Comment Replies (4)
|
Replies to the user comment above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Capn (0)
|
I have stopped renewing because of the photography quality. Other than the valid points you raised, largely I found the lighting very poor and artsy with excessive shadow.
Cap'n. :0/
|
12-14-10 11:40am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
abbywinters (0)
Webmaster
|
Hi
We're surprised to get this feedback, I don't think we have ever got feedback like this, to be honest (we have had feedback about the depth of field being too shallow, but that's not really what you're commenting on, I think?). We get a heck of a lot of OTHER feedback from customers on every little detail (here, on our boards, and by email), and I cannot remember the last time this came up.
So, I'm intrigued!
You said you're not sure what we do to our images, so let me tell you: Our images are shot on Canon 1dmk3 cameras as RAW. We use only Canon L series lenses. We lightly process in Adobe LightRoom to balance colours and add the watermark. We resize and output with a moderate JPG compression, resulting in file sizes of 150kb to 600kb (for "regular" sized images - "XL" images are 800kb to 1200kb). We use calibrated good quality monitors, and the shoots are reviwed by at least two people as a "sanity check" before being released on the site.
I'm not sure if you're exaggerating for effect when you say "every image", but we'd very much like to hear from you an example of an AW shoot that is good, and another that is bad, to see if we can identify what you're seeing. If you did not say that other sites images look great, I'd assume you're using a really bad monitor, or display settings, but that cannot be the case (you ARE looking at these other sites ont he same monitor, right?).
Have you tried looking at our images on any other computer screen? I cannot imagine that a screen could make our images look bad and everyone elses look good, but I suppose it's possible? You sound like you know a fair bit about image quality - if you're interested, we'd like to send you a RAW image for you to process so it looks good for you, and send it back to us to see how it looks on our end (please email me on garion.hall@abbywinters.com if you'd like to do this).
If you like our content (which you seem to, apart from this image quality problem), we'd like the opportunity to work with you to fix it.
We're bemused, and would love to hear back. Either way, thanks for trying us out and being a member.
|
12-14-10 12:43pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
abbywinters (0)
Webmaster
|
REPLY TO #1 - Capn :
capn, in the past, we have had shoots that have had poor lighting and dark shadows, but these are non-existant on the bulk of our shoots, and all our new shoots. I'd encourage you to give us another go, if you like our content.
If you have concerns about technical image quality (as opposed to lighting of a shoot), we'd like to hear more detail, as I responded to the original poster.
|
12-14-10 12:45pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
greg909 (0)
|
REPLY TO #3 - abbywinters :
AW webmaster: Depth of field is one issue on AW, and continues to be. But that's not what I was talking about in this thread.
Yes, all other sites I compare to are viewed on the same monitor which is well-calibrated, and 1920x1200 resolution. I am a keen photographer myself, so I'm not talking out of lack of experience or judgement.
I can't point to a specific set, since I'm not a member any more, but if you look at the largest size images and think they resolve detail well for their size, then there isn't much hope. I'm not sure what you mean by "moderate compression", but if they're more compressed than 10 on Photoshop's scale, then that may be contributing to your problems. In addition, a lot of the shoots don't seem to pay attention to where the focus point is; you have the wall behind the model in sharp focus, but the model is not. Also, many shots appear to have slight motion blur due to too low shutter speed, so that may be contributing to the overall lack of resolution and quality too.
Honestly, I'd love to see a big jump up in image quality on AW because I've really liked the type of models used in the past. I'm not mouthing off for no reason. Perhaps you could show your large images to an unbiased professional photographer to get their opinion and advise.
|
12-26-10 01:41pm
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
