Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Badquality? - Again  
User currently offlineDerekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1569 times:

Normally I don't have a problem seeing what the screeners meant when I get photos rejected (doesn't mean I necessarily agree though!) and I have a good idea what to do to fix it - badgrainy, badlevel or whatever. Recently I have had a spate of "badquality" and I'm stuck really. I don't know why the photo was rejected and therefore don't know what to do to fix it.

Here are the offending "badquality" rejects.

1. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/Img0116zz.JPG

2. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/2002413_10.jpg

3. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/2001392_14.jpg

2. was also rejected for badlevel.

While I'm here, contrary to what I said above, the following was rejected for badjagged but I don't see where.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/2004513_34.jpg

The badquality rejection is not hugely helpful I don't think and maybe it should be associated with a badpersonal message to help pin-point the problem otherwise we all end up wasting each other's time. Any thoughts?

Derek.


Whatever.......
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1560 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

1) Wrong side of the sun, oversharpened.

2) Bad angle, too much contrast.

3) Blurry (too soft to be saved with USM).

The Ryanair shot is badquality, also very soft, and was tried to be made better by USM, but it is too soft to be saved.

Obviously you feel strongly enough about these to start a "Why?" thread, I would suggest borrowing a friend computer to have a better look, it should be clear.


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Derek

Another screener chips in:

1. Badquality. Dirty, oversharpened (too much radius) and jagged.
2. Soft and definitely angle problem.
3. Soft and possible angle problem but not too much.
4. Slightly jagged but not a problem for me. Sharpening problem, too much radius selected I think.

Never go above 0.2 of a radius setting.

A badquality rejection emcompasses quite a few things. A rejection reason like this should prompt the photographer to look at the processing again and start afresh.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Thanks for the replies.
If the reason though is against the sun or contrast isn't that a badcontrast rejection? If it is dirty then isn't that baddirty and if it is soft is it not badsoft?.
This is the point I'm making. If I knew it was soft or dirty I would know what to look for rather just "badquality" which gives me no clues.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
I would suggest borrowing a friend computer to have a better look, it should be clear.

Do you mean one with a CRT monitor? - if so I don't know anyone that still has a CRT monitor anymore - gone the way of floppy drives and 486 processors round here Big grin

Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

Derek,

Actually, that point about a CRT monitor is very valid. I expect these images look great on a TFT, where oversharpened images don't seem to be particularly conspicuous.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Derek

The screeners use CRT monitors.....well I do.

I had quite a bit of money to spend on a monitor last year so opted for a new 22" IIyama Vision Master Pro. A big beast but beautiful for processing and screening images.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

I'm afraid that size, weight, cost and power consumption outweighs any potential airliners.net rejections. For the future though, an increasing number of visitors to the site will be viewing on a laptop or TFT monitor. In fact I noticed in the most recent Dabs catalogue I got in the post had no CRT monitors in it at all.
I probably tend to oversharpen as before I had lots of "badsoft" rejections. Doesn't always work though.

Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Derek

Send me an e-mail, I have word document that might help you with your processing, some other photographers have used it and found it helpfull. I can't contact you as you e-mail is withheld.

Take care

Fergul Big grin



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 909 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Fergul

Thanks for that, I've sent an e-mail.

Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

I think they all have some issues with processing, so I agree with Gary, "look at the processing again and start afresh". It's not a problem with the monitor.

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...
BadQuality - Again! posted Fri Oct 29 2004 06:50:49 by Bruce
Badquality.... Again... posted Tue Jul 6 2004 21:01:44 by DLKAPA
Blemishes, Blemishes And Again Blemishes posted Wed Nov 22 2006 19:20:45 by Aero145
Spotting At YSSY....again posted Fri Nov 17 2006 23:25:58 by Brett
Rejected... Again... posted Thu Nov 9 2006 00:29:29 by D L X
Screening Queue Is Rising Again.... posted Wed Oct 18 2006 17:16:18 by LIPH
A Few Shots In Need Of Advice..again posted Tue Sep 19 2006 22:39:49 by Pavvyben
And Again Some Prescreening Advise Please? posted Mon Sep 18 2006 15:20:08 by Acontador
BadQuality --> Salvagable? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 02:29:43 by AirKas1
Rejection Help Requested (again) posted Tue Aug 22 2006 13:41:08 by DerekF