Pixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3 Posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2131 times:
Ok, so I've yet to get one photo accepted, and before I give up entirely I thought I'd ask the experts why I'm getting this so wrong.
My kit is a Canon 300D with a Canon 70-200 'L' Lens, and I've been post-processing images by cropping to the maximum width allowed by a.net (1600px wide), Unsharp Mask (100%, 1px, 1 threshold) and as little jpeg compression as the max file szie will allow.
TFSPhoto From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2117 times:
Some of them are real grainy, try re-sizing down to maybe 1100 wide. They are all 'badcenter' try a closer crop (I personally go for 1cm from the nose, 1cm off the tail e.t.c) and remember the 3:2 ratio, or 4:3.
There are also a few dustspots dottered about the place, try using the equlization tool in paintshop and you should be able to see them.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2104 times:
As a new photog you should almost always use 1024X683 or 1024X768. Uploading at such large dimensions shows many more imperfections in a photo. You also have some other problems. There are dust spots in the photo, in the F-GUGE photo there is a big spot right above the tail. The color of the photos does not appear great as well and there is massive grain in the sky. Can you send me an original of the 5 best that you like and I will edit them the way I would my own shots. That will give a much better perspective on how your originals are coming out. DO NOT GIVE UP! It is very frustrating at first, but I would kill to get a 70-200L lens for my 300D. You have the right equipment, but some changes need to be made to get your photos up to the high standards of A.net. I hope this helps, and hopefully you will email me some originals.
PS - I have a 300D and a crappy 75-300 Canon lens that in non-IS and non-USM, and I have over 50 photos in the DB in about 4 months.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
These are some awesome photos!
I would highly suggest downloading a free copy of Neatimage and try processing these photos using this program. It automatically reduces noise and sharpens the photo using a variety of available presets. It seems that your biggest problem is noise levels (BADQUALITY?) which can be easily fixed with neatimage. People seem to be really hung up on using complicated programs like photoshop for all their photo processing. I use photoshop mostly for cropping and resizing of photos. I use the plugin version of Neatimage for all noise reduction and sharpening. I concentrate on getting good exposures and keeping my equipment clean to limit post-processing. I shoot in raw mode with the Canon 300D and use the raw file viewer utility for all other adjustments (exposure compensation, white balance etc.).
My suggestion: Purchase a plugin version of Neatimage & download the Canon 300D noise profiler from their website. Use it as a plugin with Photoshop. Most importantly...resize to 1024 by 768!
Don't give up...these are awesome shots and an awesome camera setup...these shots just need a little more post-processing TLC.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2045 times:
Yes absolutely...I would love to have one of the worst files to see what I can do with it using neatimage. Do you have the original file in raw or tif format? I think you would be really impressed with the results. Properly processed, these shots could get easily accepted if downsized to 1024x768.
This shot was taken at Logan Airport using a high ISO setting (400 iso or above). I was able to reduce the noise and sharpen using Neatimage and resize to 1024x768 using photoshop:
GPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 818 posts, RR: 27 Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2012 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 11): I would love to have one of the worst files to see what I can do with it using neatimage
I don't know, coming in here and using the 'N' word, you should wash your mouth out
Neatimage can be an excellent tool used properly and a nightmare if used incorrectly. I used to use the stand alone version, but results can be difficult to get right as you have to apply it to the whole photo, when you may only want to use it on a small area. As I result, I no longer use it. So I have a question about the plug-in version - can you use it in conjunction with tools such as the magic-wand to only remove noise from certain areas? Or does it still only work on the whole image like the stand-alone version?
Quoting Pixuk (Reply 12): Here's what it did with G-EUPD, question is - would this get accepted?
You've certainly improved your chances. Speaking personally, I would say try to use a little less of the NeatImage effect (it is beginning to look a little plasticky - that is the 'technical' term for overdoing Neatimage) and is a maybe a little too sharp, but not too bad. Good luck with your editing adventure, for that is what it is - taking the photos is only half the story!
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
Here is a quick run through by me on some of the originals. I used PS Elements 2.0 and no Neat Image. I feel they have come out much better, but am questioning if they are A.net standards. Good luck in the future.
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1976 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 15): 's too bad that we can't do a Neatimage "taste test" to see if someone can really tell the difference between a photo processed with Neatimage and a one processed manually using photoshop.
You can tell with practice, trust me. The screeners see thousands and if there's too much smoothing it'll get rejected.
Neatimage shouldn't even make it into the workflow for a DSLR image shot on a sunny day, there simply isn't any need.
Matt, go out and have another day's shooting at ISO100 or 200, it's a much better base to work from.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1972 times:
Unfortunately, when viewing images on a 1.5 inch screen it is tough to accurately judge exposure in the field. In a perfect world, our shots would be great without any post-processing with the exception of noise removal. This is rearely the case.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 19): I'll disagree there as well. Learning to properly meter a scene is more important then learning to rebuild and image artificially in Photoshop any day of the week.
While properly metering a scene is important, the field limitations of the Canon 300D's metering modes translates to more adjustments at home. I agree that more focus should be put on making the shot right to begin with.
Quoting Pixuk (Reply 4): Here are a selection of originals. Feel free to have at them, and please share any tips on how to make the best of them
We can judge these photos all we want, but after all we are not photo screeners. Telling someone to "junk" their photos is an awfully bold statement...Maybe we can help Pete to improve his photos using post processing techniques, instead of just sending him packing.
These are good shots, and I've had shots of lesser "quality"(in my opinion) accepted.
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1964 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 22): Unfortunately, when viewing images on a 1.5 inch screen it is tough to accurately judge exposure in the field. In a perfect world, our shots would be great without any post-processing with the exception of noise removal. This is rearely the case.
The histogram is very useful. It can tell you an awful lot about your image.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1957 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 22): the field limitations of the Canon 300D's metering modes translates to more adjustments at home.
Answer to this? Spend the $200 - $300 bucks and get a half way decent incident meter and shoot in manual, the excuses for poor exposure will be hard to come by then. They don't lie, and are very easy to use.
Wouldn't you rather someone tell you the truth? If those were once in a lifetime pictures, then I might say "yea", go ahead and mess with them...see if you can salvage them. But they are not are they? And the truth is they have large blown out areas that cannot be fixed. His time would be better spent learning photography in my opinion.
25 StealthZ: This is a cop out, having used a 300D and currently a 10D user(first DSLR was a D30) the metering systems of all are superior to the metering availab
26 FightingDingo: I tried editing one, but I still think it won't get accapted. When you open it up click on it to get the full size. I think WakeTurbulence did a bette
27 Flyfisher1976: True... The histogram can help you to figure out what to better next time, but can't fix a shot that's already been taken. This being my first SLR ca
28 JeffM: ??What is your reason for taking pictures??? What good is submitting poor photographs to any website? I think you have your priorities wrong. If you
29 Flyfisher1976: It's entirely possible that some people (like myself) enjoy the simple pleasure of uploading shots to this website. Honestly, that is the motivation f