SH@VIE From Austria, joined Mar 2001, 38 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2269 times:
I'm an aviation enthusiast and I tried to upload several photos but all have been rejected: http://members.tripod.de/TheAirlinepictures/rejections.htm
I use a Canon FB630U scanner (only color prints) and Photo Shop Pro 7: I scan the prints with 300dpi - no jpeg-compression, resize it to about 1050 x 770, unsharpen it and modify color balance, saturation, contrast/brightness. Some pictures are grainy others are blurry.
Are the photos (lightconditions, angels,..?) of an low quality or should I use other software settings? Could you give me an advice.
I use a Canon EOS3000 with a EF38-76mm and EF80-200 4.5-5.6II lens. Which film do you recommend? ISO200,400?)
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2153 times:
They are way too soft. Its difficult to tell what caused it. It could be focusing, scanning or even your lens. Also they have too much contrast, possibly caused by the film you used, or the photo editing you did. What film did you use (speed, brand)? I don't think its your lens though, but I'm not too sure. What photo editing software did you use?
Also, its best to use 100 speed film. 200 works good as well, but only use 200 on a gloomy day. If its sunny, take advantage of 100 speed film.
However, don't go above 200. 400 is just too grainy.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
Try this: scan at 300dpi and save as TIF file, resize to 1024x768, make color and contrast adjustments if needed, use the unsharp mask with the settings: Radius 1,00; Strenght 100% and Clipping 10. Finnaly save the image as .jpeg with no compression.
With the JPEG Wizard compress the image 1 or 2 times and that's it.
Edipic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Size is important.
Any rescaling to a lower width and height will reduce sharpness.
Looking at you shots, I think you're using a very fast film.
Drop to 100 asa, no higher... then check the difference.
Gocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4367 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2112 times:
Next time when you shoot, make sure to aviod clutter. I try to avoid gate shots since all you see are "clutter" around the plane. The Swissair wouldn't be accepted because the MD80's tail is chopped off, so forget that.
The KIWI 727 is nice but you need to adjust the contrast. Also looks like you were shooting thru glass. What I believe that faded white streaks it either the glare or maybe it was your film.
Also, the lightpost are blocking the whole view of the KLM 747.
SIX T'S!......TURN. TIME. TWIST. THROTTLE. TALK. TRACK.
Bodobodo From Canada, joined May 2000, 553 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
Is there any advantage to submitting images compressed with JPEG Wizard as opposed to saving them uncompressed (Level 12 in Photoshop 6) and uploading them that way? I realize that it takes longer to upload them uncompressed since they are larger but otherwise is there any disadvantage?
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
I too am finding acceptance a bit difficult to achieve.
All of my reasons of rejections is LOW QUALITY..
Sorry if I am starting to act like a baby.
But I have to say that although some are, others I disagree with reason..
But I am also following the steps that many of you are using in Photoshop.
For instance. I scan at 1200dpi.. Ya its bit alot but I dunno why I scan so high..
HPS20 Film Scanner is what I use just like some of the pros.
The film is Presidents Choice (Fuji) 100ISO..
Cheap at 2 bucks..and is good quality with fine grain.
I put sharpen at 120% 0.5 Radius and 1 for clipping/Threshold for UNSHARP MASK.
Then I do the brightness/contrast, colors, and reduce to 1024 and Save with NO compression (MAX QUALITY)
And with BASELINE OPTIMIZED.. ..
To me It seems that I am ready to upload my pict.
At aroudn 2 megabytes for the size of it I wait for bout 2 minutes until its sent and ready for confirm.
So I finish and wait until i get a responce.
And there it is..
Low Quality. Am I missing any important steps??
My second shot with a A320 was sent back for Bad Angle.. Again I want to disagree.
Many times I try and attempt a unique way of shooting a plane, my pict gets sent back for bad angles..
Am I doing something wrong with my pictures??
How can I make my shots to be in Higher quality so These harsh restrictions can be surpassed??
A380-200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
The compression you use for uploading is very much a trade-off...
I use JPEG Wizard to reduce file size (for approx 1000x700 image size) from some 500K-600K down to something around 200K...and I try never to compress by more than two steps in JPEG Wizard. I do this as I have a relatively slow link to the internet. If you have a fast link just upload at zero compression.
When Johan adds the airliners.net banner at the bottom of your shot and saves as JPG again...and then compresses with JPEG Wizard your shot will be degraded twice if you already compressed it some...so for best results, if you have the bandwidth, just upload with zero compression...and if you have less bandwidth just reduce file size to the point where you get an upload time you can live with...
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
Bo, JPEG Wizard can be downloaded from http://www.jpg.com it's not on PSP.
Felix, I started using JPEG Wizard very recently because almost all my photos were being rejected and it was time to change something. Like Dean said it's not easy to identify the errors in the scanning process and even now I'm having photos rejected and I simply don't understand why when comparing my photos with others in the database.
I like JPEG Wizard because I get a feeling that the image suffers less compression than using PSP 5. With a final scan of about 500-600 bytes I just compress once and the size is reduced to 250-300 bytes. As I have a slow connection I compress just once again and the file goes to 150-180 bytes and I don't see any difference in the quality.
When I was using PSP 5 compression at level 5 or 6 the files were around 200 bytes and I did notice some little changes due to the compression.
To be honest I don't really know what to do because the reasons for rejections are vague but since I started using JPEG Wizard together with saving the first scan as .TIF, my acceptance rate increased so at least in the near future I'll keep this way.
Just as example, I have this photo being rejected some times. I don't think it's a bad angle or bad quality. The scanning process for this photo was exactly the same as for other accepted photos. I only see the flowers out of focus and obviously blurried but that was the effect I was looking for. So I would like to know if this photo can be accepted with a better scanning or if just doesn't enters in Johan tastes because the rejection email doesn't clarify that.
P.S. If the photo don't show up here's the link: http://www.geocities.com/airluis2/yes_l1011_cstmr_0301_4.jpg
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2056 times:
When I think about the many reasons existing for rejections (and that I'm getting too) I would say the following.
A330_LTU.jpg May be too soft and also look at the corners of the picture, they seem to be very dark.
Gate3.jpg: Theres no airplane fully visible.
B752_British2.jpg: Aircraft not centered, and it seems to land at the antennas because they are in front of the main gear.
A321_AUA-jpg: Plane is not fully visible (Nose and tail are cut off)
A330AUA.jpg: The tail of the SAS MD seems to cut off the gear of the OS Airbus.
by the way: Thanks for linking to my photopointalbum with the VIE-MAP