Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is This Really Badblury?  
User currently offlineA319114 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 541 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=lvl_lnrcw.jpg

I'm not a type to whine, but I can't see how this pic is badblury? Should I appeal or is it really badblury. I'm not questioning the expertise of the screeners, but I just don't understand it. Looks perfectly sharp to me...


Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

Looks like an image straight out of the camera (i.e. apart from resizing no editing done). It doesn't look all that sharp, either due to bad focus or camera movement.
Eduard


User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

..

Titles in vertical stabilizer and left engine look no sharp enough.
I think the reason is correct I'm afraid..

Just my opinion..

Enrique


User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Indeed blurry...go into photoshop, and apply some USM. I tried it, and it helps a little, but I do believe it's blurred, not just unsharp, since even after the USM, it keeps some of the blurryness (is that a word? Big grin). Anyhow, nice shot!

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlinePH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

I think it is a great pic and feel it would be a shame if not accepted. I really really don't understand the course airliners.net is heading at the moment. If they really only want 'perfect' shots they should start removing those 'crappy' (no offense to the photographers concerned) pics who are here since the beginning of the website when acceptance standards were low. Just my opinion,

PH-BFA


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I think it is a great pic and feel it would be a shame if not accepted

The shot is blurry. Who's fault is that? Let me give you a hint...it isn't the screeners fault.

It is a shame, because it could have been a great shot. Practice your panning technique and next time you'll get a great shot.


User currently offlinePH-BFA From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

'The shot is blurry. Who's fault is that? Let me give you a hint...it isn't the screeners fault.'

Sure it isn't, I won't argue about that. But I do think that the screeners are not the only ones who view the photos of the database, but the regular visitors are. The regular visitors do not even notice these small flaws in a picture (which the well trained eye of a screener does). I think screeners do a great job, but I hope they keep in mind that not only photographers look at the pictures in the database, but also normal people, like me, who think this is a great shot.

PH-BFA


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

My humble opinion is even if the shot was up to quality, It still goes down as BadCommon. Not a very interesting subject and overphotographed.

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2309 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

A blurry photo isn't a "small flaw." We don't need to settle for lesser quality photos when we have 100's of good ones accepted everyday.

User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Agree with Royal.... Its not up to the pass standard as its just not sharp enough... Sorry just my 2 pence worth  Smile


Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineMdl21483 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

"I think screeners do a great job, but I hope they keep in mind that not only photographers look at the pictures in the database, but also normal people, like me, who think this is a great shot."

Being one of the (formerly) "normal people" and a hopeful new photographer on here, I'd throw out there the possibility of resizing the picture to a smaller size, while increasing the pixels-per-inch ratio accordingly. Another thing that sticks out is how the horizontal stabilizer obstructs a good view of the tail logo. As far as blurry goes, the most blurred part appears around the wing root, especially the text on the engines, so maybe that's it right there... A.net is pretty high on aesthetics, especially since whenever there's a breaking news air incident on CNN, they seem to turn to either Associated Press, or (moreso) Airliners for the visuals.

~Melanie~



From the shores of the sea we have come afar, we have risen high, among the stars.
User currently offlineKereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

I think screeners do a great job, but I hope they keep in mind that not only photographers look at the pictures in the database, but also normal people, like me, who think this is a great shot.

We are normal people until we become screeners? Huh? Ahh my wife is right all these years I am not normal people!  Wink/being sarcastic

Cheers,
Colin

PS (Just kidding no offence intended)



Good things take Time.
User currently offlineBronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 810 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Comprising quality will not help you become a better photographer. Is your goal to get a few hits off a sub par shot or is it to become a better photographer?



Note: Comment not directed at the OP, but those who think this site is becoming to strict.



Jet City Aviation Photography
User currently offlineA319114 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 541 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Well actually I'll already added some sharpness but obviously not enough. I've now added some more as you can see an this pic:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/frontierflight/lvl_lnrcw.jpg

Do you think I should upload this or will this really go down as badcommon, as DLKAPA said.



Destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation
User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

It's a bit better, but as I mentioned before, it is blurry, and no amount of USM will change that. It seems as though perhaps you were using a low f number, or it was just not in focus when you made that shot. Sorry, but I would just keep this one for your personal album.

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineAndrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Why do people insist on uploading "common" shots in 1200 wide resolution???

A319-

If you reduce the size to 1024x wide, and add one or two passes of mild USM, I guarantee it will make it into the database. As has been discussed before a zillion times, 1024 wide is the way to go - unless you have something really extraordinary (like perhaps the first A380 visit to Meigs???). 1200 wide will only enhance the blurriness of a photo, and it makes any flaws much bigger and much easier to see. Plus, I'd be willing to bet Royal would confirm this - but I would imagine the standards are slightly higher for accepting 1200 or 1600 wide photos.

Reduce it, USM it, re-upload it. Then plug it.  Big thumbs up

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
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...
Is This Really Badblury? posted Thu Nov 4 2004 22:31:50 by A319114
Is This Really Badsoft? posted Mon May 10 2004 21:42:35 by AirKas1
Is This Really BadScan? posted Fri Jan 23 2004 23:38:19 by Sokol
Is This Really That Bad? Rejection posted Sun Jan 18 2004 20:39:57 by Fiveholer
Is This One Really Soooo Bad? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 21:29:11 by Interpaul
Is It Really Badcentered? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 23:47:20 by Dazed767
Is This A Picture For The Database? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 18:18:20 by JetCrazy
Is This Sharp Enough? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 22:27:16 by Linco22
Is This Okay? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 08:24:23 by Aussie18
Is This One Allright? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 23:49:41 by NicolasRubio