Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BadQuality - What Am I Doing Wrong?  
User currently offlinePixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3697 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.

The following are the latest rejects;

http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/B-16112.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-MIDX.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/JA8919.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/SP-LKC.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/YL-BBG.jpg

And these I haven't submitted since I figure they went through the same system so are therefore bound to be rejected too;

http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/F-GUGE.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-CPEO.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-EUUP.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-MIDT.jpg

Given the camera and lens I'm using should be able to give pretty good results, I'm thinking it must be me. Should I just give up?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTFSPhoto From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3683 times:

Hi there,

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.

Cheers,

TFS


User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3670 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.
-Matt
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.

[Edited 2005-07-25 20:42:20]


Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineFightingDingo From United States of America, joined May 2004, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

I am no expert but if you post the originals iid like to try editing them.

I usually use 500% 0.2 and 0 threshold as my USM setting.

What settings do you use on your camera? I also have a 300D.

Zach


User currently offlinePixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Thanks for the responses, guys.

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 (I'm a Photoshop 7.0 user, if that's relevant)

http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-BNWVorig.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-EUPDorig.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-MIDXorig.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/JA8919orig.jpg
http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/YL-BBGorig.jpg

Pete


User currently offlinePixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Settings for the above images;

G-BMWV: f10 1/1250 ISO400 70mm
G-EUPD: f9 1/1600 ISO400 87mm
G-MIDX: f10 1/1250 ISO400 70mm
JA8918: f9 1/320 ISO100 70mm
YL-BBG: f8 1/2000 ISO400 109mm

Pete


User currently offlinePride From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

ISO 400 seems a bit high for such a sunny day. That's causing the grain in the originals.

[Edited 2005-07-25 21:47:02]

User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

Well ISO400 would obviously result in more grain that ISO100, so if the lighting allows, always use the lowest possible value. Your JAL pic has much less grain than the others.

User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3634 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.


User currently offlinePixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3627 times:

I understand what you're saying. I had gone for the higher ISO in order to avoid any blurring - but obviously the grain issue is more of a problem. Can they be rescued even with the grain?

Pete


User currently offlinePride From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

Some steps in PS which take you about two minutes:

1 crop
2 resize to 1280 or 1024
3 curves (click the middle of the line and pull it a bit lower)
4 USM 100 0,2 0 (do USM about 3 or 4 times)

This is a fast way i use to improve a pic quickly.

Success

Jelle

[Edited 2005-07-25 21:49:03]

User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3611 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:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joseph A. Del Guidice



I think that your shots are much better than this one that got accepted, and have a lot of potential.


User currently offlinePixuk From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Flyfisher - I downloaded the demo of Neat Image, and I have to say, I'm impressed.

Here's what it did with G-EUPD, question is - would this get accepted?

http://www.v-flyer.com/photos/G-EUPDneat.jpg

Pete


User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Much better!  Smile

This is an great shot...I would crop a little tighter in on the nose to match the distance between the LH horizontal stab and the right edge of the frame. What was the original rejection reason?

This is a really great program but it can be "overused". If the shot seems to be fairly sharp right from the camera I like to use the "filter and sharpen image" preset.

-JD


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

Quoting Pixuk (Reply 12):
I downloaded the demo of Neat Image, and I have to say, I'm impressed.

Here's what it did with G-EUPD, question is - would this get accepted?

It is still dark, and It looks "neatimaged", so I would say No, it still needs work. I would junk them and just re-shoot paying more attention to your metering mode and exposure.


User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

It is a little dark under the belly...
I wouldn't scrap these photos!

Quoting JeffM (Reply 14):
and It looks "neatimaged",

It'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.


User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3578 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  Smile

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!

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3574 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 14):
I would junk them and just re-shoot paying more attention to your metering mode and exposure.

This would be unfortunate...

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 16):
Good luck with your editing adventure, for that is what it is - taking the photos is only half the story!

Well said!


User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3562 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.

http://img274.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gbnwvorig2ri.jpg
http://img274.imageshack.us/my.php?image=geupdorig7ja.jpg
http://img274.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ja8919orig9rg.jpg
http://img274.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ylbbgorig4nu.jpg

If you want to upload these feel free, just give me credit in the remarks box.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 15):
I wouldn't scrap these photos!

I would. Almost everyone or them has some large blown out areas. There is no way to replace what has been lost. Why bother, when they can be reshot correctly? Why resort to 'plastic surgery' ?

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 17):
Quoting JeffM (Reply 14):
I would junk them and just re-shoot paying more attention to your metering mode and exposure.

This would be unfortunate...

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.  Wink


User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

I use a 300D, and I only ever use ISO 100 or 200 if light is bad.

Anything higher is OK for 'home' use, but too grainy for Anet standards.

Regards



Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 21, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3542 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.

Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3538 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.


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3530 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.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (8 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3523 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.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 22):
Telling someone to "junk" their photos is an awfully bold statement...

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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
What Am I Doing Wrong?NOT Related To A.NET Reject posted Mon Apr 24 2006 21:50:10 by Deaphen
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Thu Sep 29 2005 02:17:11 by Olympus69
What Am I Doing Wrong? (Now With Working Links) posted Tue May 17 2005 00:01:45 by Whoop
What Am I Doing Wrong posted Thu Jul 18 2002 04:32:13 by AndrewAir
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Sat Sep 16 2000 18:41:00 by Hmmmm...
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Sat May 13 2000 22:01:24 by Hypermike
Am I Doing Better? Part II posted Sat Aug 26 2006 17:26:12 by Lufthansi
Am I Doing Better? posted Wed Aug 23 2006 22:14:47 by Lufthansi
"category" Help: What Am I Missing? posted Sat Dec 24 2005 18:19:49 by Eksath
What Did I Do Wrong? Reject Help. :) posted Tue Nov 29 2005 03:13:34 by Fiveholer