WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1363 times:
These rejections were all for quality. I took them with a 300D and a 70-200 f/4 L lens. I assume I am messing up the post processing, but I really don't know. If anyone wants to see the originals I can email them to you. Thanks.
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1329 times:
Not sure if I can diagnose correctly, but I do see a few issues. The LAN is badly compressed as far as I can see, making it soft and blurry.
The other 3 all have some haze or jaggies, look at the tails for example. I am unsure whether this can be corrected by sharpening (USM), or whether it is a heat effect. From the looks of it, it was a warm day with much turbulence right?
How do you sharpen images? Unsharp Mask in progressive steps?
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1324 times:
Interesting remark about compression. I have never had issues with that before. It might just be heat haze, but I am unsure. I always sharpen in 1 step with USM at 0.3 radius, 0 threshhold, and depending on the photo between 50-150%. I apply USM only to the aircraft and objects, but not the sky. The originals look a lot better than the final image. Here is the original LAN shot. http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img3467small7se.jpg
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Matt, I had another look at the LAN shot you just posted, and the full-size version. In my view that full-size version needs more sharpening (I'm using the approach of several passes of 50%). What I always do is resize them to 1024 or similar size first, and then apply USM sharpening. That might help?
In any case, the original one above and the one on imageshack (not the full version) have jaggies. Since the full-size one doesn't have it, I thought it was due to the compression of the size (so I didn't mean jpeg-compression).
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1307 times:
Wow, I am so cunfused at the moment. First, Edoca, I always use the same workflow, which I think I got from Fergul of Ireland. It is very simple, and has worked for 125 shots of mine. Second, Jeff, what are you getting at, I am not clear on your remark. If the originals looks ok, than the final should look ok too. The originals look good because they are huge, when resized the quality does not stay the same on my monitor. It might be because I am on such a high resolution monitor. As far as the exposures, it was partly cloudy with some haze, so the lighting changed, plus these shots were taken over about 4 hours. The sky color is not going to be the same as well as the exposure. Please clarify what you are saying.