Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
First Soft, Now Sharp  
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3922 posts, RR: 18
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

Hi all,

This was rejected for soft:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ections/big/20061226_PH-HZMptr.jpg

So I added a gentle amount of USM (admittedly to the same file) and guess what: rejected for oversharpened, grainy AND quality. grumpy 
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ections/big/20070102_PH-HZMptr.jpg

Now, it may be me, but to be honest I'm seeing none of the four indicated problems. nosy  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 wave 


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3046 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineAvsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3014 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  twocents  worth.

-Louis



"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
User currently offlineAvsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3014 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  twocents  worth.

-Louis



"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
User currently offlinePhxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

On my computer it looks like the blue part of the fuselage is grainy and the windows might be oversharpened.

User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2968 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.

Kind regards,
Jacob


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Hy guys,
I jump in this thread becuase I have recently received a "soft" rej :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...070102_ryanair_bello_a_treviso.jpg

Any comment and suggestion ?
Thanks and regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1924 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2947 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!


User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2946 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.

/ jajo


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2939 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.

User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2939 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...!  Wink

Quoting Jajo (Reply 8):
I think motiv (right engine cutoff) and contrast are the biggest problems here.

Motive should not be the issue :

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...46&prev_id=&next_id=0995928&size=L

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...

Regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2935 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 ?  Sad

Regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2912 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 6):
Any comment and suggestion ?

Yes, the image needs 40 pixels to the height ratio to be acceptable here, I got a photo rejected for 1024x667, as it was under the 3:2 ratio.

I feel it needs a ccw rotation too.


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2907 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Thread starter):
I added a gentle amount of USM (admittedly to the same file)

Always a bad idea. Much better to start from the original.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3922 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting Jajo (Reply 5):

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 Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2897 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 14):

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.

Hope you got me right.

/ jajo


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3922 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2893 times:

Quoting Jajo (Reply 15):
I don't think I am better than you in editing.

I think you might Wink. 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)
User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2875 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.

/ jajo


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3922 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

Quoting Jajo (Reply 17):

Thanks Jacob. It's in your mailbox.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2839 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 18):
Thanks Jacob. It's in your mailbox.

It was a tough one! Here is an edit, personally I prefer it over your version:

http://boplats.net/DSC_0029-jajo-1024px.jpg

http://boplats.net/DSC_0029-jajo-1024px.jpg

(also available in 1400px at http://boplats.net/DSC_0029-jajo-1400px.jpg )

Don't know if it is enough for the site though. The original was quite noisy and the light was weak. You have done a good job editing the shot too!

Kind regards,
Jacob


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3922 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2807 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 blush  ).

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)
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2785 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.

How do we deal with it? I have no idea.


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2761 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...

Regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
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...
Is This Too Soft, Too Sharp Or Both? posted Tue Sep 13 2005 20:04:07 by Edoca
Now It's Soft posted Thu Nov 30 2006 16:56:20 by Aero145
First "soft", Then "motiv" posted Tue Aug 29 2006 22:01:38 by Walter2222
First Reject For Contrast , Now Quality And Color posted Sun Jul 30 2006 01:37:46 by Walter2222
First Bad Dirty And Now Bad Info - Again Need Help posted Thu Jul 6 2006 00:40:25 by Parsival
First Nuclear Interest, Now A.net Interest...Iran posted Fri Apr 28 2006 15:31:58 by Tappan
First Too Soft - Then Jagged. What To Do? posted Sat Jan 14 2006 12:50:28 by Frippe
Full Screen Photos Now For First Class posted Thu Apr 29 2004 04:21:46 by Bruce
First Mystery Plane, Now Mystery Email... posted Sun Aug 24 2003 20:13:49 by Fly-K
My First RAW, What To Do Now? posted Tue Nov 19 2002 11:48:43 by Ejazz