Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"blurry" Photo/aircraft Not In Database  
User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4632 times:

Hi There,

I was just wondering if you guys think this photo is blurry. Sometimes it is hard for me to tell how sharp it really is, but I really thought it wasn't blurry. Anyway, it didn't even make it past the first screener and they said "the photos were very blurry." I have others that I was going to upload, but now I am not so sure since they will think they are blurry, too. Maybe it is just a tad out of focus? Is it really "very blurry"? Maybe "very blurry" in medical terminology and in photography mean two different things. Maybe I need to focus my monitor Smile.

I thought that rare photos were easier standards, anyway, and this aircraft doesn't seem to be found anywhere on a.net.

Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

The photo dosent look very blury but it is somewhat soft. I tried applying some unsharp mask and that didnt help. This suggests that either you are using a cheap lens or camera or that the picture is out of focus. It would help if you revealed what equipment you are using.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

The reflections from hell...
Looks like you used too much unsharp mask on the NWA logo.

I wish I were flying
User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4541 times:


You hit a good point. We have a rejection reason for "Very Blurry", but we don't have anything for just slightly blurry or soft.


I was the screener who bombed it. Don't worry, I think it can be rescued without too much effort.

1) The plane needs to be centered. There is no reason to have all that land on the left. I have no interest in that bunker.

2) Try to get in a Little bit sharper. I mean really a little bit, preferably masking out everything but the plane.

3) (This is personal). The colors appear very bright, particularly on the tail. Partly due to the low sun hitting it just right (I love this lighting). Try backing off the saturation just a little bit, to make it a little less loud.


User currently offlineScreener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4518 times:

I want to disagree slightly with my esteemed colleague, Screener2. (Screener fight!)  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

All I want to say is that I don't think this pic *can* be rescued, at least not without a rescan of the original. The reason for that is that I think it has been sharpened as much as possible (maybe slightly too much so) already - looking at the Northwest titles and the windows suggests this. However, at the same time, the US flag on the fuselage is completely indistinct, and the Northwest logo on the tail seems very soft.

I have tried very gently applying some unsharp mask to the image, but it seems to have made things worse. My suggestion would be to go back to the start & rescan the image from scratch, and then as S2 suggests, crop the image so the aircraft is centered. You may need to adjust your scanner settings to get a better result.


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4514 times:

oh O

 Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4513 times:

Screener fight!

Seriously, Screener 4 is correct, once you've cropped the picture down, there doesn't seem to be enough detail left in the original scan. Scan it again, nice and big to get as much detail as you can, crop it, and work your way down to a 1024 pixel wide image. When I said it could be rescued, I should have said that you might have to start over.

Just a tip: when I make my scans, I save all the raw scans in a seperate directory, and work on copies, so that if the final version doesn't look so good, I can start again without having to fire up the scanner.


User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

Seriously, thanks everybody very much!

I'll see what I can do with it, and with the others. All of your input has helped me out, and even if I can't rescue this picture (and the others pics shot at the same time), at least I have that much more to go with when I recompose and re-shoot in the future. My camera is a new Canon Powershot Pro90 (digital), and those shots were taken on the way home from the camera shop in Detroit, on the charged battery pack that came with the camera! I know this camera can get shots sharp as a tack, but maybe I'll have to practice a little more. The built in zoom on this thing is amazing (370mm equiv.) I am going out today again, and we'll see what I can come up with. If not, maybe my photo manipulation needs some help. I am using Corel Photopaint 8, which seems to work fine, but sometimes I wreck a photo more than help it!

As far as centering the aircraft goes, my (small amount) of artistic inclination makes me want to stay away from static, centered aircraft shots (my mind is always thinking about all those compositional rules like the rule of thirds (not that my photo even really fits that, either). When it comes down to it, of I want photos here on a.net, I guess I just need to take pictures the way they will be accepted. I have no problem with that. It is just a shift from "amatuer photographer mode" that I get in when shooting other subjects and I have all these artsy ideas in my head. Thats part of becoming a well-rounded photographer, (which is sort of a goal of mine) to be able to shoot a subject how the person (or website!) wants the shot taken. (feel free to browse the other photos I have at fototime until they make me start paying (I haven't decided yet!)
So off to the airport I go.

Thanks again!

User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4480 times:

I just added another from that last batch of photos. It is the DC-9 in the same airbus folder located at
Please let me know if you think this shot is any clearer to you.



User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4479 times:

The DC-9 looks over sharpened to me.

AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4479 times:

I agree. It is oversharpened. I didn't notice the artifacts until after I posted it. I just uploaded the cropped, resized, but unsharpened image of the DC-9 called "dc9second" in the same album. Could anyone tell me- is this picture just plain unusable? I know I need to do a better job with the focus in the field, and I'll work on that. I am just wondering if there is anything I can do about these software issues. If any of you can take the second dc-9 pic, work on it, and email it to me if you can get it sharp enough without oversharpening, I'd really appreciate it. If it is impossible for you, I'd like to know about that. I still have time to take my Canon Pro90 camera back to the store, and if I can't get the pictures any clearer, maybe that is as good as the camera can do. Before I do that though, I hate blaming the camera. I'm sure there is more wrong with the nut behind the camera than the camera itself.


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4472 times:


About the two DC-9 shots, one is just not sharp enough, and the other is oversharpened. If you can find the balance between them...

Otherwise, quite nice.


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...
Edward Pascuzzi Photo's No Longer In Database? posted Sun Jan 9 2005 23:39:51 by PW100
Pictures Accepted But Not In Database posted Fri May 7 2004 08:28:21 by Dcrusafon
Rejected "in Database" But Not... posted Thu Aug 23 2001 17:24:57 by Jared
Photo Of The "Anorectic (sp?) Aircraft". Stunning. posted Sun Aug 10 2003 20:26:46 by Thom@s
Cool "graphic Art" Feature - Photo posted Sat Jul 16 2005 02:22:23 by Wayfarer
Uploaded Photo Not In Queue? posted Mon Jan 31 2005 20:34:24 by Tin67
Changing Data In A Database Photo posted Wed Nov 3 2004 00:33:48 by Sleekjet
In The Queue But Not In The Database.... posted Tue Feb 17 2004 18:56:38 by Gmonney
Amazing New Picture In Database. posted Fri Jul 28 2006 17:00:40 by Boeing nut
Is My Lens Not In Order (EF 70-300 IS)? posted Thu Jul 13 2006 17:01:53 by Aero145