Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Request Help With 2 Rejected Shots.  
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2770 posts, RR: 18
Posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4055 times:

Hey guys,

I recently had these two photos rejected and I am running out of what to do.
During its multiple charter visits I shot about 30 pictures of this airplane and after spending painful and tedious time screening through my own photos I decided to upload these two as my best shots. I had these rejected before and I was sure that I fixed it for this time.

I edited them in Photoshop and used Neatimage to get rid of grain and I still get them rejected.

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=march045_filtered.jpg
Badquality and bad centered

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=P8100014_filtered.jpg
Badcamera angle.

Sometimes it feels like people shooting DSLR photos are getting a breeze of acceptance while people like me who still shoots prints struggle painfully to get one or two shots on. It pisses the hell outta me that print shots have to match the quality of a D100 camera to get it on. Considering that print films are considerably lower in quality I am fighting a bitch of a battle to keep up with the standards.

The second shot was taken with my digical C750 but I can't see how it is badcamera angle. Just because I cut off the tip of the fin and a edge of no1 engine the shot is not a.net material? I see thousands added weekly with the exact features.

I would appreciate some help.

Thanks



Chance favors the prepared mind.
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN317AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4031 times:

The second one if both engines had been cut off equal it might have flown, but it's real problem is it looks like it needs rotating clockwise a few degrees. The first one, looks pretty good to me.

User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

The first one needs cropping a bit closer to the nose for me.
The second one does look a bit off angle wise and a better crop would even it up a bit.

My $0.02c worth.

Cheers,
Colin



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

I didn't screen these ones, but my thoughts:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=march045_filtered.jpg
Bad quality, bad centred as per the screener who rejected.

Bad quality: overall the image looks like it needs minor adjustments in areas. You'll generally get this rejection:
a) if original image has reduced quality
b) if problem area of image is too hard to pinpoint or too numerous to list
You appear to have used a smart blur to reduce grain, but if so, it has actually damaged the shot, reducing detail. (Or it a least looks like that)

Bad centred:
The fuselage generally has to be centred. This isn't. Your fuselage is simply too low. Nice easy fix!

Please note, while bad centred may seem pedantic in this example, it only become so when the aircraft your shooting becomes more common (i.e. currently flying, over 10 shots, high chance of additional photos).

See my reply 38 in:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/93675/

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=P8100014_filtered.jpg
Bad angle as per rejection, but also I would have added bad soft.

This is far too soft! Anything this soft is a rejection in my books unless rare, old or accident. Once again, an easy fix.
Also once again, you've used a smart blur or filter in such a way where the detail is smoothed too much. To counteract this you appear to have over sharpened (which doesn't improve the soft rejection I would have given you) and in-turn created jagged edges (see ANA titles near door).
For this, I would have added bad jagged (quite rare to also be mixed with bad soft).

The above said, it's not your camera that's creating these rejections. You don't need an upgrade to a D100. You shots are as good or better than most of the D100 rejections I am seeing lately.

Your rejections can be helped by changing your editing technique. Your photography technique and scanning technique appear to be above normal.

Regards,

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineKlgaviation From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 243 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

Make them smaller! As for quality issues, you can ix that by uploading at 1024*.

Chris



There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2770 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 3899 times:

Gents,

Thanks for the input especially that of Glenn Stewart.

I will give them another shot. I will start all over and this time reduce to 1024 size and try and adjust the amount of grain reduction used per shot.

I will also center/adjust horizon the shot a little bit more like in the first shot but please NOTE that in a previous upload I had the same shot rejected at 1024 resolution for being un proportional to standard photo sizes. A different kind of frusteration from another screener.

The current medium in which I shoot in, (prints) This is the end of the threshold when comparing quality. Otherwise these kinds of badquality rejections will point out that not the shot but the film itself is lacking the a.net standards in which that case it is out of my control.



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2770 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

Update:

For the first photo I started from the original image and cropped the plane a bit tighter. I resized it down to 1024 and applied some USM. I saved it as Jpeg 12 and ran Neatimage with half as much noise reduction to get my final image.


The second picture, I also cropped it a bit tighter and rotated it about 3.5 degrees clockwise, also resized it to 1024 and applied USM and save. With Neatimage I also applied half as much noise reduction and saved as final jpeg.

These two pictures are upload ready but I won't upload to a.net just yet. Don't feel like uploading for nothing so I will post them for you guys to see and decide whether or not they are an improvement to the first and whether it is good enough to secure a guaranteed acceptance.
I think these picts are now worthy of instant add.  Smile





I have the original unfiltered images uploaded as well so you can see all the grain and noise that i have to put up with.
http://photobucket.com/albums/v98/bokimon/



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3843 times:

Hi Bo,

Neat image can help... but I wouldn't apply it unless you really, really must apply it.

Here are some examples of my shots I thought were very necessary for Neat Image:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Glenn Stewart
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Glenn Stewart



Anything shot in the day with low ISO shouldn't require Neat Image.
This is obviously what I noted to be what was reducing clarity in your shots.

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1663 posts, RR: 66
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It pisses the hell outta me that print shots have to match the quality of a D100 camera to get it on.

Hi Bo

Don't get disappointed, we are (at least myself) not trying to match quality to those top notch camera out there, but are looking at a consistent level of submission, that can meet A.net critieria and we are happy to accept shots from all format. I truly believe re-work on your last 2 will provide some fruitful result. Nothing against print shooter.

Sam


User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3805 times:

I second Sam's statement...
We're not picky about what type of camera you use, just different levels and styles of scanning/editing are required. As long as the end result is acceptable given the subject, registration and motivation.... we'll accept it (*)

(*) Naturally the rarer a shot is, the lower the standard required visa versa

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2770 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Nice examples Glenn. After looking at them again I can see how in that situation neatimage had to be used as there was practically no light in the sky. Even with the equipment that you use noise/grain would of been inevitable. I agree for that case.

Even though I usually don't use Neatimage for my digishots, sometimes my camera does bring alot of noise in some shots while others they are fine therefore using neatimage I feel that I can improve the quality. My C750 is afterall a consumer quality level camera while DSLR's range Prosumer to Professional quality level.

However when it comes to pictures from the scans, I believe it is a different story. Grain is almost always there and with the higher standards, part of my "different levels of scanning and editing" is the application of Neatimage to reduce the grains. That is the only way that I can keep up with matching print quality to the stringent levels of this site. Films like Fuji Superia and Reala need grain to make a picture whereas digital uses pixels which is more finer as MP goes up.
It would be nice if my scanner had some feature to reduce such problems in the first place but my S20 scanner is now a few years outdated for anything other than the basic scan function. No support for even batch scanning ..pff!

Sam: I understand what you are saying as a photo screener. I know that there are some screeners who rewards consistent results from these ancient format shooters greater than others. Mostly leaning to screeners who have done lots of print or slide shooting prior to going digital so maybe they understand better of how hard it is to edit such types of shots to quality levels.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers



This is a scanned shot which he took only a few years back. Just like my first ANA example. If shots with THIS kind of quality is good enough to make it on, then that 1st one of mine(hotlinked) should be more than enough even though the plane is rather common. No wait, there are only Four other shots of her with modified titles according to http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=JA708a&distinct_entry=true

Thesedays digital has oversaturated so much at this site I rarely see scanned material except the few from Johan and some other un-named few. I believe that my scanning and editing skills for such mediums are at the highest level of quality thats why majority of my shots added are from Prints. This is just one of those bumps that tries to tempt me to buy a DSLR.

Sorry for this long message but I gotta express my opinions as I am like the only print shooter frequently active on this site crowded with digitalized folks..

Bo



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2770 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Update:

My shot got rejected again..
This time for badsize. So I adjust cropping to center the plane onto the frame and it gets kicked back for a completely different reason.
Although I resized it to 1024, fixed up sharpness and reduced grain the last thing I wanted to get was another rejection for improving my photo.

This sucks balls.

Unbelivable waste of time.. Maybe I should be convinced that prints are outlawed from this site unless of extraordinary circumstances like a crash.



Chance favors the prepared mind.
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...
Help With Two Shots Please! posted Sun Oct 8 2006 09:50:16 by GertLOWG
Request Help With NWA 757 Registration posted Sun Jun 26 2005 22:24:17 by C133
Help With Rejected Images posted Sun Jun 19 2005 21:11:12 by Airportopz
Help With 2 Rejected Photos posted Mon Jun 6 2005 15:59:50 by Sfilipowicz
Need Help With Some Shots Please... Thanks! posted Tue Apr 5 2005 20:58:08 by Glapira
Need Help With Rejected Shot. posted Mon Nov 15 2004 10:58:13 by Crank
Need Help With Rejected Photo (badsize) posted Mon Nov 8 2004 23:26:31 by Gust
Help With Rejected Photo. posted Wed Sep 8 2004 01:04:12 by CV63
Finally Got First 2 In DB, But Help With Rejected. posted Wed Jul 28 2004 01:14:50 by YULtoPEI
Help With Rejected/appealed Photo...PLEASE! posted Fri Jan 30 2004 00:35:17 by Vafi88