Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Maybe I Need Some Help...  
User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3125 times:

Hey all,

With the 7000-photo que lately, I ended up with 16 photos in line when my turn finally came. To my dismay, I ended up getting a whopping 16 rejections, all BadScan... I'll admit, I usually bat pretty low despite a rough self-screening ratio (maybe 1 out of every 100 shots taken, I submit) but getting a zero for sixteen has me questioning myself big style. Badscan is a bit vague (as always) so I'm curious to hear what some of you think is going wrong. Here are some recent examples:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=EOR_N305FA_Squirly1F.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Cable_N75964_TakeoffFrontF.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=LAX_N440LV_ReverseF.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=CCB_N45012_HoverF.jpg

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=EOR_N16545_Liftoff2F2.jpg (This one was sent to Johan by the screeners the first time I submitted, he rejected it for too much grain/noise, so I re-edited and got as much noise out as I could and re-uploaded with the results shown)

Now please don't think I'm whining or complaining; I realize the photos I'm taking these days are not of a.net quality, but I'd like to find out why. Am I getting to experimental in my angle, and going over the capability of my equipment? Is my editing going down the hole? Is there something wrong with my camera that I can't see, or possibly something wrong with my eyes?

I'd appreciate any comments and advice any of you have...

Thanks in advance everyone!
-Mike


The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

Screener in training perhaps? I had a couple of bad scans as well yesterday, and in all honesty I can't see it (apart from the fact the sun wasn't shining).

Two things could be happening - new screeners tend to be nervous of letting one through by mistake, and actually look TOO hard at the picture ... and let's face it, there are very, very few "perfect" pics on A.net - look long enough and you'll see something that could be improved in all of them.

The other possibility is that one of the new screener's monitors is not up to scratch.

In any case, new screeners get feedback on their appealed rejections, so after a little while, things should normalise. Part of the pain of getting the queue under control again I guess.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 49
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

That AA MD80 looks stunning! And yes, it is a bit grainy, but not to a disturbing level. It's inevitable in such weather conditions.
Great shot Mike!


User currently offlineLindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3059 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Mike,

I like the AA shot a lot. What's that funny squiggle just to the right and below the right wing? Maybe you could crop that out? This is the sort of photo for which I would argue that the killer effect of the precipitation makes up for the somewhat blurred background. Why don't you sit on this one for a few weeks, have another look at it, and then appeal it?

Cheers,

Edward


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2386 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

What's that funny squiggle just to the right and below the right wing? Maybe you could crop that out?

The condensed wingtip vortices make the shot!


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3032 times:

Can you describe your image processing workflow?
I think this may help some people pin down the problem.

Adding to the comments above: To my untrained eye, the images do seem to have quite a high level of noise, maybe to tight a crop or to much saturation?
It looks like the images could do with a touch of despleckle after the USM has been applied.

I would also agree with AJ, don't crop out the wingtip vortices, fantastic shot.

You have to be careful with mist or spray that you don't smooth it out to much.
This image has lots of spray and fine mist;

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Woodcock




If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Mike.

I think it's a combination of shooting in tough conditions and also getting to the limitations of your gear.

To shoot in low-light, you have to have wider glass, faster "film" (ISO) or both. I don't think what you're working with right now is your best combo. The compositions and timing of the shots are dead on. So it's not in your head, but in your hands. I know what you're going through. I shot with cheap glass for years and always felt my eye was exceeding my ability. In truth, it was my gear.

Three letters my friend: SLR. Just looking at your shots taken with Tony's 10D is proof of it.

Truth be told, I think they are all A.net material except for the SWA shot. If the screeners knew how unique these images are for SAN, perhaps they'd be more lenient.

Happy "Rotoring."

William

A I R F R A M E S [ < ]



User currently offlineBenyhone From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 206 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2969 times:

I second ExitRow's opinion, all are great photography with the < slight > exception of the SWA 73G (lighting). It must have been a processing issue, but it's definitely not your eyes. I think you captured those moments spot on. Thanks for sharing them on this forum ... great work!

Terry/PHX



Cactus Wings Photography, Phoenix
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2933 times:

Mike, time to get a 300D.  Big grin

User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

Thanks for the responses guys!

As requested, my usual editing pattern is as follows:

Rotate as needed, crop as needed, re-size to 1024x768 @ 72px, apply sharpening (USM 50%/0.5/0), adjust curves (usually a 3-point adjustment, slight 's' curve), adjust saturation (usually a bump up), adjust brightness/contrast as needed, save with minimum compression, then run through NeatImage pulling 60/80/100 % noise.

"To my untrained eye, the images do seem to have quite a high level of noise, maybe to tight a crop or to much saturation?"
-- I'll try cropping back a bit and easing up on the saturation as well.

"To shoot in low-light, you have to have wider glass, faster "film" (ISO) or both. I don't think what you're working with right now is your best combo. The compositions and timing of the shots are dead on. So it's not in your head, but in your hands. I know what you're going through. I shot with cheap glass for years and always felt my eye was exceeding my ability. In truth, it was my gear."
-- Thanks for the advice... I've always had a fair amount of respect for my camera, and F2.8-3.5 seems like it's "fast enough", but maybe I'm not noticing that going to such a wide aperature is causing photo quality to suffer? Forget bumping the ISO, noise is already high at 100. The biggest problem I've ever noticed was the lack of image-size to play with (1600x1200 max size), so anything with a heavy crop was usually not up to spec... hence, I only pick the pics with near perfect framing off the line. Maybe I should start shooting at TIFF level and really concentrate on framing?

I'd like to get a bit more use out of my camera, and keep using it even when I upgrade. Maybe there is a problem I haven't seen that's causing adverse quality problems?

Thanks,
Mike



The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2912 times:

Mike,
Try to do your levels/contrast/saturation before you resize... It makes a difference...
cheers,
E


User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2907 times:

Mike -

It's more a matter of glass than anything else. The smaller megapixels coupled with the fact you're recording your images in JPG is also hurting you.

By all means, get as much out of the camera as you can. It's just that in challenging lighting conditions, the shortcomings will stand out. Your camera will (and has) done fine in good light. It's a bit like trying to ride a tenspeed bike in heavy rain. It'll work, but you're gonna wipe out eventually ... They're just not made for those conditions.

As far as the ISO thing goes, it's not impossible to get acceptable quality at ISO 200. It does, however, require some finessing in post production:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Anthony - AIRFRAMES



The light was TERRIBLE when I shot this.

William

A I R F R A M E S [ < ]


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

"If the screeners knew how unique these images are for SAN, perhaps they'd be more lenient."

I don't expect and I don't want the screeners to be more tolerant with me in case I have rare photos here in Faro, like for example, I wasn't expecting any special treatment for my KLM 777 shot here in Faro. It was the first time we had it and it's a very very unique photo for FAO but what counts is the image quality. Who cares if we had here a KLM 777? it was nice for us, nothing more that that.

If some photos are easily accepted just because they are unique at the airports where were taken, I think it's unfair to everybody else.

Luis


User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Luis -

Look at SAN photos:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?&countrysearch=-%20San%20Diego%20-%20Int.%20%2F%20Lindbergh%20Field%20%28SAN%20%2F%20KSAN%29&maxres=500&nr_of_rows=500&first_this_page=0&page_limit=15&sort_order=photo_id+DESC&thumbnails=&engine_version=6.0&nr_pages=34&page=;

With the exception of some of Tony's shots, the angle is pretty much the same. Taxiing to 27, or approaching 27, from the South side. (Harbor Dr. or Solar Turbines parking lot.) BTW, that's not a slight on Mr. Duarte's incredible slides.

I just think credit is due to Mike (and Tony and Chad) for seeking out unique, creative angles. That's all.

I think you'll agree, this site has no shortage of taxi and/or approach shots.  Big grin

William

A I R F R A M E S [ < ]


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2885 times:

William, I have a great respect for you and totally respect your opinion, however my friend, in this one I can't agree. It's good to have imagination and refreshing an airport image with different prespectives, I'm all for that but in my opinion it should not be part of the criteria to accept or reject photos, it's the image quality that counts.

I think it's "dangerous" to go that way, it can open a little "Pandora box" because there are many many many SAN's and FAO's being photographed.

Again, it's just my opinion, don't take me wrong, still friends  Smile

Luis


User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

No worries Luis.

I respect your opinion. And I agree with you about the overall quality issue. Of all of Mike's photos, I think these two supercede their quality shortcomings:

The condensation pattern is VERY cool and getting shots looking back at 27 are rare.
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=EOR_N16545_Liftoff2F2.jpg

The fog! Nice mood, if just a bit dark. (Levels bump would fix that.)
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=EOR_N305FA_Squirly1F.jpg

Yes they are borderlline. But I still think they are unique given the circumstances.

Of course we're still friends. You know us Spaniards... hotheaded and argumentative! Just buy me the first beer when I come to Faro someday.  Smile

William

A I R F R A M E S [ < ]


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

That AA MD80 photo is a suberb image, I'm not trying to imply that those photos doesn't have quality, they have but I leave it to the screeners to decide about that.

My point is simply the tolerance to unique photos at some airports which I think should not be decisive in the moment of accepting or not accepting, in that case I would demand also tolerance for some photos of mine that are unique views at Faro, and I'm sure many people would do the same with their local airport.

Yeah, I know spaniards, they live 50Km from me, but may I tell you that the portuguese, as a latino nation, also like to be argumentative  Big grin

Luis


User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

I've got an interesting angle on the discussion about angles and unique shots and whatnot. Prime example: take a look at Sam Chui's latest shot of the A345 lifting off at LAX. The quality was not razor sharp with perfect exposure and a clean image in that shot, and Sam noted it, but the shot is incredibly unique and very rare for LAX (or any airport for that matter), so the screeners let it in -- and I'm happy they did. However, if Sam (a well-known photographer) get get an A345 (a well known aircraft) in an interesting angle at a well known airport (LAX), why should this not be the case with other shots by lesser known photographers of lesser appreciated aircraft at lesser known airports?

I'm not trying to say a side-shot needs to be perfect to get in, nor that a "cool angle" can be blurry and cock-eyed and still get in, but I think content should play a huge role in the quality standards. Sam's shot was a tough shot to pull off, but he got it good ENOUGH that I don't think anyone is complaining. Why should this not be the case with everyone, at every airport, with every aircraft?

Bill: I'll start to take my shots in TIFF mode and see what comes out. I do have to wait about 15 seconds after every shot, though... now I'm really going to have to pick my shots!

-Mike



The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2738 times:

Sam's photo is a unique prespective anywhere, I wouldn't mind to make something like that with this background.



This is Ria Formosa estuary where Faro airport was built.

Luis


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
I Need Some Help With This Photo posted Tue Oct 17 2006 16:35:21 by Bio15
Need Some Help For You Guys... posted Thu Oct 12 2006 17:26:25 by Glapira
Europe/NY Travel Dates Set - Just Need Some Help posted Sat Sep 2 2006 16:32:38 by Glennstewart
Need Some Help On A New Reg. posted Tue Aug 22 2006 17:31:48 by Bubbles
After Many Rejections I Need Some Help posted Sun Aug 13 2006 01:00:20 by Kiwelumo
I Need Some Help posted Tue Aug 8 2006 15:29:31 by Kiwelumo
Stolen Photo... Need Some Help posted Mon May 1 2006 04:28:07 by AirbusfanYYZ
Angle Rejection... Need Some Help Please. posted Sun Mar 12 2006 22:40:01 by AirbusfanYYZ
Need Some Help posted Sun Mar 5 2006 02:17:32 by Griffs0000
Nightshot Rejection Party, Need Some Help Please posted Fri Mar 3 2006 11:36:36 by EDDL