Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Badcenter Clarification  
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

Friends,
I got this one rejected for bad centered and it's been a while and I need a refresher- I used the building on the left side as my guide and it appeared to be level to me. My assumption is that the fuel tanks are not straight, but the building is- so in such an instance, what is the right thing to do?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=n442awjp.jpg

JP

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Sorry, one more-
I got this one rejected for BADDIRTY and i'm not sure if its the plane that is dirty or what i'm not seeing, so that I can fix whatever it is and resubmit it. Thanks for any assistance.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N940NJP.jpg

JP


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2396 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

Joe, wouldn't 'badcentered' refer to the aircraft's position in the frame, not the horizon?

User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

I'm a little confused. You explain as though you felt the shot was crooked, but your badcenter rejction refers to where the plane is in the photo. From what I can see, it looks a little low in the frame.

I also recommend a CW rotation about 0.00000000000023 to the right.  Big grin

Hope all is well Joe!

-Phil



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

Sorry guys, the UAL CRJ was "badcameraangle" -I'm still not sure what I did wrong. And Phil, I did adjust it .00000whatever but i'm not sure if that's what's wrong. It's been a while since i've uploaded so maybe i'm getting rusty but I need to know what the heck i'm doing wrong- and what is dirty about that northwest aside from the airplane being dirty? what am I not seeing???

JP


User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

I think the baddirty is referencing the sky. It looks very smoggy and I guess Anet doesn't like smog or something. I don't get it either.

In all seriousness, the UA CRJ does need a slight CW rotation, but it would be like .125 or something when I checked it on the Photoshop grid. Again, kinda strict.

-Phil




Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Baddirty is for Sensor Dust. I don't see any sensor dust.

Care to enlighten me someone?


User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

For the baddirty photo, try taking it into Photoshop and putting the contrast way up - this will reveal any dust spots which may be hard to see otherwise. After cancelling the contrast change you can very easily clone out the spots.

As for the CRJ, it is quite noticeably leaning left. Try using the measure tool and grid to level it.

Good luck!
Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Philster, check out the building on the left side, that boy is straight up.

Eric, I checked that northwest for the sensor dust indeed, saw none- not sure what happened here. Phil on the northwest smog, maybe the jet exhaust, but that day in ATL was a dream- 60 degrees and deep blue skies- 0 smog.

JP


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Why should I put the contrast up, I dont see any noticeable dust spots- should I be checking every photo for unnoticeable dust spots "in case" there may be some hidden ones? please tell me that's not what we've come to here- I know that can't be.

JP


User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1801 times:

One thing that I realized is that dust spots play tricks on the eye. I will often miss them and they might show up to someone else very easily.

In PS, I click on Image>Adjust>Equalize, and then you can clearly see any dust spots.

I also did that earlier to that shot, Joe, and saw nothing that was actually a dust spot.

Maybe appeal?

-Phil



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1793 times:

Phil,
I dont mind appealing, believe me, but I want to learn- I want to know what the screener was thinking when he rejected- what he saw, so that we can all learn not to make the same mistake and have to go through the appeal process. Maybe there is something the screener saw that we are all not seeing- there's only one way to find out, hopefully he can help us understand.

JP


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

Phil,

What dust spots did you find? I found what might be dust spots after Equalizing and Inverting the image but they were all but gone when I returned the image to normal state. The only way I saw them in normal state was because I knew where to look and even then they were very minute.


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

Yeah, Phil are you playing with our head??  Big grin

User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Why should I put the contrast up, I dont see any noticeable dust spots

I said the same thing until I recently got a baddirty rejection for a photo which seemed to have no dust spots whatsoever. Spots are easy to miss, though, and when I bumped the contrast up (you can also use 'equalize,' as Phil and Eric mentioned) I found what would have been the reason behind the rejection.

I had a more detailed look at your photo and with the contrast around +30, there are a few spots visible above the fuselage. The most pronounced one is directly above the left tip of the horizontal stabilizer. Without the added contrast I can just barely make out one or two of them, but they're probably the culprits nonetheless...

Cheers,
QantasA332

[Edited 2004-12-06 04:49:28]

User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

I wrote how you cna find them, but i also said that I didn't find any.

I am as much in the dark about Joe's rejection as anyone.

-Phil



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

The day I start examining photos for what may be under the surface at +30 gauge is the day I sell my cameras and give it all up. That is sheer madness. Photo looks good, but let me do several under the surface inspections to be sure that it's ok underneath the initial surface. Where is my gun, I need to end it all...  Big grin

JP


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1766 times:

Oh woopsy we just missinterpreted your remarks.



User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1763 times:

Here, have a look at this. I hope you don't mind me having played around with your photo a bit, Joe, but I increased the contrast to +30 and attempted to pinpoint a few spots. My guess is that inside the black circles are indeed dust spots, albeit very faints ones for which a rejection should have been borderline, I think...



http://img107.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img107ℑ=u8mn940njp.jpg

Cheers,
QantasA332

Edit: I totally understand what you mean, Joe, it's going a bit too far when you have to examine the photo this carefully to find spots. However I do think I located a couple of them and if you just clone them out, the photo should be good to reupload.

[Edited 2004-12-06 05:19:08]

User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1756 times:

Sorry, I dont see anything in those circles. My wife came over to check them out and told me that i'm a dumbass for even discussing this, but she doesnt understand  Big grin

JP


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Joe,

Didnt screen either but the first is badangle, those fuel tanks are leaning to the left.

The second in places the sky is strange there is a band above the trees that looks blotchy and in other places too, there is a dark "spot" above the left tailplane and just up front the central beacon on the fues.

The more I look at it the more I see or don't see  Nuts

Paul


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1697 times:

I do see a spot, right where Paul described. But I had to take that into PS and hit the contrast way up. I think that band above the trees he was talking about was smog? That CRJ shot (what a pain in the arse spot), I did a CW rotation at .5 and the building near the tail/engine looks level now.

Justin


User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Joe,
What sometimes helps me, and what I used to identify the spot above the left tailplane was if you open your image in a separate window. Then, if possible with the whole picture in view, move the whole window around a bit...just back and forth, or in small circles. Then, while doing that, you can usually quite easily identify the spots, as they will be moving along with the picture. Hope that made sense! Big grin

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Of course a screener is using a monitor which may have a higher contrast setting than yours. Do screeners screen on LCDs? If so these can be very good at "enhancing" dust spots which would be all but invisible on a CRT.

It does seem over the top to need to correct problems you can't even see, but unfortunately until the world uses the same monitors and settings, this is something everyone publishing to the web needs to make allowances for.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1601 times:

You can also invert the image and at a large zoom look at the photo.

I use LCD monitor and a lot of things look different  Big grin



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
25 Post contains images Draigonair : Joe, the CRJ one, 0.2CW should probably do it...not sure try it loook at runway and see if its then straight. Nick
26 Mygind66 : .. I've turned contrast up and down, left and right and in a (cheap) LCD monitor.. Very difficult Joe to see a reason IMHO to reject the pic for dirt.
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...
Motive Rejection..clarification Please? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 14:40:46 by BrianW999
Clarification Of The Double Rule posted Wed Nov 1 2006 11:20:47 by Timdegroot
Badcenter Help, First Time. posted Wed Aug 23 2006 06:00:04 by NIKV69
Upload Info Clarification + Quality Opinion Please posted Mon Jul 31 2006 17:09:44 by Dazbo5
Clarification Please (from Headscreener) posted Fri Jul 28 2006 12:10:29 by ThierryD
A Little Clarification Help Please... posted Thu Jul 27 2006 03:53:45 by MarkJBeckwith
'Motiv' Clarification posted Thu May 4 2006 09:29:31 by Viv
Bad Double? Clarification Please. posted Tue Apr 11 2006 23:16:18 by QantasA332
BadCenter Rejection... posted Sun Jan 15 2006 21:17:25 by Airplanepics
Clarification "Nose Close Ups" posted Wed Dec 28 2005 10:11:22 by AKE0404AR