I just got this image rejected at SS:

Here is 100% crop of the sky:


Rejection: Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size.

Tech details: Canon 40D at ISO 100, processed from RAW. It was correctly exposed. Lens: 17-40L shot at f/8.
(I don't really know how else to improve my equipment other than buying a Full Frame camera).


So my questions:
What do you think is the rejection reason? Noise or artifacts?
I think I will downsize it to 4MP and resubmit it. Any other suggestions?

In general, what do you do with noisy skies (Do all DSLRs have some noise in the sky?)?
(I could clean it up in noise ninja but then I would probably get a rejection from iS for overfiltering.
So, what is your workflow for similar images (brightly lit landscapes and lots of sky)

FYI: The image was accepted at iS and FT. I think SS is sometimes little too strict on the noise for their own good.

why dont you try with Neat Image:

There is some noise in the blues , and Its alway easier to take care of the noise in the sky like this than the cloudy sky , cause running clouds trough noise reduction you loose details on the cloud and get artifacts. The way to handle that is to use layer mask on the noise reduction layer.
I have new monitor and I didn't have the time to calibrate it properly ,  but I'm almost sure that there is too much magentas here so your snow is kind of reddish.

Well anyway hope you don't mint that i tried to fix it a bit , I run it trough noise reduction , changed white balance a bit , a added some sharpness only to the rocks.



 

There is some noise in the blues , and Its alway easier to take care of the noise in the sky like this than the cloudy sky , cause running clouds trough noise reduction you loose details on the cloud and get artifacts. The way to handle that is to use layer mask on the noise reduction layer.
I have new monitor and I didn't have the time to calibrate it properly ,  but I'm almost sure that there is too much magentas here so your snow is kind of reddish.

Well anyway hope you don't mint that i tried to fix it a bit , I run it trough noise reduction , changed white balance a bit , a added some sharpness only to the rocks.

Thanks for the suggestions. The warm tone is intentional since the image was shot close to sunset and I indicated that in the description (which you did not have). He is the picture at iS:http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=5841086

I also have noise ninja but I try to be careful so I don't get rejections at iS.
WHICH ONE IS BETTER? Noise Ninja or Neat image?
I find that with the 40D and lots of sky the default setting (from the 40D profile at ISO 100) is not enough to remove the noise. Do you turn it up or use profile for higher ISO setting?

I never use default settings , Just look at the photo and use it to your needs , use profile image option , and if you have suspitious areas add them manually in the profile. Sometimes is good to use few settings in few different layers for noise reduction , and use layer masks on them , cause you have different amounts of noise on different parts of your image so single profile might not work well.

I personaly think that in this picture noise not a problem. There is a LOT Color aberration in your picture. Use Adobe Lihtroom to correct this

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I wish they had VERY specific rejection reasons. If it's noise, say noise, if it's artifacts, say artifacts,....

Do you consider that a LOT of color aberration? What lenses do you use? This was taken with the Canon 17-40 f/4 L at f/8. Is there a better wide angle zoom for Canon? Maybe the 16-35 II?
Or all lenses have aberration and we just have to correct it in the photoshop?

Quote from: dbajurin on April 20, 2008, 14:51

I personaly think that in this picture noise not a problem. There is a LOT Color aberration in your picture. Use Adobe Lihtroom to correct this

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I wish they had VERY specific rejection reasons. If it's noise, say noise, if it's artifacts, say artifacts,....

Do you consider that a LOT of color aberration? What lenses do you use? This was taken with the Canon 17-40 f/4 L at f/8. Is there a better wide angle zoom for Canon? Maybe the 16-35 II?
Or all lenses have aberration and we just have to correct it in the photoshop?

Every wide angle zoom I've tried from Canon has sufficient chromatic aberration that I've had to clean it up using lens correction to get the edges acceptable to me at 100 per cent view. (that includes the 17-40 - although I've seen images from that lens that were better in that respect than the copy I tried). It's the main reason I haven't spent a lot of money upgrading from my good copy of the 17-85IS. Yes it's got horrid chromatic aberration wide open at the edges. But it's no harder and more time consuming to correct moderately large amounts of CA than it is to correct small but still noticeable CA. 
I'm really looking for a landscape lens (so it doesn't have to be super fast) that is sharp right out to the corners at f8 with no appreciable chromatic aberration. So far I haven't found it. (the 10-22 EFS seems to be the best bet, but I'm still thinking about full frame so don't want to spend that much on an EF-S lens)

Dont worry, just grab a "blur tool" about 50-80% blur and "paint" the sky and thats it. Or select just the sky and use median with high radius. Theres always solution to this "invisible noise" policy.

Btw. I dont think FF camera will help, 40D is not worse then 5D.

Waldo4- If I stop submitting images with exif data, will that stop rejections for "Overfiltered"?  Sometimes when they (Most sites I use) reject my images for Overfiltered, I can resubmit by reducing color saturation a little.  However iS still rejects them.  Think the rascals are using my exif file against me?

Downsize it to 4MP   is the fastest way . I am using lightroom noise reduction in RAW and for SS I downsize in addition.
I actually do not remember when I had my last rejection for noise. I am using the 30D.