Spotterke From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3424 times:
Hi all,
I got this one rejected today.Who can tell me how to improve shots like this.I know there is some noise in the pic,but i've seen more(recent shots) like that.
Some help(tips) wanted pls!
Karlok From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 839 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
Working behind a not so good monitor, but here the picture looks grainy.
A lot of dead space in front of the nose. Also crop the engines out in my opinions or include them.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
I see a lot of unnecessary noise in the sky, even on the soft monitor I have here in the office. Besides that, the crop could have been nicer too (space in front, engines chopped off).
Spotterke From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3402 times:
@IL76 so you mean that if i can get the noise out and crop the engines,this pic has a chance?I am working on a 19"TFT screen,but that seems to be not so good for working on photo's.All i see here is a little bit of grain.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3394 times:
Yes, leave the engines either in or out, but chopping them in half does not look nice. Crop closer in front and don't sharpen the sky. That will get rid of the noise/grain.
E
PS: The very large size (1600x) does not help your case either, we are more strict on large sized pictures.
GRZ-AIR From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 573 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3292 times:
Follow the advice posted above..and besides that, I think this a very nice picture.. you can even see the tire writings and the face of the cap. and one pax.. very cool!
Spotterke From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
Bottie did you click on the picture?because here on the forum,indeed there are jaggies.What is the best aspect ratio then for upload??? 3/2? All the tips are welcome.It's time now for some changes to do....i've uploaded more then 100 shots for sure,and only 9 where accepted.There must be something i'm doing wrong.
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1045 posts, RR: 37 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3173 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 4): PS: The very large size (1600x) does not help your case either, we are more strict on large sized pictures.
Well that flies in the face of what was said here last week in response to another question where the answere was that all pics get looked at the same.
Glad to finally know that larger pix are treated more harshly than others.
Now the question is why??
As most people i know these days are running resolutions above 1024 and many laptops are running way above 1024 why is there this push "against" larger res uploads and why are they treated more strictly than 1024 shots.
Having been going through a good number of rejects myself recently most of which are at 1200 res "why" is it that the site seems to want only 1024 size images when the rest of the world has moved on to using larger resolutions for desktops.
And thanks for the confirmation.
Darren
Spotterke From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3124 times:
I completely agree with you Dehowie,and in this case i'm going to get a lot more rejections in the future,because i work on a 19" tft screen wich has a native resolution of 1280x1024px.If i'm going to resize my pics on this screen,i'm always going to have jaggies or what else....When are they going to realise that everyone has a different pc monitor and not everyone has the capability to use expensive software to edit their pics.Ok there must be some kind of (high) standards,but these are going too far in my opinion.
Speedbird128 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1151 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3075 times:
Hi Spotterke,
I don't think that the resolution of your screen will determine whether you get jaggies or not... I use both a LG 20" LCD (at 1600x1200) and a Samsung 17" (at 1280x1024).
If you are viewing the photo at 100% zoom, then you won't have visible jaggies, unless you have accidentally over-sharpened the photo. If you alter the zoom of the picture, then it can display jaggies, but they won't actually exist on the photo at 100%, just displayed on your screen.
I am not here to change the way the screeners work, but if you have the same photo at 1600 and 1280 pixels wide, you will have a lot more detail on the 1600 one, and therefore any flaws in the photograph will be more noticeable... So, a photo at 1600 pixels wide may be rejected, but the same at 1280 may well be accepted.
Spotterke From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3009 times:
My photo's come out of the camera at 3008 x 2000 px.So if i understand it well i'm best to make a real crop to 1024x683 and then work further on 100%.Is this the way to eliminate the most faults?Or should i lower the resolution on my cam?
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2994 times:
Quoting Spotterke (Reply 16): My photo's come out of the camera at 3008 x 2000 px.So if i understand it well i'm best to make a real crop to 1024x683 and then work further on 100%.Is this the way to eliminate the most faults?Or should i lower the resolution on my cam?
Hi Spotterke,
use the highest possible resolution that your camera can produce, do all the editing except sharpening with the large version, then resize and sharpen as the final steps before you save your picture as a JPEG-file. Always do all the steps at 100% zoom in order to see the exact effect of your steps.
Regarding the discussion about pictures in higher resolutions screened more harshly: if that is really the case then the screening crew should amend that as quickly as possible. All pictures no matter which size should be treated the same. However, photographers must be aware that larger pictures reveal flaws/errors in pictures that may be not visible at smaller sizes. Therefore the exact same picture may be acceptable at a smaller size while not acceptable at a larger resolution although the editing has been exactly the same.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2983 times:
I don't think it would hurt to level this shot out either. Since there is no ground reference to show the actual angle of approach, the photo just looks unlevel. The angle of the aircraft doesn't really add anything to the photo without a ground reference, even it is representative of the actual angle of attack. I would level it out, re-crop and reduce to 1024 max.
-JD
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2908 times:
Quoting Spotterke (Reply 19): I have a pic uploaded not leveled out,but i have on on my computer now.Is there a way to replace it???
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 61 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 839 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 573 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1045 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1151 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
