Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 22 Posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4186 times:
I just checked my queue to see 6 photos gone and no accepted, saw 6 photos rejected for oversharpened, shots that looked fine on my screen, and bit oversharpened on my mother's screen.
also quality, but I thought that Dash 8s were not common on grass airfields (and shots taken a couple of meters away on takeoff weren't ether common)
What is wrong here? My screen too soft? The screener's screen too sharp? My acceptance ratio has now gone all the way to 60% and I'm getting worried.
p.s. A 'teacher' of mine recommended me to sharpen using USM, 200% 0.2, applied two times. I need, on my screen, to do it four times or sometimes even more, to get satisifiing sharpness. I guess I'd stick to two-times... yes?
Rejected for overexposed, it seems that the only reason is that there's a little patch on the nose that's "too hot" (screener said). What's going on?! Am I getting crazy or are the standards going up like a rocket?
edit: and oh, I bought Spyder calibration system, learned how to calibrate, and more problems...
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1408 posts, RR: 32 Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
All pictures as shown have serious problems (and I mean serious ), mostly way oversharpened, and some have also problems with brightness/contrast. Having seen many of your other pics I think as Gary pointed out this is purely an editing problem. You just need to get a grip on your monitor settings again, and I'm sure it will be fine!
Quoting Granite (Reply 4): The DC3 and Dash 8 image is really nice.........very nice actually
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4016 times:
Quoting Acontador (Reply 6): Having seen many of your other pics I think as Gary pointed out this is purely an editing problem.
Thank heaven (sorry for saying this as I don't believe in God)! But I must, as you said, get a grip at the monitor settings... but still I don't get this... sharpening fine on THIS screen, means that THIS screen is not in order... I didn't know you could change the sharpness of screens, or what?
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1730 posts, RR: 11 Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3870 times:
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 7): I just wanted to tell you that shot was not only oversharpened, but also a little grainy. That's why 'quality' was given.
I'm curious then - why wasn't the grainy reject used instead of quality?
IMO, Quality is kind of an unnecessary item. If the photo is rejected, then it stands to reason that it didn't have the quality necessary to be accepted. If there's JPEG artifacts, then there should be a compression artifacts rejection. "Quality" is far too vague and can mean too many different things.
DM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3757 times:
Quoting Currymonster (Reply 20): I am a new paid up member now I can post like everyone else yes they appear oversharpened, but when you double click them and open up in a full browser window they loose the jaggies.
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 22 Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3711 times:
Quoting IngemarE (Reply 22): .....care to let us know what new screen you are using?!
I use an old TFT screen that I don't know the name of, my mom's screen is a PowerBook screen - a very "high acceptance" photographer here in the DB uses a PowerBook screen for all his photos and they are superb.
So, I will maybe be using an iMac screen but not yet.