D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
Hello again,
So, I've suffered another trio of quality rejections... I'm not terribly surprised about two of them, but after all the help I received here, I'm surprised about this one:
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1118 times:
Hi Damon,
I think it might be related with some signs of oversharpening. I see jaggies at the leading edges of wing, and stabilizer. The light border of that red stripe on fuselage and tail also suggest oversharpening.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
First, I have to say I like the shot, but three things came to mind when I opened up the picture.
1. If the aircraft were in level flight I'd say cropping off stab to the tip of the tail is ok, but the way the aircraft is positioned, most of the stab is in, and about 15% is missing. This could be a possible motive problem.
2. The nose looks overexposed.
3. It appears to be grainy in the sky.
Just my observations.
-Matt
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1055 times:
First, thanks for your comments. As always, I appreciate them - they make me a better photographer/editor.
Hongyin, what kind of monitor are you using? I ask because I can't see the jaggies unless I look 2" from the screen.
Matt, unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut off the stab on this one as that is the edge of the frame. I used this shot because it was easily the sharpest of the shots I took of this one taking off.
Next, the plane was taking off into the sun, so there's simply no way around the bright nose. However, I just took another look at the raw file and noticed that the nose is not blown out, it's just bright. Do you have any suggestions?
Finally, if this got rejected for grain in the sky, I really do give up.
EDIT: I also just noticed that there are only 6 shots of this plane in new colors in the database, and none from outside of AMS on 1/15/06. Appeal?
BTW, I might as well include the other quality rejection that isn't obvious.
(The third one was a long shot, but I figured it might make it because it was a US 767 lifting off at an airport it very rarely visits, while carrying the Steelers.)
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1050 times:
Do you have the original? I'd love to have a crack just to see. I really think you can get the USAir shot in. Email me if you'd like a second opinion.
-Matt
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 3): Hongyin, what kind of monitor are you using?
Hi Damon,
I am using Dell 1905 LCD monitor. LCD monitor could help me find jaggies much easier. I was using several CRT monitors before, and hardly found jaggies which could be easily identified by my current LCD monitor. Or probably I could say LCD monitor will show a little bit sharper images than CRT.
In order to make sure what I said in Reply 1, I just now used my CRT monitor at home, taking another look of your shot, and could see slight jaggies at the leading edge of the wing, and light border of that red stripe on fuselage, especially at the nose area where the red stripe curve to the nosewheel, and the light border around the tail. You may try to find them.
And I agree with Matt as well - sky looks a bit grainy. I don't know if you could give a little noise reduction ONLY to the sky. That might help. Please bear in mind, do not give too much strength to reduce noise that could bring negative impact to this shot.
At last, I would say I like this shot very much, which is what I always like to get.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1026 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 6): The sky is pixelated like you applied sharpening to the entire picture.
Jeff, thank you for your comment.
Actually, i used the dreaded Neat Image on the sky. If I turned it up any further, the gossimers would disappear completely.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1005 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 8): Actually, i used the dreaded Neat Image on the sky.
Next time create a duplicate layer, select the amount and type of sharpening you want, apply it, then select "Layer>Layer Mask>Hide All"
Pick up a white paint brush, set the size you want, set hardness to 20-40, opacity 60-80, flow 100. (adjust settings as needed).
Now, using the brush, just "paint on" sharpness in only the areas you want. Avoid the sky, just do the plane. If you add too much, switch to a black brush, and "paint off" some sharpness. Flatten when satisfied. Also, using the magic wand, you can select the sky and just ad some gaussian blur to lessen the grain. Always do it on a duplicate layer.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 996 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 9): This is all explained in my "Actions" tutorial.
You know, despite the argument in another thread, this is quite helpful. Thank you very much!
I think one problem I may have is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and if you use multiple ways, well. . . you get one messed up cat.
I had been using duplicate layers and using the eraser tool to expose the layer below, and its features. I tend to use this method with USM to select the plane only, then erase the jaggied areas back to the original form.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10568 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
