Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reject For Being Common But Pics Still Added?  
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

I uploaded the following shot but it was rejected because it's apparently very common in the database - however doing my usual MAN photo search I find two photo's of the very same aircraft at the very same airport on the same visit by the same photographer (links below my shot). Again, taking nothing away from Nik (we've met on a couple of occasions and he's a top bloke and a good photographer) but it is kind of strange.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 358kb


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1178524/M/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1178492/M/

Anyone think of an explanation?

Cheers,

Karl

P.S. This is not a moan - I'm just curious.

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4815 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe when common is the issue, the determining factor is quality. Can't expect that the db will never see a photo of an aircraft that is considered common here.


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3479 times:

I can't really see any quality issue with my shot though. The light is a little yellowy but that's because it was taken shortly after sunrise. I'm also surprised that two very similar shots of this bird, both obviously not taken too far apart, have been accpeted.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4815 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yeah, who knows? I guess only the screeners right? But what if the other two shots were accepted before they got to yours? If so, that probably made your chances even worse.

And I don't think it necessarily has to do with anything being wrong with your shot. When an aircraft is common to the db, quality just has to be exceptionally high.

[Edited 2007-02-20 22:42:53]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offline9V From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 1):
the determining factor is quality

and your's JakTrax is soft. Learn to use photoshop to the point where it's second nature - until you can do it blindfolded. Then complain.....  Wink


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

I doubt they were ahead of mine. My shot was taken three days before the aircraft's second visit in which Nik captured it on the ramp after dark. I uploaded the photo on 10 Feb.

Karl


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3464 times:

Quoting 9V (Reply 4):
Then complain.....

I'm not complaining - I did state that in my original post. If the image appears soft, then that's probably why it was rejected, as well as being too common. A final verdict on any softness by a screener would be appreciated.

Remember guys, I'm very new to PS so my eye for under-/over-sharpened is not yet ripe.

Karl


User currently offline9V From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
I uploaded the photo on 10 Feb

Couldn't care less.....It's soft and could be better and if I was a screener and I saw another shot of it in the queue that was better than your's I'd have no hesitation in accepting it first. However, I'm not a screener...
 Smile


User currently offline9V From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6):
A final verdict on any softness by a screener would be appreciated

Doesn't need a screener to see it's soft.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6):
I'm very new to PS

Which is why I said........

Quoting 9V (Reply 4):
Learn to use photoshop to the point where it's second nature - until you can do it blindfolded

Practice makes perfect!  Smile


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3445 times:

OK, here's a re-edit. I probably won't bother re-submitting this but at least I might learn a tad more about sharpening limits.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 367kb


Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3439 times:

For me the common rejection holds no value whatsoever, it has been stated that it is NEVER used on it's own. There is always another reason for the rejection - therefore it has no value at all apart from causing this type of arguement. The sooner it is removed form the rejection list the better. A photograph should be judged on it's technical merits .. ie quality, motive,framing etc. If it meets this critria then it should be added however many images of the same quality are in the database.

Just my two pence !

Jid



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

Quoting 9V (Reply 7):
another shot of it in the queue that was better than your's

I don't think it's a case of the quality of the shot being bad - it's the quality of the editing which is bad, a department in which I currently struggle.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4815 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11):
I don't think it's a case of the quality of the shot being bad - it's the quality of the editing which is bad, a department in which I currently struggle.

The better the shot, the easier the editing.  Smile



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 12):
The better the shot, the easier the editing

Not necessarily. I'm new to editing and struggle even with the basics. I had a good run of acceptances; in fact out of my first 5 shots uploaded 4 were accepted - and all I did was apply a bit of USM, which apparently is considered minimal editing. I believe it's almost impossible to get a shot accpeted here without some use of USM?

Just to highlight my uselessness, out of my last 4 uploads 3 were rejected, all for 'soft'. In one rejection, I had a personal comment telling me that it was a great shot and all it needed was correct sharpening.

By the way, how's the re-edit looking? Still more USM?

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11):
it's the quality of the editing which is bad, a department in which I currently struggle.

Speaking for myself, I'm still struggling after two and a half years at this game ...

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13):
I believe it's almost impossible to get a shot accpeted here without some use of USM?

Indeed, and as you're discovering the tricky bit is judging how much is enough. If I go more than a few days between uploads I start to lose my eye for it ...

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13):
how's the re-edit looking? Still more USM?

... Which is why I'm having a hard time deciding whether the re-edit looks OK. I think it still looks a bit soft in the nose area.

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4815 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13):
Not necessarily. I'm new to editing and struggle even with the basics. I had a good run of acceptances; in fact out of my first 5 shots uploaded 4 were accepted - and all I did was apply a bit of USM, which apparently is considered minimal editing. I believe it's almost impossible to get a shot accpeted here without some use of USM?

Just to highlight my uselessness, out of my last 4 uploads 3 were rejected, all for 'soft'. In one rejection, I had a personal comment telling me that it was a great shot and all it needed was correct sharpening.

I'm experiencing this as well. It has been a lot of trial and error. First over sharpened rejections, then the next round got axed for being soft. I overcompensated. I have found a good middle ground as a result.

But, like I said, the better a shot is out of the camera, the easier editing is as you will need to do less work to bring the most out of the image. Especially for sharpening.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3389 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 15):
Especially for sharpening.

But to get an image directly from the camera that won't require much USM means cranking up the in-camera sharpness. No matter how good a photographer you are or how nicely the image comes straight out of the camera you will still need to apply USM. Shutter speed and aperture combinations can reduce motion and backgound blur (as well as a whole host of other issues) but they cannot dictate the overall sharpness of the image. I've always been lead to believe that your in-camera sharpness should be set to neutral, i.e. somewhere in the middle of the bar. I actually have my camera sharpness set to 4 or 5 (half way between neutral and super-sharp) and still have to apply USM. With this in mind, having left the camera's sharpness at neutral then surely there'll be more post-capture sharpening to do in PS?

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4815 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm not saying a good image out of the camera doesnt need any editing whatsoever. I'm saying the amount of editing an image requires is dependent on what the original image looks like.

Could you share your sharpening technique?



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

It's not in-camera sharpening that make the difference but the variables specific to each photo (exposure settings, available light, zoom range, shaky hands ...) When it all comes right editing is comparatively straightforward; when it doesn't, editing takes longer even where the image is salvageable. I've set in-camera sharpening to 0 (meaning all the way to the left, not neutral) but this still holds true.


Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 17):
I'm not saying a good image out of the camera doesnt need any editing whatsoever. I'm saying the amount of editing an image requires is dependent on what the original image looks like.

Applying this to my shot I like the way it turned out - the tiniest bit of cropping required thus retaining quality and the histogram revealed an almost spot-on exposure. Colours are punchy if not a little yellow but this is to be expected when you shoot at the crack of dawn. But it is soft, which just can't be helped no matter how experienced a photographer you are. This is where editing skill comes in, which unfortunately I don't have yet (will I ever?). Presumably if my camera had been set to a lower sharpness I would have to have done much more USM.

Personally I don't think there are really rules concerning how your in-camera sharpness should be set. Each to their own and if it works for you then great. What you apply in the camera surely saves you from applying it in PS?

Karl


User currently offlineBrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting Jid (Reply 10):
For me the common rejection holds no value whatsoever........ A photograph should be judged on it's technical merits .. ie quality, motive,framing etc. If it meets this criteria then it should be added however many images of the same quality are in the database.

I quite agree. Just out of interest I searched G-TTOC (BA Airbus) purely on the grounds that I once flew on her an d for no other reason. There are 43 examples in the database...and I rather think that a BA Airbus is a bit more common than an Antonov !!


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 19):
Colours are punchy if not a little yellow but this is to be expected when you shoot at the crack of dawn.

Hey fella,

10:06am is not the crack of dawn.  stretch      

[Edited 2007-02-21 02:05:56]

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 21):
10:06am is not the crack of dawn.

True, but the sun at that time of day in early Feb is still very, very low.


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 22):
True, but the sun at that time of day in early Feb is still very, very low.


Its still not the crack of dawn. Not even close.

[Edited 2007-02-21 02:45:27]

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3169 times:

I must be getting up at too many cracks-of-dawn - so much so I'm losing any concept of time.

That day I got to the airport for 07:55 for some strange reason. I coudn't take my first shot until 08:45 (when the sun had risen enough) and nothing worth shooting arrived until the Antonov showed up.

Anyway folks, any more opinions on the re-edit? Just noticed another photo of it has been accepted - same day, departing EMA (for MAN).

Karl


25 Spencer : Karl, leave Dawn's crack out of this......! Spencer.
26 Silver1SWA : Well Karl, it has been a rough day in the queue for me after a couple days of success. Of 6 photos screened today, 5 rejected, with one still being sc
27 Post contains images Chris78cpr : Never miss an oppotunity do you! lol
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...
Rejected For Being "to Close" ;-) posted Fri Aug 11 2006 21:16:13 by Maiznblu_757
First Reject For Contrast , Now Quality And Color posted Sun Jul 30 2006 01:37:46 by Walter2222
'Dark' Photo Rejected For Being 'dark'? posted Mon Mar 13 2006 22:22:05 by Mattbna
Thank You Screeners And A.net For Being So ..... posted Mon Jan 9 2006 22:10:51 by AKE0404AR
20D Ready For Pick Up But........ posted Mon Dec 13 2004 13:47:28 by Ryangooner
Photo Rejected For Being A "Nice Shot"! posted Sat Sep 11 2004 04:54:21 by Jakbar
30's The Limit, But Am Still Waiting posted Sat May 22 2004 20:50:57 by Work4bmi
Tips For The Keen But Relatively Inept posted Sun Sep 22 2002 13:47:08 by Manzoori
Rejected For Being Dirty - Where Is The Dirt? posted Tue Jul 23 2002 17:22:21 by LGW
I Might Be Being Picky But.... posted Thu Mar 1 2001 01:10:14 by APP