Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Oversharpened? Yeah, Sure...  
User currently offlineS.p.a.s. From Liechtenstein, joined Mar 2001, 967 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1941 times:

From yestarday into today had a lot of rejections, mainly due "oversharpened"...

This is one of the photos rejected:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r.../big/20070226_PRGOC_SBGL_AN_RS.jpg

And another one:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r.../big/20070226_PRGPA_SBSP_AN_RS.jpg

Perhaps one could point me where I overshapened it, because I really can't see it...


Thanks!


RS

[Edited 2007-02-26 10:44:56]


"ad astra per aspera"
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1753 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1930 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The Dassault Falcon has noticable jaggies wing/flaps,At the rear of the aircraft where the blue ends its jaggy,Rego in spots.
The GOL 737 looks to lack quality,the nose is soft,GOL titling looks jaggy,tail looks abit jaggy.


Cheers Mark.


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1906 times:

RS,
I'd probably have rejected them for being a bit grainy, rather than for being overshapened. It's also true that oversharping pics means also to make them to become grainy. Both of them (especially the falcon one) suffer from this issue.

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1853 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi RS,

Not many A.net photogs from Lichtenstein!  wave 

The Falcon is a close one but I'd have to agree with the others, you just did one USM pass too much!

Quoting Aussie18 (Reply 1):
The Dassault Falcon has noticeable jaggies wing/flaps,At the rear of the aircraft where the blue ends its jaggy,Rego in spots.
The GOL 737 looks to lack quality,the nose is soft,GOL titling looks jaggy,tail looks abit jaggy.

 checkmark 
For me the Gol does not look as you can improve that much quality, but the Falcon one should be possible to have it up to A.net standard.



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1820 times:

Quoting Acontador (Reply 3):
you just did one USM pass too much!

The grain looks similar to that when you use too large a radius for sharpening.

The 737 shot looks as though it was slightly soft and then had sharpening applied.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4838 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 1673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

S.p.a.s.,

I think the problem with the first one is similar to a problem I had with a rejection recently. I thought everything looked fine and was surprised by the rejection as well. The rejection included a personal note from the screener saying the background was in sharper focus than the aircraft. It was something I didn't even notice until it was pointed out to me. I think your 737 pic has a similar thing going on. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much you can do about that.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months ago) and read 1589 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 5):
the background was in sharper focus than the aircraft.

I agree here. The Gol aircraft looks blurry, and the intention to compensate that may have led to some jaggies, but I don´t think the quality can be saved.
The Falcon is clearly jagged in the fuselage windows, blue/white colour transition, nose landing gear, registration, flap and slats sections and the reflections around the aileron.
I think I see some compression artifacts in the background wings as well, but I´m not sure.

Hope it helps.  Smile

Cheers!
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
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...
Not Sure How To Work These...help Appreciated. posted Thu Feb 1 2007 10:26:00 by Silver1SWA
I'm Not Sure About An Image posted Thu Jan 11 2007 05:00:00 by Bubbles
Quality Blurry Soft Oversharpened? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 11:58:07 by Andrei
Quality Soft/Oversharpened? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 16:38:08 by Alibo5NGN
Yeah, It Sucks, But.... posted Thu Nov 2 2006 22:23:12 by Fiveholer
Oversharpened And Soft? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 18:37:36 by AIRBUSRIDER
Not Sure Which To Upload.. Please Help! posted Tue Oct 3 2006 03:14:05 by Jogales
Are These Oversharpened? posted Mon Sep 11 2006 17:22:39 by NicolasRubio
Soft And Oversharpened? posted Wed Aug 23 2006 22:26:07 by CRAviation
Oversharpened: How To Correct It? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 13:08:28 by PipoA380