Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Puzzling Rejection - Help Needed  
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4719 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all,

Normally, when I get a rejection, after having another careful look, I see what needs to be improved - even if the reason given is the unhelpful 'quality'. Yet for the first time a rejection sent me scratching my head - I just don't know what to fix. If it's the proverbial log in my own eye that I don't see, then maybe someone could point it out to me...

First time, this picture was rejected for 'quality':
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ain?filename=20061111_ab03617n.jpg

I thought it could be because of some noise in the darker red and green areas, as well as the sky, so I fixed that.

Second time round it came back with 'quality, oversharpened':
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ain?filename=20061117_ab03617o.jpg

'Oversharpened' - maybe, even thought I don't really see any obvious 'juggies'; yet I might tend to oversharpen a little since I've received a few rejections for 'soft' of pictures that didn't seem soft at all to me. But what else could be improved, I mean the 'quality' part?

Any help would be greatly appreciated...

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

Both photos have a grainy, underexposed fell to them. Definitely oversharpened. WB looks off to me as well.

User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4686 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks for the reply, Jeff.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 1):
Both photos have a grainy, underexposed fell to them.

Here is the original shot, unprocesseed, just cropped and resized. Any suggestions what could be done to fix it, if anything?
http://photofile.ru/photo/chukcha63/1205058/39244798.jpg

Quoting JeffM (Reply 1):
Definitely oversharpened.


I'm not arguing this part.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 1):
WB looks off to me as well.

Exactly how, to what colour, what do you think? I mean the uploaded version, not the original one.


User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4665 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It seems to me that the graininess in this case might be resulting from oversharpening as well...

User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4610 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Looks like no one has anything else to say. I was hoping for some practical advice, but... Thanks anyway.

User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4602 times:

Hey Andrew,

The first rejected shot was a little grainy yes. With the second one that seems to be better slightly, but the quality was still a little off.

The final one there I think is alot softer. The colours seem very washed out on the third, more-so than the other two. I can have a look at the original if you like, and see what I can make of it.

Let me know if you would still like some help on this one.

Martin.


User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi, Martin,

The third one is the original, it only was rotated, cropped and resized. As you might see, the grain must have come from the sharpening. Concerning Jeff's comments above - do you also think it was underexposed? And what about WB in the edited versions? A lot of very yellow grass in SA this year, yes  Smile ...


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4571 times:

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 6):
The third one is the original, it only was rotated, cropped and resized

I actually mean't the full sized original....

Anyway it is slightly underexposed yes. There is a strong yellow cast, but changing the levels will soon show you what looks better.

I've had a play with the shot here, but got nothing that I was impressed with. It could be a shot for the personal collection. However I would like to try an edit with a higher resolution before I write the shot off totally.


User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4568 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Martin, does this one look any better to you?

http://photofile.ru/photo/chukcha63/1205058/39327796.jpg

Anyway, about the colourcast... Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to question your expertise , I'm still learning (always learning), so... How do you personally identify colourcast - with any software or just arbitrarily, by eyeballing? I mean I have some software that is supposed to correct colorcast, but quite often I'm not happy with the result. On the contrary, after processing the photo seems to acquire a new tinge. Okay, sometimes it is quite obvious, you look at the picture and you can tell that it is bluish or yellowish, but other times, like in the case of this picture, yes, it may seem yellowish, but there is a lot of yellow grass around, and even the white surfaces will reflect it. There is no such thing as pure white in real life anyway, it will always reflect the strong colours around. As for this particular picture, the lighting may seem a bit strange, but I think it is because right at that moment there was a bit of cloud over the sun, you might have seen yourself how sometimes the lighting may change dramatically when it happens...

Well, in the essence - does it mean that whether the picture has this slight colourcast or not is up to the eye of the screener or the editor, or is there any objective means to identify it?

[Edited 2006-11-20 02:53:23]

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...
Yet More Rejection Help Needed posted Wed Jun 28 2006 22:15:14 by Derekf
Rejection Help Needed posted Tue Mar 7 2006 04:04:34 by Garri767
Quality Rejection Help Needed posted Sun Feb 26 2006 21:45:37 by Kukkudrill
NOA_Quality Rejection Help Needed posted Fri Nov 25 2005 17:41:44 by Kukkudrill
NOA-grainy Rejection. Help Needed! posted Tue Aug 30 2005 22:49:28 by EZEIZA
Bad Motive Rejection Help Needed posted Wed Aug 24 2005 07:23:41 by Kukkudrill
Badquality Rejection Help Needed posted Sun Jun 5 2005 19:19:40 by Kukkudrill
Badquality Rejection Help Needed posted Sat Mar 5 2005 12:38:56 by Kukkudrill
Badexposure Rejection Help Needed posted Mon Feb 28 2005 11:35:41 by Kukkudrill
Rejection Help Needed - Opinions Sought posted Wed Jan 19 2005 09:57:12 by Thowman