Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Help Request - Quality Rejections  
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Hi there,

I had another 2 rejections (both quality related, but no further info). As usual, I do not question the rejection itself, but I would like to know whether these can be improved to an acceptable level or not?

Here is no. 1 :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...060617_CRW_4888_RT8_WVB_1024px.jpg

rejected for quality (1/800, Av 8.0, 400mm)

and number 2 :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...060617_CRW_4832_RT8_WVB_1024px.jpg

rejected for quality and soft (1/250, Av 9.0, 100mm)


Thanks in advance for your help/assistance!

Best regards,

Walter


canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNicolasRubio From Argentina, joined Sep 2005, 585 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

If you post the original ones, maybe we can be more accurate...


Gripped 7D + Sigma 10-20mm + 17-40L + 50mm f/1.8 II + 70-200mm f/4L IS + EF 400mm f/5.6L + 580EX II
User currently offlineAzza40 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1052 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

The rejections are right. Shot number 1 is a great photo though.

Aaron  sly 



Not been on here for a good 2/3 years!
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 3088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Walter - How are you keeping?

The first shot is a fantastic capture. Unfortunately the screener's decision does not surprise me. The first thing my critical eye noticed was the tailfin/tail area, where there are A.net-style quality issues. If you think I may be able to help, feel free to send along the original and I will give it my best shot. It is difficult to know whether there is any way of improving things without seeing what the original looks like. But, whether or not you can increase the quality for A.net, this is one to be proud of for your own collection.

As for the Hercules - again I can see where the screeners are coming from. It does look in need of a bit more sharpness overall. Out of interest, was the sun's position such that you had to increase the levels quite a lot in the edit? If so, that might explain the quality issue.

As I say, let me know if you think I can help out in any way.

Take care.

Paul


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 1 hour ago) and read 3074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

First one is grainy/blurry and I really doubt it can be saved. Second one looks more promising but could do with some better processing.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback! My internet connection dropped out just after I posted the topic here, so I have only just send the files to Psych, who was so nice to offer to have a look at them. Since I am still in the early learning phase on Photoshop techniques, all the advise will be helpful!

Many greetings,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Both are blurred Walter but good attempts nonethereless. Personal collection IMO.  Smile

User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Hi there,

In the mean time, Paul (Psych) had a go at it and here are his edits:

http://walter2219.fotopic.net/p31160259.html

and:

http://walter2219.fotopic.net/p31160260.html

I hope the quality is still OK (and I hope I do harm to Paul), since I had to upload them to my own website (which reduces the quality) first ...

Please compare and your thoughts are welcome!


PS: I am already glad that I have them in my personal collection, but wanted to share as much as possible  Smile ...
What is your opinion about the condensation during sharpening process? Do you include it or exclude it (I had excluded it, as I never sharpen the air either, but is this correct?)?


PS2: I am now also worried about this one, which is in the queue (but again a shot with lots of condensation):

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...060617_CRW_4908_RT8_WVB_1200px.jpg

What are your thought on that one?


Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Walter

I think the F18 is somewhat improved but still not at a.net quality, far too grainy. I think the C-130 is worse, sorry Paul Smile

On the last one I'm thinking motive. If you just focus on a single aircraft I think we need an unobstructed view. If you could include the first aircraft in the crop too...

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2951 times:

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your feedback!

I also appreciate your comment on the last one. If this "motive" is not acceptable (part of the aircraft is indeed blocked), I will delete it from the queue  Sad It was, however, my intention to show exactly how the number 2 is squeezed between No.1 and No.3 and hence I was focussing on the No.2 aircraft. I was hoping that this was acceptable, as another screener (Glennstewart) was pointing out in this thread:
Stairs = Bad Motive (by AndrewUber Jun 29 2006 in Aviation Photography)

that also blocking of stairs would be looked at "on a case by case" basis... But again, if this is not acceptable, I will pull it (although I also thought this was "different" from the now so common "echelon by 4")

I have the No.1 also (partly) in the original, but since I was aiming for the number 2, this is a not so pleasing crop (it would immediately be rejected for NOA_center)...

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 8):
On the last one I'm thinking motive. If you just focus on a single aircraft I think we need an unobstructed view

Hi Tim,

I would like to know whether it is just "thinking" or whether it would be a definitive motive rejection? If it would still have a chance, I would still consider leaving it into the queue (and risk a possible rejection)...

PS: Is the possible "motive" the only problem for A.net?

Thanks for feedback!

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Walter let's say that I would reject it for motive.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the fast response!

That 's a very clear answer! I would have liked it the other way, but in that case I will pull it from the queue (so you don't have to spend your time twice  Smile ...)

PS: It saves me at least another rejection  Smile

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2857 times:

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 9):
I was hoping that this was acceptable, as another screener (Glennstewart) was pointing out in this thread

Hi Walter,

It's important that I note the "case by case", because IMHO I think it's important for photographers to understand that the day you capture something rare and unique, and a set of stairs is attached to the rare beast... that we as screeners, will take that "rare and unique" into account.

In all honesty though, the "rare and unique" case is exactly that - "rare and unique". And we would prefer that you capture aircraft without such objects distractracting from the aircraft.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 11):
Walter let's say that I would reject it for motive.

And unfortunately in this case Walter, I would have to agree with Tim.



That said, I'm glad to see you share your images here with a view to improving. I'm sure in no time at all, you'll be on the other side sharing your experience with new photographers coming down the line.

Glenn



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 13):
And unfortunately in this case Walter, I would have to agree with Tim.

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for your feedback as well! Much appreciated! I have already learned a lot by being on this forum, and I am improving (I hope  Smile ...). I just had some doubts since Tim was not really very strong in his first message and I thought he left an opening (such as "on a case by case basis"), but his second reply was clear and I understand and I accept (and it helps clearing the queue as well  Smile )

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
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...
Quality Rejections - Help! posted Thu Aug 31 2006 11:01:39 by BmiBaby737
Help Request For Quality Rejection? posted Sat Jan 21 2006 17:45:46 by Walter2222
Need Help With Two Rejections posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:14:35 by B076
Feedback On 2 Quality Rejections posted Fri Oct 6 2006 23:26:45 by Garry
Help With Quality Rejection posted Fri Sep 29 2006 11:38:26 by UnattendedBag
Help With 'quality ' Rejection Please. posted Sun Sep 24 2006 12:30:39 by Nucky
Another Motive Rejection Help Request. posted Tue Sep 12 2006 02:38:53 by Paparadzi
Some Help With Quality posted Fri Jul 28 2006 17:09:10 by WakeTurbulence
Help Request With Some Rejects posted Mon Jul 17 2006 23:14:28 by Walter2222
Help With A Few Rejections posted Tue Jul 4 2006 20:45:01 by Airplanenut