Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
I Give Up!  
User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

I tried to upload a pic I took at CLE last week, it's of a WN 732 at dusk, and I uploaded the pic 2 times, one as original, and one as sharpened. Both were rejected, the first too blurry, the second to sharp. The normal message says use Photoshop, well I don't have photoshop, and I never plan on getting photoshop, since I spent $80.00 on Ulead photoImpact 6. And there is no "middle" between normal and the first step of sharpness. You just have three stages of sharpness, light, middle, and lots. I only used light. So, I do not plan on even attempting to upload pics here anymore, and if someone would be so kind as to point me to an alternate website for uploading airliner pics, where people use whatever photo editing program they have, and not be segregated to the eight wonder of the world, Adobe PhotoShop, I'd very much appreciate it.

39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineYHU From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 429 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

I only recently started using photoshop, and it makes no diference as to the photo getting accepted or rejected. Remember, for all Johan and the Screeners know you are already using Photoshop. They just use that one as a suggestion as it is the most popular and well known program. On Mac I also use Graphic Converter, which is a shareware product and does a good job. You don't NEED to use Photoshop to get photos accepted by Airliners.net.

Dave


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Can you provide a sample of your phots(s)?

User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3954 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

BYE..BYE!!

Try,

http://www.planepictures.net

and

http://www.airpics.com

Thomas



"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineFlygga From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2136 times:

With Ulead's Photo Impact you should be able to (with lots of patience and practice) get good enough quality images for uploading to airliners.net. First of all scan your photo at the max dpi and save as a .bmp or .tif file. Then sharpen the photo first and do your other touch up work, Then re-size your photo to 1024 dpi wide. At this point you can try sharpening one more time but sometimes it will be too much. As the very last step, save the image as a .jpg file. The biggest mistake people make is to save the original scan as .jpg and then do all the work on it. Once you save as a .jpg is very difficult to make quality adjustments to the photo.

Richard Silagi


User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2134 times:

Ok, here is a sample. These two pics are the same one, except one is normal and the other sharpened.





I personally don't see very much wrong with these, how bout you?


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2119 times:

I think someone might mention the "G" word. :-(

User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

The quality is LOW nd I feel these shots have no chance, sorry

LGW


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Kcle, this is the minimum quality your phots should be to gurantee an acception to the database:


Your photo is interesting but you need to find someone with a film scanner to do the scanning for you. Its the quality of the scanner thats killing you, not nesserily(sp?) the quality of your photos.


User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

Even with a good scanner it would make no difference.
That is poor light. Poor light = low image quality.
Forget those shots and move on.
Even if I stood beside you and shot that airplane I wouldn't even consider sending it into a.net.

Get confidence by submitting shots taken on a sunny day with the sun behind you.

Gerry/EDI




User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

To Kcle

...also, I'm not an expert Adobe Photoshop ~ $500 software user either.
Did you miss my post last week?

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/23766/

Excellent sofware with unsharp mask filters for nothing ($0)

Gerry/EDI



User currently offlineFlpuck6 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2123 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2099 times:

Tips for better quality photos:

1) avoid long telephoto zoom shots
2) take photos in good weather, blue skies, minimal clouds
3) the sun MUST be behind you.
4) the plane must fill the frame of the photo
5) the plane must be CENTERED
6) catching the plane at its main gears on taxi shots
7) side or 3/4 front for approach shots
8) straight horizon
9) sharp, no tunnel edges, no clutter, and registrations visible

We are all striving for a better shot...keep at it. I have been shooting for 8 years now and I still manage to waste film and come up with the bad shots!



Bonjour Chef!
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5055 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2076 times:

hey..KCLE, how many photos before this one have you tried to upload? if not many, don't worry. Keep trying to improve your skill when you take the picture.

I don't photoshop can help this. it looks like bad light conditions near dusk. Try shooting in a sunny day.

what kind of camera do you use?

I've had over a hundred rejections like that. We all have. Just recently I've started having luck with uploads. I had none accepted from 12/99 to last month! i got a new camera (entry level SLR) and followed the good tips from the photogs on here. Keep reading these posts and follow some of the tips.

CYKA, that is a nice photo but that is not the minumim required. There are some on the database recently not as sharp as that. but your photo shows the kind of light conditions & shot framing that KCLE should try for.

As for photoshop, yes it is a good program because instead of regular sharpening it allows you to use an "unshark mask" and "sharpen edges". I can point you in the direction where you can get ps for free.



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

Well, I've uploaded about a dozen now, and this dozen were my absolute best shots. Getting good photgraphy weather here in CLE is rare. The only public spotting places feature the sun in front of you. The sunniest days of the week are days I can't go and spot, and it's always cloudy in Cleveland.

My scanner is an HP ScanJet 2100 C. An earlier post said to scan at a high dpi, so, I'll try scanning a nice pic of the Blue Angels I took at the Air Show here last week, at 2048 X whatever dpi, and then shrink it to 1024 after I try sharpening, then I'll post that.

My camera is not too big of a telephoto, only 80-200 mm. The camera is a prehistoric Pentax SuperProgram, with manual everything, from shutter speed, and aperture setting, to film advancing and rewinding.


User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

Ok, this is the product of scanning at 3 times the size, at a width of 3072 pixels. It still doesn't look good because of this jpg compression thing I have. Whenever I save a pic as a jpeg, it automatically brings up a box and I have to compress it. I have the slider at 100%, which means it will be saved as a rather large file, with high quality, but once I upload it online, it looks like dog crap. Any clues now.



Clearly you can see the US Navy and Blue Angels titles, but I'm sure that's not enough, even though there are only 7 pics of them.


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5055 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

You should be able to get results using that kind of equipment & lens. You don't need more than 200mm.

You say the only spotting places have the sun in front of you? The sun (or rather the earth) moves. If the spotting area faces east, then shoot late in the day. if it faces west then you've got to shoot early in the day. But the mid-day sun isn't "right in front of you". The sun is never in front of you all day.

The summer down here too has mostly hazy days so I feel your pain. I wish I had blue sky! But you can still shoot on an overcast day. Try not to get too much of the sky in the shot - shoot tight on the plane. Use quality film like Fuji Reala that has better contrast. Here's a pic that looks like mid-day sun, and on a hazy sky day:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Jason Whitebird


and how about this for overcast:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Michael D Bunosky



Just keep on tryin'

Bruce




Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineVaman From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2007 times:

Your scan quality is low. I have good pictures now but i'm not even going to try because of my crap flatbed. I'm waiting and accumalating good pictures for until i get a good scanner. Your pics are way to granny. But and lightning poor. The scanner is the main problem. Take a look at one of my attemps with a bad scanner. You will see i got much of the same results or worse. Remember the original shot was crisp adn clear. http://www1.airpics.com/showimg.php?imgid=12734
I hope this helps but you really need a neg scanner for higth quality images.
VAMAN


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

Even a good scanner can give those results, depending on the film used.
Not all films give good results when scanned.

You can try using "despeckle" before sharpening, but it might loose you detail leading to a blurry picture.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

And some more examples of adverse weather:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © J.T. Wenting



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © J.T. Wenting


both on a very rainy day, taken between showers.


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © J.T. Wenting



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © J.T. Wenting


during late afternoon haze

Unless you live in a dry and sunny climate with little or no precipitation, expect more work on the scans and more rejections.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Slán Leat (pronounced "Slawn Lat") - Irish for good riddens

Moaners......we have enough of them


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

CYKA - thats an excellent picture, and the quality can be alot worse than that to get accepted!!!

I have the same problem, i have one word, and people tell you all the time, "patience".

This is something that you can do for your whole life, you don't need to be really good, right away!!!

Keep tryin, we all feel down after rejections, or our scanner/camera/conditions aren't good enough.

Regards

Dan


User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Hmmmmmm....... maybe I was a tad too harsh there

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

I think i overused the space bar...

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 739 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

The Blue Angels shot shows signs of a slightly underexposed original being "corrected" in the scan - basically, the scanner is trying to generate more shadow detail than there is in the original, and hence has produced a lot of "noise" in the image (not film grain).

This may be saved ... try letting the initial scan stay a bit on the dark side, then in post processing, adjust just the midtones using tone curves or gamma correction - i don't know if Photoimpact has this, but if not, you could always get Gimp, which is free.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

I'm not trying to specifically single out KCLE in what I say here, but there's a fundamental problem that a lot of [what I'd call] newbies here have... They submit photos that are taken on at best marginal days, or even bad days, weather wise. Or pics that were shot with the sun behind the subject. Or whatever... And then the photos are rejected... Well, quelle surprise!

Take it from someone who's been in the business for the best part of 20 years... We all tried to take photos on days like that [the first two Southwest 737 pics] and if we are striving for quality, as most of us are, sooner or later we realised that only in exceptionally rare circumstances will photos taken in bad weather, or with the sun behind the subject, deliver quality results. We've been there, seen that, done that... and failed, countless times. Sooner or later, we realised and made a decision as to whether we should take pics on days like that and keep the results to ourselves, or whether to just leave the camera in the bag. That's life. At first its difficult, but over time the decision gets easier because you realise you're often wasting money using film on such days. Those of us who contribute regularly to airliners DO NOT contribute anywhere near the majority of the pics we take - a high proportion of our pics we keep to ourselves and never uploaded them to airliners - those that we don't upload are the ones we took on bad weather days like that (and for other reasons which result in "failures" too!!!).

Gerry provided some very very meaningful advice earlier on in this thread:

That is poor light. Poor light = low image quality.
Forget those shots and move on.
Even if I stood beside you and shot that airplane I wouldn't even consider sending it into a.net.
Get confidence by submitting shots taken on a sunny day with the sun behind you.


Bluntly, until you can get pics that were taken on sunny days with the sun behind you accepted, you are very unlikely to get anything else accepted. Move on. Until you've got a world of experience, on days like that, leave the camera at home and wait for a nice day. I know that might be tough if you live in an area where there's not much good weather, but hey, I live in the UK so I'm no better off most of the time!

Good luck,

Andy


25 Thomasphoto60 : 'Halleluiah....preach it brother Andy!'...... However, I have a feeling that your words will fall upon deaf ears. When you are KCLE's age patience is
26 Post contains images Kcle : You are correct, I have little patience, but I have experimented, and have come up with these following scans, by messing around with all the things,
27 Bruce : OMG!!! waaaaaaayyyy too blurry! Looks like it might have been decent lighting....but the top pic is extremely heavily pixelized on the sky part. Over-
28 Jwenting : top one seems scanned from a newspaper. Both are way overexposed and very blurry. Especially the B-1 seems badly out of focus. The C-17 can possibly b
29 Da fwog : I don't think either can be saved. Badly exposed, poor detail. Just plain nasty. (sorry - you did ask) There's plenty of good advice on this thread fr
30 Post contains images AndyEastMids : One of the most difficult tricks / skills to learn is when NOT to take a picture, or at least when its not worth taking a picture We all get opportuni
31 Jwenting : To add to what da Fwog said about good prints, prepare to pay for them. The prints from the local supermarket or drugstore are not good, go to a good
32 Post contains images EGGD : After all the help i have been given i am the A.net photography rejections Councellor
33 JonPaulGeoRngo : Why take pictures like everyone elses, KCLE? Just to get them accepted on Airliner.net? That's the worst reason. Ninety percent of the pictures in the
34 Glenn : yes take advice from a non expert your own style is good but take advice from those that also get their photos uploaded and not those that can't
35 Post contains images Jwenting : I'm certainly no pro and the same goes for most of us, but if someone asks what it takes to get a shot accepted that's the advice he/she gets. I don't
36 AndyEastMids : I would do your own thing and avoid what many of these "Pros" tell you to do. They seem to be either very arrogant or very uncreative Yes, well, very
37 Ckw : As the song goes "You gotta pay the dues if you wanna play the blues and you know it don't come easy" In other words, until you can get consistently g
38 Cfalk : Creative shots are of course more interesting and rewarding. But you need to learn to walk before you learn to run, and I would strongly recommend get
39 EGGD : I try to take creative shots, they please me so i don't care if they don't get accepted to A.net Regards Dan
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...
I Give Up posted Wed Mar 8 2006 19:44:56 by BrianW999
Ok, I Give Up posted Fri Nov 4 2005 11:41:27 by Ander
Bad Info: OK, I Give Up... posted Tue Sep 27 2005 22:33:47 by SNATH
Alright...I Give Up. posted Wed Jul 6 2005 16:21:16 by Bjcc
Give Up? posted Sat Mar 19 2005 09:03:40 by Derekf
Don't Give Up! posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:00:47 by BIGDEN
Help With Rejections (im Starting To Give Up!) posted Mon Apr 19 2004 22:09:53 by LHRSIMON
I'm Willing To Give Up Spotting For Safety Of All posted Thu Sep 13 2001 02:24:59 by BA
I Give Up! posted Sat Sep 8 2001 19:33:23 by Kcle
More Rejects, Maybe I Should Give It Up? posted Fri Aug 2 2002 18:31:57 by AKE0404AR