Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 775 times:
Hi all
Today I uploaded three pictures. One of them was uploaded for the second time. After having been rejected last week, I worked on it, mainly on the brightness and a little bit on the colors.
Out of those three pics, the same one got rejected again within a few hours, while the others are still in the queue.
May I ask, what's wrong with that pic? If the colors are "not good" or the background, then be assured, that this specific day, it was like that. There was a huge snow storm coming up, which would hit ZRH a few hours later.
Aer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1508 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 689 times:
Hi Gerardo,
The picture is good BUT there is quite a lot of grain in the sky, enough to catch one's attention. Even on the grey belly of the plane there is some visible
BTW does that photo have any JPEG compression since that can exaggerate grain quite a bit
Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 674 times:
I see, what you mean. The picture you see has already been processed and has therefore JPG compression (BTW, the original pic had something about 900kB.....).
The grain could also be because of the film. It was a 200 Kodak Gold (or Royal Gold).
BTW: on the same batch uploaded a few days ago, another pic from the same film has been accepted without warnings, which I thought was rather worse than the MD11 we are talking about here.
Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 659 times:
Yiekes! I'm trying to figure out, what that means in German Is that possible with Photoshop?
I only used unsharp mask.
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 646 times:
Gerardo,
How are you able to give us a URL to a rejected picture?
Is the particular MD-11 already in the A.net database? Perhaps there is a more pleasing or interesting shot of that plane already. I thought the photos colors were good, the grain wasn't really bad, but the yellow engine intake covers-these really don't help the picture, as they are very distracting. I would like to see the reg more clearly, it is cut in half by the wing. Just my thoughts.
TomH
Screener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 653 times:
Rejected pictures hang around for a while on A.N. to allow Johan and the screeners to discuss them. For example, if we pass pics through for Johan to assess, and he subsequently rejects them, we can view them and see what his reasons for rejection are. This allows us to get a better idea of where the cutoff between acceptance and rejection lies.
The Airliners.net copyright message is added to all photos when they are uploaded and before they are assessed. This allows us to see them as they will appear in the database.
I think the yellow intake covers are what makes this pic interesting. However, it's *definitely* too grainy and at the same time not quite sharp enough in the detail (the cockpit windows, for example, seem slightly soft - maybe not quite in focus?), and the passenger windows are definitely losing their detail if you look at the mid-fuselage.
Blackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 640 times:
There are definitely a lot of good shots of HB-IWU in the db. I was thinking the same like Screener4: The yellow covers make it interesting. But I can't quite see the "unsharpness reasons". Don't you think you're judging too hard. There are many shots in the db with less detail and sharpness.
Blackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 639 times:
BTW: All Swissair planes have the last letter of their reg. on the nose somewhere so you don't need to see the real registration. Who cares about the reg. anyway?
Screener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 641 times:
Yes, you're right, there are photos in the db that are less sharp than this one. But the standards are going up all the time. Just look back at some of the photos in the 50000s - I would say the vast majority of the photos that were added to the db 2 years ago would not be added now.
Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 628 times:
To conclude: this pic doesn't have any chance whatsoever, right?
A real pitty, as I thought, the colors (BTW, they are not exagerated, it was a small sunshine brightening up exactly this area) and the yellow covers made this pic somewhat interesting.
As for the reg: I know, there are people which prefer to have a readable reg. I for one try to get it, whenever possible, but sometimes the picture composition is more important to me, as it was the case for that picture. Is this a reason for rejecting pictures at A.net (not particularly this one, more in general)?
But thanks for the input
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 615 times:
Gary
I'm glad you like the pic.
The pic was already rejected (within a few hours ) by the screeners. The copyright line at the bottom is added during the screening process (see above for a more accurate explanation).
If colors, or saturation, or contrast are the problem, then I can try with the scanner. If the grain is the main problem, then there isn't much to do, as the grain could already be caused by the ISO 200 film I used.
Perhaps I try on improving sharpness, as one of the screeners pointed out, that this could be a problem.
Thanks and regards
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 587 times:
Thanks for clearing this one, Screener4.
Regards
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 583 times:
Screener4,
I appreciate the insight on the flow of images at a.net, but my question remains. I'll rephrase it: When one of my photos is rejected and I want others to view it anyway, where do I get the link information? All I ever see in a reject message is the filename, so I'm wondering how Gerardo learned the rest of the URL. Also, is the ability of a photographer to post the URL to a rejected picture what Johan intended? If so, for what purpose?
Regarding the intake covers, one final comment from me. It's really the bright yellow color that I personally find objectionable and distracting. Swissair's marketing take notice -I'm wondering why they aren't bright red with a white cross, now that would be way cool. While I'm on the subject, anyone know how they install the intake cover on the center engine? That's obviously no casual undertaking on an aircraft this size-a photo of this task would be very interesting. Gerardo, any chance you can get us a photo of this?
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 59 Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 579 times:
About the covers with the swiss cross. I think they are only allowed to carry the cross in the tail. Thats why they stopped painting it on the winglets (which also looks cool in my opinion).
Peter
Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 575 times:
I have also a picture of another MD11 (HB-IWS), which was parked one week later. This one had red covers (but no Swiss cross, as the covers are from PW). To make this picture even more "Swiss", there was snow all around this day. In the picture posted on this topic, you see dark clouds. This was the beginning of the huge snowfall we had during the following week.
Perhaps I should scan this particular one
As for the red cross: so far it was only on the tail. But rumours say, this problem has been solved, and more Swissair widebodies will recieve the painted winglets.
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 572 times:
I don't think we're looking at grain here, but scanner noise and jpeg compression artifacts - both are a problem with all images featuring large monochrome areas ... esp. blues!. This can be addressed in a number of ways, but always at a cost - for example, lightening the sky will probably reduce the "graininess", but lose the moodiness. Masking and smoothing/blurring could work, but again at the risk of artificiality.
If this were film grain alone, I would expect to see similar levels of "graininess" in all midtone areas ... but I don't.
As for sharpening ... well the only flaw I would have leveled is that if anything this pic has been slightly oversharpened - jaggies and "halo effect" are discernable on the fin/engine pod joint, wing trailing edge and wheels. Arguably the shadows are just a tad too bluish.
Screener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 562 times:
Tom,
I don't think Johan *intended* for people to link to rejected photos - they are only there for a limited time, so at some point that link will get broken as they are tidied up (i.e. deleted). However, it does give a useful way for us to critique rejected pics without people having to link to them on their own sites.
If you want to link to a pic you've recently had rejected the format is:
where "xxxx" is the filename you used to submit the pic.
A word to the wise at this point: it's *always* a good idea to submit your pics with pretty unique filenames, because on odd ocassions when there are two pics in the upload queue with the same filename, it can cause all sorts of peculiar errors (like the thumbnail from one linking to the full size version of the other).
Gerardo From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 3479 posts, RR: 40 Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 553 times:
Colin, you mentioned scanner noise. How can I avoid it? I scanned it with a film scanner (Minolta Dual Scan II). The original is a Kodak Gold 200 negative.
As for the oversharpening. I first had it a bit softer, and thought "a little bit sharper will surely help". Guess, I was wrong . The jaggies on the fin show it very good.
BTW, the process page shows an interesting feature. Once you open a rejected picture (take for example the picture nmentioned in the original post), just click on the pic to close the window. A very good feature. Nice job!
Regards
Gerardo
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 544 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From Switzerland, joined exactly 12 years ago today! 
, 3479 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1508 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3111 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5524 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 324 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
