TopGun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2078 times:
Recently I had the pleasure to take aviation photography at LAS (Vegas).
First batch of aircraft uploaded was accepted without a hitch.
Unfortunately 3 days later my second batch of pictures was rejected completely (8 photos in a row now). I realize rejections are part of the game, but this is out of the ordinary, since the quality of photos was within my usual work (my normal acceptance ratio is in the +80% range). I'm suspecting that there is a particular screener that might be behind this. I will provide links to some of the rejected photos for comment:
I have examined the original photo and I can distinctly see individual rivets and even small writing on the fuselage of the aircraft...that wouldn't be possible if the photo was Blurry or Soft. When resizing in PS, how is it possible to preserve this kind of detail?
Once again, complaint about Blurry/Soft on the AC. What really surprised me is "Grainy" on the sky. Part of my fixing procedure is to apply a bit of Smart Blur to sky areas...(this reduces the filesize and evens out colour). Therefore grainy is really not a possiblity.
A note was included with the rejection that mentioned Saturation. I have examined many other SW airlines photos and I don't see the difference between my photos or any other photos of similar aircraft. The fact that I got to capture such vivid liveries shouldn't be punished by rejections. These 2 aircraft were 1st entries as well.
I have also spent considerable amount on a quality LCD monitor and a Colour calibration system just to prevent such discrepancies in colour.
If you could provide some constructive comments, so I can improve my acceptances from LAS, I would greatly appreciate it.
Witticism From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 46 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
Awesome photos Bubbles.
Looks like you were sitting within the Airfield itself?
There must be some close perimeter viewing points at LAS?
If you look closely at the Alaska Md-83 pic ... just above he nose of the AC is a light tower that is on a serious lean to the left ... as if it is being pushed over by the plane itself!
Have a great day.
Cheers
Sean
"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein
TopGun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1994 times:
Hi Sean,
those towers are just light posts...which actually are on an angle. They look kind of funky when you get more of them in a picture.
LAS is a good airport for spotting....they have a dedicated viewing area (still behind a fence). Most of my landing shots were taken through the fence with a 80-200mm lens. A 737-700 can be taken at about 90mm (1.5x Sensor factor). For 757-300s you want to go to about 50mm. A 747 might need even shorter focal length.
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 1): The screener who rejected your first shot has left a personal message.
My concern was about how to Resize photos without loss of too much detail.....causing Soft/Blurry rejection.
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 1): The colour of the last two photos is oversaturated.
That should be easily fixed....I'll just make them more dull....just like the screeners (Canon users?) like it.
HangarRat From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 627 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
Quoting TopGun3 (Reply 3): That should be easily fixed....I'll just make them more dull....just like the screeners (Canon users?) like it.
Funny you should say that.
This shot was rejected for "colour" and I did nothing in terms of color adjustment. I shoot a Nikon D200.
Is there a toss up between Nikon and Cannon color results? I'm pretty new to DSLR photography and shoot using auto white balance. I'd like a better way to set my color temp., but I can't afford to buy any new gadgets right now. I do shoot RAW, but I use PS 6.0, which I'm not certain allows precise adjustments of color temp.
What it comes down to is I need more time to learn to use the camera and software, but real life takes precedent right now.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
Quoting HangarRat (Reply 4): Is there a toss up between Nikon and Cannon color results? I'm pretty new to DSLR photography and shoot using auto white balance. I'd like a better way to set my color temp., but I can't afford to buy any new gadgets right now. I do shoot RAW, but I use PS 6.0, which I'm not certain allows precise adjustments of color temp.
Why would you use auto? If you are shooting in good sun set the WB for direct sunlight. I like to warm it up a tad to combat that cold blue color cast and my colors come out fine. I just got a few pics up from LAS that the colors came out great go take a look. I also shot them with a D200.
HangarRat From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 627 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1968 times:
As I said, I'm learning. I've noticed a bit of a blue cast on my shots and I tried the direct sunlight WB setting last time I went out. Unfortunately, I was in a hurry and forgot that I was experimenting with the EV+/- last time I shot and everything was overexposed.
More to the point, I know that even a barely perceptible overcast can effect WB and I'd like to learn to set it more precisely since my camera has the capability to do that. Any suggestions?
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 6): I just got a few pics up from LAS that the colors came out great go take a look.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
Quoting HangarRat (Reply 7): As I said, I'm learning. I've noticed a bit of a blue cast on my shots and I tried the direct sunlight WB setting last time I went out. Unfortunately, I was in a hurry and forgot that I was experimenting with the EV+/- last time I shot and everything was overexposed.
Well next time like I said try the direct sunlight option and adjust it so it's a little bit warmer. That takes care of the blue cast and makes your captures good IMO. Also I don't even touch the EV anymore unless it's a severe situation I find experimenting with my other settings get the much more desirable exposure.
Quoting HangarRat (Reply 7): More to the point, I know that even a barely perceptible overcast can effect WB and I'd like to learn to set it more precisely since my camera has the capability to do that. Any suggestions?
Again different situations are going to warrant different settings on what is warm and what is cold. Sometimes setting it to direct sunlight at 0 will do it, sometimes you need it to a little warmer. With Nikon tending to have that blue look on a normal sunny situation try adjusting it slightly to warmer and go from there.
HangarRat From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 627 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1944 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8): Also I don't even touch the EV anymore unless it's a severe situation I find experimenting with my other settings get the much more desirable exposure.
I had actually been doing some non aircraft stuff. PHL is near the Delaware River which is lined with oil refineries and other industry. The steam clouds coming from the stacks, backlit by a low winter sun caught my attention. I was playing around with EV to see what gave me the best exposure.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 46 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 627 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
