Now, it may be me, but to be honest I'm seeing none of the four indicated problems. I'm not ruling out that the first one is a tad on the soft side of what a.net thinks is good, and the second one a tad on the sharp side, but as far as sharpening is concerned, I'm starting to feel like the people who say:
Isn't this going a bit too far?
So if somebody can tell me what's wrong with them (wrong as in: detract from this photo for viewers using all sorts of monitors), I'd appreciate it.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1721 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1907 times:
I can see some banding in the underbelly of the jet, but I can't tell if that's because of fuselage irregularities or camera. I can also kinda see some artifacts, but only if I zoom in far enough (that is, if I'd be using the equivalent of a loupe). The difference between the two in sharpness is slight, though.
It's bordering on pixel-peeping, though. I do like the shot in general, though, the heat haze is in a nice place that doesn't detract from the image.
Avsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1875 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Thread starter): detract from this photo for viewers using all sorts of monitors
That is one of the main problems here when it comes to viewing, screening and commenting on photos. Unless everyone on A.net had the same monitor, calibrated to the exact same specifications, same screen resolution set, same operating system monitor display settings, use the same post-processing software and workflow, then we would all see things the same. Unfortunately that will never happen, so photos will always have some sort of comment about them.
Other than that is it a great photo!
[i]*Note: Oh yeah, through in those who might have some degree of color blindness.
My worth.
-Louis
"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
Avsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1875 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Thread starter): detract from this photo for viewers using all sorts of monitors
That is one of the main problems here when it comes to viewing, screening and commenting on photos. Unless everyone on A.net had the same monitor, calibrated to the exact same specifications, same screen resolution set, same operating system monitor display settings, use the same post-processing software and workflow, then we would all see things the same. Unfortunately that will never happen, so photos will always have some sort of comment about them.
Other than that is it a great photo!
*Note: Oh yeah, throw in those who might have some degree of color blindness.
My worth.
-Louis
"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1858 times:
On my computer it looks like the blue part of the fuselage is grainy and the windows might be oversharpened.
Jajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1829 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Thread starter): So I added a gentle amount of USM (admittedly to the same file) and guess what: rejected for oversharpened, grainy AND quality
Hi Peter! Nice shot!
I agree with the screener here. The first picture is soft, especially in the forward section of the plane. However, the first edit is much better than the second, which is clearly oversharpened (look around the bottom of the fuselage and you will see a white thin border from the sharpening). I also see grain in the blue part of the aircraft on the second shot, something that existed in the first aswell but became more visible after sharpening. I bet that is why you also got "quality", sharpening of a not-perfect-quality-shot will make it look even worse quality-wise.
However I think the shot is great and maybe saveable with another workflow. Post the original here if you want some help.
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1808 times:
I think both are good, as far as I can tell.
If you want to find faults, you can find them even in the best photos. I'm not talking about aviation photos in particular. Just look at a good calendar made by Kodak for example and I can point you out areas in the photos that I can call them faults.
Back to my point, both are actually great. Congrats Peter!
Jajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1807 times:
Quoting LIPH (Reply 6): I jump in this thread becuase I have recently received a "soft" rej :
Only "soft"? I wouldn't say that is the main problem in this picture. I think motiv (right engine cutoff) and contrast are the biggest problems here. But if you look at the registration in the back of the plane it looks sharp but unreadable. That might be because the picture was soft from the camera and you tried to solve it by sharpening. The edges on the RYAN AIR-logo, and the engines/wings looks soft.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 15 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1800 times:
This is something I doubt we will ever come to work out, as I have pics that look slightly over sharp on my screen here that constantly get rejected for soft.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1800 times:
Quoting OD720 (Reply 7): Just look at a good calendar made by Kodak for example and I can point you out areas in the photos that I can call them faults.
They would not make it on A.net. We can say to be Kodak's official photographers competitors...!
Quoting Jajo (Reply 8): I think motiv (right engine cutoff) and contrast are the biggest problems here.
Regarding contrast it's strange because the rejection was for softness...I cannot see any real soft area...The sun was illumintaing every part ofthe fuselage very brightly...
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1796 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 9): This is something I doubt we will ever come to work out, as I have pics that look slightly over sharp on my screen here that constantly get rejected for soft.
What do you mean Eadster ? You think that there is no way to have certain screening concistency ?
Thanks guys and Jajo in particular, I guess you're right. You have a good eye for these matters while I, after over two years of uploading pictures here and almost a million hits for them, do not.
Or perhaps I just don't care enough - this is a pleasant photograph I think, and the first version especialy just looks good enough for me. A tad soft or not, I'm inclined to say that it has more merit overall than 10 out of the 15 last shots of PH-HZM in the database, which I call dull. I believe that eventually a.net will have to adopt a different set of criteria to select 500 pictures each day.
But I'll stop moaning - I feel pretty committed to a.net regardless.
Quoting Jajo (Reply 5): Post the original here if you want some help.
I'm sure you and others can produce a better edit, but that in itself won't teach me anything. If you would be willing to do this AND describe what you do in detail, then I would be grateful.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Just to clarify, I really like the shot and I don't think I am better than you in editing. But some things are easier for an "outsider" (who have not worked with the picture for some time) to detect.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1754 times:
Quoting Jajo (Reply 15): I don't think I am better than you in editing.
I think you might . Especially with regards to sharpening. My sharpening technique is laborious, yet producing a horrible acceptance rate at the moment.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Jajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1736 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 16): I think you might Wink. Especially with regards to sharpening. My sharpening technique is laborious, yet producing a horrible acceptance rate at the moment.
Send it over to me, ja.jo@telia.com and I'll give it a try. If you like it, I'll tell you exactly what I did.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
Thanks Jacob! It's rather brighter than my version and I don't think that was what I was seeing that day, but it looks attractive.
Quoting Jajo (Reply 19): The original was quite noisy and the light was weak.
Yeah, when I saw the original back, I realized that it was much more marginal than I seemed to remember (and that I've been complaining a bit too loudly ).
Maybe this is why your version is looking hardly any sharper than my first, or don't you agree with that?
Did you do any local sharpening, or only general sharpening with erasing, or just general sharpening?
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 15 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
Quoting LIPH (Reply 11): What do you mean Eadster ? You think that there is no way to have certain screening concistency ?
I don't know if its a matter of consistancy or not. I personally feel that there is a big difference in looking at shots on CRTs and LCDs. Now I believe that screeners do their stuff on CRTs right? There in lies one of the issues. I've had shots rejected for soft that I have been really scratching my head over. Usually I apply slightly more sharpening that usual to get around the problem, but lately its been softness most of the way.
Another problem too, is that each shot is different and is going to require different amounts of sharpening.
So what I'm trying to say is basically, the shot that started this discussion off, to me was sharp enough to begin with.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 21): How do we deal with it? I have no idea.
You're right...If we look at the same thing with different monitors and settings, acceptance may vary...This is a real pity. Maybe a solution could be to implement a software on A.net, a sort of "virtual monitor" one can see the picture as screeners see it....Who knows. For sure this is a big issue to dela with...
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, 
I'm not ruling out that the first one is a tad on the soft side of what a.net thinks is good, and the second one a tad on the sharp side, but as far as sharpening is concerned, I'm starting to feel like the people who say:
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1721 posts, 
worth.
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1919 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, 
).
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}