Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are These Photos Really Soft?  
User currently offlineSVOLNI From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 4 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3869 times:

Hello,

some of my uploaded photos were screened today but all of them didn't passed the first screening. Normally it's no problem for me if some photos weren't accepted but the following rejections makes me thoughtfully. I prepare all my photos with Adobe Photoshop Elements and I always use the same parameters for sharpening. The original photos are sharp like other photos which were accepted.

Could you please say what you really think about the following and my other photos on Airliners.net? In many discussion boards everybody say to every photo that it looks very good. It would be great if you would help me to improve my photos.


http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20071127_BEA-AP-BHX-MAN-070615.jpg
Reject reason: quality personal soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...071127_BEA-D-IFKU-JUI-070903-1.jpg
Reject reason: soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20071127_BEA-D-AIAZ-HAM-070503.jpg
Reject reason: soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20071127_BEA-G-EUPK-BSL-070312.jpg
Reject reason: quality grainy soft

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...1127_BEA-RA-82077-HAM-070704-3.jpg
Reject reason: blurry personal soft


Thank you in advance.

Best regards
Sven Ole Niwek

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1568 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

personally I dont see it either. That BA airbus seems to have a hell of a list going on.

Fred


User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3855 times:

#1: Don't see any softness.

#2: Ever-so-slightly soft, it's almost unnoticeable, though. This is really picky screening.

#3: Somewhat soft, but in many cases exceptions are made for dusk shots. Apparently not this time...

#4: AWESOME shot. It's just a tad soft, and with some very subtle sharpening it will be perfect. I still would have thought this would have been accepted, though. Grainy? Not in the least. Maybe he ticked the wrong box.

#5: Don't see any softness.


All I can say is "wow". I've never seen the screeners being THIS picky.

[Edited 2007-11-27 14:44:08]


"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3831 times:

I wonder if the screeners got the new monitors and they are not working out as they should because these shots look fine...

User currently offlineMattbna From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 316 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3827 times:



Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 2):
All I can say is "wow". I've never seen the screeners being THIS picky.

Pathetic, isn't it?



Matt

--



Canon EOS 7D & 40D -- 100-400mm L IS -- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II -- 28-135mm IS -- 10-22mm -- 18-55mm EF-S
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3822 times:

What a load of crap - those shots look dead on the money to me. Tried to appeal them?

User currently offlineMattbna From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 316 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3822 times:



Quoting RCoulter (Reply 3):
I wonder if the screeners got the new monitors and they are not working out as they should because these shots look fine...

If they didn't all set their resolution to the proper dimensions for the new monitor size, we are going to see all sorts of bogus soft / sharp rejections.

I've been asking for months what will be done to ensure that all of the screener's monitors are color-calibrated properly and I'm yet to received an answer. Giving all of them a new monitor is all well and good...but without proper color / contrast / brightness calibration it isn't going to mean squat.

With all of them having different video cards and no two monitors (or video cards) being the same, I don't know how they have ever screened photos with true consistency between screeners.

I purchased a ColorVision Spyder2Pro a few weeks ago and couldn't believe how far off my monitors were after the first time I used it!


Matt

--



Canon EOS 7D & 40D -- 100-400mm L IS -- 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II -- 28-135mm IS -- 10-22mm -- 18-55mm EF-S
User currently offlineDaleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3207 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3822 times:

I have a Dell Monitor, same brand of monitor as the screeners... mine is smaller (19 inch widescreen)... They have 22inch monitors.

Those shots all look top notch and perfect on my screen. They either clearly do not have their monitor settings set properly (actually on the monitor, not on the computer) or they are being extremely pathetic.

Needs sorting...



Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 3734 times:

And its great to see that there has been a helpful response about this too  irked 

User currently offlineShep2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 3721 times:

Soft Rejections have been a bit questionable lately - I'm sure the screeners are working on calibrating their new monitors for consistant results... we hope !!

Typo - spelling correction...

[Edited 2007-11-28 16:15:44]

User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3668 times:

They don't look soft to me (but most of my rejections are for 'soft', so what do I know ...).


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3657 times:



Quoting Mattbna (Reply 6):
I've been asking for months what will be done to ensure that all of the screener's monitors are color-calibrated properly and I'm yet to received an answer. Giving all of them a new monitor is all well and good...but without proper color / contrast / brightness calibration it isn't going to mean squat.

With all of them having different video cards and no two monitors (or video cards) being the same, I don't know how they have ever screened photos with true consistency between screeners.

Very valid point, Matt. Providing all screeners with the same monitor type does not help much in itself. Providing calibration devices and standard settings would show much more effect towards consistency.

I played with a calibration tool myself recently, and was also surprised on how different the results were on different monitors I work with (home desktop, laptop, work desktop).

As for the rejections, I agree with everyone here and fail to see any softness, except maybe in shot #4.


User currently offlineMetroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

They look fine to me, too. I'm on a standard monitor at university and there really is nothing wrong.

What on earth is a 'personal' rejection anyway?

Toni



Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2045 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3633 times:

While some of these pix may be bordercase (B/N Islander), I tend to agree with all the rejections - with one exception, I can't see any rejectable grain either.


I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Metroliner (Reply 12):
What on earth is a 'personal' rejection anyway?

The screener left a personal comment to the photographer.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

I really like this one:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...20071127_BEA-D-AIAZ-HAM-070503.jpg

The personal rejection I think is that a screener included a personal message.


User currently offlineMetroliner From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 1067 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3615 times:



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 14):
The screener left a personal comment to the photographer.



Quoting Cpd (Reply 15):
a screener included a personal message.

...thank you.  Smile

I wonder what they said about the photos that could be improved.

Toni



Set the controls for the heart of the Sun
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 3547 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Clearly there are many questioning soft rejections recently in this and other recent threads. I agree that it may be appropriate for you to appeal at least one of the photos, Sven, to ensure that you get some further feedback from the Head screeners. You have nothing to lose by such a course of action because now you will not lose another 2% should your photo be rejected for a second time.

I wonder whether it may be helpful for some example shots to be discussed in some more detail in a dedicated thread, with input from the screening team, to illustrate what to some can seem to be a fine line between soft - correctly sharpened - oversharpened.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3531 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RCoulter (Reply 3):
I wonder if the screeners got the new monitors and they are not working out as they should because these shots look fine...

I immediately wondered this myself. One thing that concerns me is the amount of detail these new monitors might show that might otherwise be unnoticeable to most monitors. My monitor at home is very, very clear and has sharp, crisp contrast. It is also very bright. At home, I can see grain that is undetectable on other monitors I use. This raises a concern for me. I have a feeling that the new monitors might be so good that screening will be even tougher than before because very subtle flaws wont appear so subtle to the screeners.

Just a thought...if any of that makes sense...



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

I haven't seen anything mentioned, but can I ask what these "new monitors" are. Exact brand, model - etc.

Because to me the Lufthansa one (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20071127_BEA-D-AIAZ-HAM-070503.jpg) looks sharp (but not too sharp) on a Apple A1081 screen (calibrated with Spyder2Pro).


User currently offlineDacman From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 444 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 3393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I too have been getting numerous soft and or oversharpened rejections which has never ever been a problem. It has been a bit frustrating to be sure, my eyes aren't that bad.

By the way, are any of the screeners umpires or referees by chance? Hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe.

Michael
(Dacman)
LAX / LGB Local



"Airliner Photography is not a crime"
User currently offlineSVOLNI From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3313 times:

Hello

Thank you very much for all your responses.

The screener wrote the following message regarding photo #1 and #5:
"Soft front end.Portions of the AC are soft / blurry."

It's enjoyable to read that the photos look fine for the most of you. I will appeal some of the photos and inform you about the results as soon as possible.

Sorry for delayed reply. I was not in access of the internet last week.

Best regards,

Sven Ole Niwek


User currently offlineShep2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3244 times:

Great to hear the "Soft" issue is clearing up... I've been following this lately and I'm sure the screeners are working on a solution - if not already fixed as I speak...  bigthumbsup 

User currently offlineDacman From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 444 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3191 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Gary,

Nice meeting you as well, hope you and Tim had a nice visit to Los Angeles.

Wish I was in my early 20's again but just an old fart nowadays.

Take care

Michael
(Dacman)
LAX / LGB local



"Airliner Photography is not a crime"
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...
Are These Photos Any Good? posted Mon Jul 18 2005 19:55:45 by Airfly
Again - Are These Photos Worth Submitting? posted Sat Nov 6 2004 06:37:37 by N243NW
Are These Photos A.net-worthy? posted Sun Aug 8 2004 03:19:36 by OB1504
Are These Photos Worth Uploading? posted Sat Sep 6 2003 20:21:05 by AirVB
Are These Photos Not Appropriate For The Database? posted Sat Mar 3 2001 17:02:15 by Lewis
Why Are These Photos Selected? posted Mon Dec 11 2000 17:00:38 by L1011heavy
Are These Photos Blurry? posted Sat Nov 4 2000 23:36:33 by Usairways@clt
How Many Of These Photos Are Stolen From A.net? posted Mon Aug 13 2007 06:05:20 by FlyDeltaJets87
Are These Acceptable Photos? posted Thu May 25 2006 05:52:02 by CYEGsTankers
Are These Too Soft? posted Mon May 1 2006 01:25:58 by 777MechSys