love this site!

Thank you!

[Geoff F]

All your options there, Krissy, were limiting so I'm not surprised that a photo site would reject the images.

For shots like those I would probably work with a Dslr camera (with interchangeable lenses) and an aperture around F11 to F14. Or in your case. fairly close to the narrowest lens setting. Do you have F8 available? I don't know what that camera offers.

A tripod is essential for macro work. Even one of the cheap ones will help.

Direct sunshine can cause reflection problems so light shade sometimes helps. It depends on the subject. With a tripod you will be able to cope with the lower shutter speeds that come from narrower apertures and reduced or controlled lighting.

I would use manual focusing; but I suppose that isn't an option either. Then I would spend quite a bit of time editing with more complicated software.

But even all that wouldn't guarantee a better result!