Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Soft/Oversharpened Dilemma... Again  
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2534 times:

I know... again, a problem with softness or oversharpening. I think that used to work out better for me in the past, I'm trying to change something to the old workflow... I read the recent threads and very useful articles on PhotoShop actions, but I am using Photoshop elements 3 so not everything can be applied there.

In any case, the following is perhaps a bit different. With the recent rejections I am also not trusting my screen any longer as I find it increasingly difficult to judge the many pictures presented in the forum here as far as softness or oversharpening are concerned.

This one was first rejected for soft, so I gave it some extra general USM (yes general, as both landscape and wing can use it I guess). The difficulty is the wing and its diagonal line - does it look jagged now?

Does it have a place in the db in the first place, or do I risk a motive rejection on the second attempt?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/20060423-StKittsfromAE-sharper.jpg

the original can still be seen here. I know... very soft, but it looked nice to me on my main LCD screen, also given the somewhat different motive .

Thanks in advance for your comments!

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCHabu From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Like the pics, but i'm also one with more rejects the accepted pics.....

I do wonder if the pics is level, but that might be caused by the wing.

Good luck in your effort.

Bye, Chris.


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2496 times:

Hmmm, there's not much aircraft in the picture ....


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineSinkrate From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 336 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2490 times:

Due to a lack of A/C in the shot I think it will get a motive rejection.

Michael


User currently offlineDcrusafon From Spain, joined Apr 2004, 333 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2467 times:

Quoting Sinkrate (Reply 3):
Due to a lack of A/C in the shot I think it will get a motive rejection.

Maybe showing a little bit more it will not be rejected for motive. I'm using a own picture as example  Smile


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dario Crusafon - Iberian Spotters



I think it is a little bit difficult to have acceptable shots from the rear of an ATR due to the heat from the engine...

BTW, from where is the picture? Very nice location...

DARIO


User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

I love it! Just upload it and see what they say... Big grin

User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Hi all

with regards to the motive, if I followed the screening process well this pic got at least to a second or third screener before being rejected. None of them said motive. If it is a problem, I'd like to hear that from the screeners.

I assume sharpness is OK now in the second one?

Dario, you're right, the heat at the back is what aggravates the softness. This pic was taken just after takeoff from the beautiful island of St Kitts. Destination San Juan, Puerto Rico.


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Ward.

This is a very nice photo - I must say I do love landscapes.

I would agree with some comments above - I would have been slightly nervous that there wasn't enough wing in the shot. Having said that, I think this is one of those 'quirky' A.net rules - like contrail shots that do not get NOA_Distance - as surely most would accept that the motive for most of these kind of shots (and the reason most viewers look, I would bet) is not for the flap fairings/engine cowling etc, but the landscape, or the view, or the cloudscape, or the sunset etc. Nothing wrong in accepting such motives - in fact, I am all in favour - but let's be clear that the aircraft itself is not the primary subject.

Sorry - off one one of my 'moments' there  wink . For me the bigger issue is that 'strip' of softness in the shot - it seems due to the efflux from the engine from what you say. There is obviously nothing you can do about that. Also, now there are very slight jaggies on the wing itself.

Take care.

Paul


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Thanks Paul - feel free to have more 'moments' - what you said makes a lot of sense... I have a pic with a little more wing, but the exhaust heat issue is even worse and the overall quality is not the same. As I indicated, I would feel quite comfortable in terms of motive because the first one was not rejected for motive, but ideally I'd like to see some screener input.

User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

I have to ask as too what type of aircraft was it?

If it was a Dash 8 or high wing aircraft, the blurryness I would say is from the engine exhaust because if you look closely, the blur is basically right through the centre of the shot.

But all that aside, as mentioned, there really isn't much aircraft visible. With shots like this it would be nice to hear from a screener as to how much aircraft needs to be visible for an acceptance.


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

@Eadster - it's an ATR-72. Which is high-wing and from where I sat, you would have the engine exhaust going through the picture like that. But you may be right, it may also be the window that influenced it. I find it usually even more difficult to photograph from those small turboprop planes, than from jets...

Screeners...?


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

Hi again. Could I ask for some screener input please? Thank you!

User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Any comments screeners? Once again, the original one (which is hopefully improved now) was not rejected for motive...

User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2200 times:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20060423-StKittsfromAE-sharper.jpg

Hi all. Rejected again. I had hoped for some screener input in this thread but I can understand that there were none - you guys can't comment on all the questions here. The reworked picture (sharpened) was rejected for soft again, so I guess that exhaust softness/haze really kills it. No probs, won't host it here then if this site doesn't want it.

What I would like to know however is why I also got an INFO rejection? I used exactly the same as the previous time: American Eagle, at St Kitts SKB airport (at least on the departure climb, which as I understand should be classified under the airport from where you depart, similar as with approaches). I didn't get the reg so I put in N*****. Any clues what's wrong with that (it was "not wrong" on the previous version).

Also, this reworked version again did not get any MOTIVE rejection. I would still be interested to hear whether this kind of motive is indeed acceptable.

Thx

[Edited 2006-06-14 02:10:05]

User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Quoting Edoca (Reply 12):
Any comments screeners? Once again, the original one (which is hopefully improved now) was not rejected for motive...

Sorry for the late reply Edoca.

Very hard to get shots accepted from the rear of the ATR. The softness jumps out at you, although your sharpness on the wing is fairly good.

Getting through the queue quickly (trust me, the uploads are increasing as quickly as we can possibly screen).... I can understand if each screener that looks at a shot doesn't reject for every single reason, although we try to.

That said, there is certainly a borderline motive rejection possible here. I would reject for motive - but I'll explain.

1. The shot contains interesting terrain - very good
2. The shot contains very little of the actual aircraft wing - not good

I would reject motive mainly because of the latter. For me, motive for be my primary reject reason with soft for good measure (there's no point leading you astray here).

Certainly the preferred window shots as ones that include a good portion of either the aircraft or an airport (or better still, both). We're here for aviation shots - so the motive rejection only help to push the envelope in this area.

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Thanks a lot Glenn. Just for future reference, do you know what the INFO issue was?

User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting Edoca (Reply 15):
do you know what the INFO issue was?

Strangely enough, I didn't know there was one. I was making reference to INFO, because most people forget about the rejection until they're hit with it.

From my personal screening experience (and for reference) the most common information rejections seem to be airport/aircraft type related. Sometimes people will misread registrations (drives screeners wild when uploaders can't read the registrations from the large amount of time they had editing it, when we spot an incorrect registration in the first 10 seconds).
Sometimes comments can be considered poor as well - especially if the comments include predjudicial comments.



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
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...
The List Needs Updating...again... posted Sun Apr 16 2006 06:05:38 by DLKAPA
The Question Of Doubles (again). posted Sun Jan 2 2005 20:33:59 by Psych
Oversharpened And Soft? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 18:37:36 by AIRBUSRIDER
Soft And Oversharpened? posted Wed Aug 23 2006 22:26:07 by CRAviation
Going Soft In The Head About Sharpening posted Tue Jul 4 2006 09:15:46 by Viv
Help - Oversharpened Versus Soft? posted Sun May 21 2006 12:11:38 by Frippe
Rejected; "The Photos Were Soft." posted Thu Jul 21 2005 18:14:34 by Lorenz
Again The Rejections Rise posted Mon Jan 10 2005 02:19:48 by CYEGsTankers
I Am Back In The Saddle Again posted Sat Feb 14 2004 02:58:46 by L-188
Who Says The Digi Rebel Is "Soft" posted Tue Dec 16 2003 07:16:35 by Maiznblu_757